text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
[**Symplectic Three-Algebra Unifying ${\cal N}=5,6$ Superconformal Chern-Simons-Matter Theories**\
]{}
**Fa-Min Chen**\
[Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Utah\
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0830, USA ]{}\
[**Abstract**]{}
We define a 3-algebra with structure constants being *symmetric* in the first two indices. We also introduce an invariant anti-symmetric tensor into this 3-algebra and call it a [*symplectic* ]{} 3-algebra. The general ${\cal N}=5$ superconformal Chern-Simons-matter (CSM) theory with $SO(5)$ R-symmetry in three dimensions is constructed by using this algebraic structure. We demonstrate that the supersymmetry can be enhanced to ${\cal N}=6$ if the sympelctic 3-algebra and the fields are decomposed in a proper fashion. By specifying the 3-brackets, some presently known ${\cal N}=5, 6$ superconformal theories are described in terms of this unified 3-algebraic framework. These include the ${\cal N}=5,
Sp(2N)\times O(M)$ CSM theory with $SO(5)$ R-symmetry , the ${\cal
N}=6$, $Sp(2N)\times U(1)$ CSM theory with $SU(4)$ R-symmetry, as well as the ABJM theory as a special case of $U(M)\times U(N)$ theory with $SU(4)$ R-symmetry.
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Recently, Chern-Simons-matter (CSM) theories with extended supersymmetries in three dimensions have attracted a lot of interests, because they are natural candidates of the dual gauge descriptions of M2 branes. About 20 years ago, generic Chern-Simons gauge theories (with or without matter) in 3D were demonstrated to be conformally invariant at the quantum level [@CSW1], [@CSW0], [@CSW2], [@Piguet], [@Saemann1]. However, to describe M2 branes, one needs to further introduce (extended) supersymmetries into the CSM theories.
The ${\cal N}=8$ CSM theory in $D=3$ with $SO(4)$ gauge group was first constructed independently by Bagger and Lambert [@Bagger] and by Gustavsson [@Gustavsson] (BLG), in terms of the totally anti-symmetric Nambu 3-brackets [@Nambu; @Limiao:1999fm; @Bonelli2]. The BLG model is known to be the dual gauge description of two M2 branes [@DMPV; @LambertTong; @KM:May08]. The Nambu 3-algebra equipped with a symmetric and positive-definite metric is essentially unique [@Gauntlett; @Papadopoulos]: It generates only an $SO(4)$ gauge symmetry. If, in place of the symmetric and positive-definite metric, one introduce a Lorentzian metric, then the so-called Lorentzian 3-algebra can be used to generate an arbitrary gauge group [@Lorentzian3Alg]. However, it was shown that the BLG model constructed from a Lorentzian 3-algebras is actually an ${\cal N}=8$ super Yang-Mills theory [@GhostFree; @CalN8SYM], not a CSM theory.
A little later, Aharony, Bergman, Jafferis and Maldacena (ABJM) have been able to construct an ${\cal N}=6$ superconformal CSM theory with gauge group $U(N)\times U(N)$ and $SU(4)$ R-symmetry [@ABJM]. In their construction, the Nambu 3-brackets did not play any role. At level $k$, it has been argued that the ABJM theory describes the low energy limit of $N$ M2-branes probing a $\textbf{C}^4/\textbf{Z}_k$ singularity. As $k=1, 2$, the supersymmetry is enhanced to ${\cal N}=8$ [@klebanov:Jun09; @Gustavsson:Jun09; @KOS:Jun09]. In large-$N$ limit, the ABJM theory becomes the dual gauge theory of M theory on $AdS_4\times
S^7/\textbf{Z}_k$ [@ABJM]. Some further investigation of the ABJM theory can be found in Ref .[@Benna; @Schwarz]. In Ref .[@Bergshoeff:2008cz; @Bergshoeff], it has been argued that one can also obtain the superconformal gauge theories with more or less supersymmetries by taking a conformal limit of $D=3$ gauged supergravity theories. Using super Lie algebras to classify the gauge groups, Gaiotto and Witten (GW) have been able to construct a large class of ${\cal N}=4$ CSM theories [@GaWi]. The GW theories are extended to include additional twisted hyper-multiplets [@HosomichiJD; @Hosomichi:2008jb]. By generalizing Gaiotto and Witten’s construction, two new theories, ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2M)\times
O(N)$ and ${\cal N}=6, Sp(2M)\times O(2)$ CSM theories, were constructed, and the ABJM theory was re-derived as a special case of $U(M)\times U(N)$ CSM theories [@Hosomichi:2008jb]. The M theory and string theory dualities of ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2M)\times O(N)$ and ${\cal N}=6,U(M)\times U(N)$ were studied in Ref. [@Aharony:2008gk].
In an interesting paper, Bagger and Lambert (BL) have been able to construct the ${\cal N}=6$ ABJM theory in a modified 3-algebra approach, in which the structure constants are antisymmetric only in the first two indices [@Bagger08:3Alg]. By introducing an anti-symmetric tensor into a 3-algebra (symplectic 3-algebra), the authors have constructed another class of ${\cal N}=6$ CSM theories: the ones with gauge group $Sp(2M)\times O(2)$ [@ChenWu1]. Encouraged by the successes, it is natural to ask whether ${\cal
N}=5$ CSM theories can be constructed in terms of a 3-algebra or not. Furthermore, it is also natural to ask whether all ${\cal N}=5,
6$ CSM theories can be constructed by a unified 3-algebraic framework. In this paper we will propose to solve these two problems.
In section \[3AlgN5\], we define a symplectic 3-algebra in which the structure constants of the 3-brackets are *symmetric* in the first two indices. The general ${\cal N}=5$ superconformal Chern-Simons-matter (CSM) theory with $SO(5)$ R-symmetry in three dimensions is constructed in terms of this symplectic 3-algebra. In section \[Sp2NOM\], we provide the ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2N)\times O(M)$ CSM theory as an example by specifying the 3-brackets. In section \[3AlgN6\], we demonstrate that the supersymmetry can be enhanced to ${\cal N}=6$ by decomposing the sympelctic 3-algebra and the fields properly, *and the FI and the symmetry and reality properties of the structure constants of the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra can be derived from their ${\cal N}=5$ counterparts*. Therefore all ${\cal N}=5, 6$ superconformal CSM theories are described by a unified (sympletic) 3-algebraic framework. By specifying the 3-brackets, the ${\cal N}=6$, $Sp(2N)\times U(1)$ and $U(M)\times
U(N)$ CSM are derived in section \[Sp2NU1\] and \[UMUN\], respectively. Especially, the famous ABJM theory is obtained as a special case of ${\cal N}=6$, $U(M)\times U(N)$ theory.
**Note added**: Very recently when we were working on the final version of our manuscript, a work [@MFM:Aug09] appeared, which contains some results overlapping partially with this paper.
Symplectic 3-algebras {#Super3Alg}
=====================
It is known that one can construct $D=3, {\cal N}=6$ CSM theories by using a 3-algebra, in which the structure constants of the three-bracket are *antisymmetric* only in the first two indices [@Bagger08:3Alg]. This is a natural generalization of the Nambu 3-algebra whose structure constants are totally antisymmetric[@Nambu]. A further generalization would be to introduce a 3-algebra in which the structure constants are *symmetric* in the first two indices. In this section, we will define such a 3-algebra and then use it to construct ${\cal N}=5$ CSM theories in next section.
By definition, a 3-algebra is a complex vector space equipped with a ternary, trilinear operation, called the 3-bracket. This operation from three vectors to one vector can be completely determined by its expressions in terms of a basis (or a set of generators) $T_a$ ($a=1,2,\cdots,K$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Symp3Bracket}
[T_a,T_b;T_c]=f_{abc }{}^dT_{d },\end{aligned}$$ where the set of complex numbers $f_{abc }{}^d$ are called the structure constants. Here we assume that $$\label{symtwo}
[T_a,T_b;T_c]=[T_b,T_a;T_c],$$ i.e., the structure constants $f_{abc }{}^d$ are *symmetric* in the first two indices.
For a field $X$ valued in this 3-algebra, i.e., $X=X^cT_c$, we define the global transformation of the field as [@Bagger]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GlbTran}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}X=\Lambda^{ab}[T_a,T_b;X],\end{aligned}$$ where the parameter $\Lambda^{ab}$ is independent of spacetime coordinate. (We will gauge this symmetry transformation in subsection \[N5CSM\]). Because of Eq. (\[symtwo\]), we require that $\Lambda^{ab}$ is symmetric in $ab$, i.e., $\Lambda^{ab}=\Lambda^{ba}$. Equation (\[GlbTran\]) is the natural generalization of $\delta_{\Lambda}X=\Lambda^a[T_a, X]$ in an ordinary Lie 2-algebra. For an ordinary Lie 2-algebra, the Jacobi identity is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\Lambda}([X,
Y])=[\delta_{\Lambda}X,Y]+[X,\delta_{\Lambda}Y].\end{aligned}$$ That is, $\delta_{\Lambda}X=\Lambda^a[T_a, X]$ must act as a derivative. Analogously, one may require that Eq. (\[GlbTran\]) acts as a derivative [@Bagger]: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}([X,Y;Z])=
[\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}X,Y;Z]+[X,\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}Y;Z]
+[X,Y;\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}Z]\end{aligned}$$ Canceling $\Lambda^{ab}, X^e, Y^f$ and $Z^c$ from both sides, the above equation leads to the following fundamental identity (FI): $$\label{FFI}
[T_a,T_b; [T_e,T_f;T_c]]=[[T_a,T_b;T_e],T_f;
T_c]+[T_e,[T_a,T_b;T_f]; T_c]+[T_e,T_f; [T_a,T_b;T_c]]$$ Later we will demonstrate that the FI is equivalent to the invariance of the structure constants: $\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}f_{abc}{}^d=0$ (see Eq. (\[InvOfStru\])) [@Bagger08:3Alg].
To define a symplectic 3-algebra, we introduce an anti-symmetric tensor $\omega_{ab}$ and its inverse $\omega^{ab}$ into the 3-algebra. The existence of the inverse of $\omega_{ab}$ ($\rm{det}\omega\neq 0$), and the Eq. $\omega_{ab}=-\omega_{ba}$ imply that a 3-algebra index $a$ must run from $1$ to $K=2L$. The symplectic bilinear form is defined as follows: $$\label{SympInnerProdu}
\omega(X,Y)=\omega_{ab}X^aY^b.$$ We require that the above bilinear form to be preserved under arbitrary global transformations, namely, $$\label{DeltaOmg}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}(\omega_{ab}X^aY^b)=0.$$ This implies that the structure constants satisfy the condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SymInLast2Ind}
\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^e=\omega_{ce}f_{abd}{}^e.\end{aligned}$$ Now the component form of Eq. (\[GlbTran\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}X^a&=&\Lambda^{bc}f_{bcd}{}^{a}X^d\\ \nonumber
&\equiv&\tilde{\Lambda}^{a}{}_{d}X^d . \label{Transf}\end{aligned}$$ With the above definition of $\tilde{\Lambda}^{a}{}_{d}$, Eq. (\[DeltaOmg\]) must be equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}\omega_{ab}&=&-\tilde{\Lambda}^c{}_a\omega_{cb}
-\tilde{\Lambda}^c{}_b\omega_{ac}\\ \nonumber
&=&-\Lambda^{de}(f_{dea}{}^c\omega_{cb}+f_{deb}{}^c{}\omega_{ac})\\
&=&0,\end{aligned}$$ where we used Eq. (\[SymInLast2Ind\]) in the last line. From point of view of ordinary Lie group, the (infinitesimal) matrices $-\tilde{\Lambda}^c{}_a$ are in the Lie algebra of $Sp(2L,\mathbb{C})$, preserving the anti-symmetric tensor $\omega_{ab}$ [@ChenWu1]. By using the FI (\[FFI\]), one can prove that the structure constants are also preserved under the global symmetry transformations [@Bagger08:3Alg]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InvOfStru}\nonumber
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}f_{efc}{}^d&=&-\tilde{\Lambda}^g{}_ef_{gfc}{}^d-
\tilde{\Lambda}^g{}_ff_{egc}{}^d-\tilde{\Lambda}^g{}_cf_{efg}{}^d
+\tilde{\Lambda}^d{}_gf_{efc}{}^g\\
&=&\Lambda^{ab}(-f_{abe}{}^gf_{gfc}{}^d-
f_{abf}{}^g{}f_{egc}{}^d-f_{abc}{}^gf_{efg}{}^d+f_{abg}{}^df_{efc}{}^g)\\
\nonumber &=&0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the FI (\[FFI\]) in the second line. In other words, Eq. (\[InvOfStru\]) is equivalent to the FI (\[FFI\]). Thus we can use $\omega_{ab}$ and $f_{abc}{}^d$ to construct invariant Lagrangians, when the symmetry is gauged. Later, when we gauge this global symmetry, we require that the gauge fields must be anti-hermitian, leading to a reality condition on the structure constants (See section (\[N5CSM\])): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HermiCondiOnF}
f^*_{abc}{}^d=-\omega^{ae}\omega^{bf}\omega^{cg}\omega_{dh}f_{efg}{}^h.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Lambda^{ab}$ carries two symplectic 3-algebra indices, it obeys the following natural reality condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RealCondiOfLmd}
\Lambda^{*ab}=\omega_{ac}\omega_{bd}\Lambda^{cd}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the 3-algebra is also a complex vector space, there is a hermitian bilinear form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HermiInnerProd}
h(X,Y)=X^{*a}Y^{a}\end{aligned}$$ (with $X^{*a}$ the complex conjugate of $X^a$) which is positive-definite and will be used to construct the Lagrangian of matter fields in CSM theories. The hermitian bilinear form is also required to be preserved in the sense $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InvOfHermInner}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}h(X,Y)=\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}(X^{*a}Y^a)=0.\end{aligned}$$ As in Ref. [@ChenWu1], we will impose the reality conditions on the fields valued in the 3-algebra, so that respecting them will make the anti-symmetric tensor (\[SympInnerProdu\]) and the hermitian bilinear form (\[HermiInnerProd\]) compatible with each other. Namely the reality conditions essentially require that $X^{*a}$ transform in the same way as $\omega_{ab}X^b$ under the above symmetry transformations. In fact, by using the reality conditions (\[HermiCondiOnF\]) and (\[RealCondiOfLmd\]), it is easy to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{covariant}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}X^{*a}=\tilde{\Lambda}^{*a}{}_{b}X^{*b}
=-\tilde{\Lambda}^b{}_{a}X^{*b}.\end{aligned}$$ The last equality indicates that the matrix $\tilde{\Lambda}^{a}{}_{b}$ is anti-hermitian. Comparing (\[covariant\]) with $$\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}(\omega_{ab}X^b)=-\tilde{\Lambda}^b{}_{a}(\omega_{bc}X^{c}),$$ we see that $X^{*a}$ indeed transform in the same way as $\omega_{ab}X^b$. Therefore, it makes sense to denote $X^{*a}$ as $\bar{X}_a$, i.e., $$\label{cmpll}
X^{*a}=\bar{X}_a.$$ Also, with (\[covariant\]), Eq. (\[InvOfHermInner\]) is satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hmtinv}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}(X^{*a}Y^a)&=&(\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}X^{*a})Y^a+X^{*a}(\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}Y^{a})\nonumber\\
&=&-\tilde{\Lambda}^b{}_{a}X^{*b}Y^a+X^{*a}\tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_{b}Y^{b}\nonumber\\
&=&0\end{aligned}$$ By (\[cmpll\]), the hermitian bilinear form (\[HermiInnerProd\]) can be written in a manifest invariant form: [^1] $$X^{*a}Y^{a}=\bar X_aY^a=\bar X_a\delta^a{}_bY^b,$$ and Eq. (\[hmtinv\]) is equivalent to the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InvOfHermInner2}
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}\delta^a{}_b=\tilde\Lambda^a{}_c\delta^c{}_b-\tilde\Lambda^c{}_b\delta^a{}_c=0.\end{aligned}$$ In summary, the global transformations (\[Transf\]) preserve the hermitian bilinear form (\[HermiInnerProd\]) and symplectic bilinear form (\[SympInnerProdu\]) simultaneously. Or in other words, $$\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}\omega_{ab}=0\quad {\rm and}\quad
\delta_{\tilde\Lambda}\delta^a{}_b=0.$$ From point of view of ordinary Lie group, the symmetry group generated by the 3-algebra transformations (\[GlbTran\]) or (\[Transf\]) is the intersection of $U(2L)$ and $Sp(2L,
\mathbb{C})$, which is $Sp(2L)$.
We call the 3-algebra defined by the above Eq. (\[Symp3Bracket\]), (\[symtwo\]), (\[FFI\]), (\[SympInnerProdu\]), (\[SymInLast2Ind\]), (\[HermiInnerProd\]) and (\[HermiCondiOnF\]) a symplectic 3-algebra. [^2]
To construct ${\cal N}=5$ CSM theories, the 3-bracket will be required to satisfy an additional constraint condition (see section \[N5CSM\]): [^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ConstraintOn3Bracket}
\omega([T_{(a},T_{b};T_{c)}],T_{d})=0\end{aligned}$$ Or simply $f_{(abc)}{}^e=0$. Now Eq. (\[ConstraintOn3Bracket\]) implies that $\omega([T_{a},T_{(b};T_{c}],T_{d)})=0$ and $\omega([T_{a},T_{b};T_{c}],T_{d})=\omega([T_{c},T_{d};T_{a}],T_{b})$. In summary, the structure constants have the following symmetry properties: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SymmeOfF}
\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^e=\omega_{de}f_{bac}{}^e=\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^e=\omega_{be}f_{cda}{}^e.\end{aligned}$$
$D=3,{\cal N}=5$ CSM Theories {#3AlgN5}
=============================
General ${\cal N}=5$ CSM Theories {#N5CSM}
---------------------------------
We first postulate that all matter fields are valued in the symplectic 3-algebra. We then assume the theory has an $SO(5)\cong
Sp(4)$ R-symmetry. It is convenient to use the $Sp(4)$ indices for $R$-symmetry. We denote the eight complex scalar fields as $Z_A^a$, and their corresponding complex conjugate $\bar Z_a^A\equiv
Z^{*a}_A$, where $A=1,2,3,4$ transforms in the 4-dimensional representation of $Sp(4)$, and $a$ is a 3-algebra index. Similarly, we denote the fermion fields and their complex conjugates as $\psi_A^{a}$ and $\bar\psi_{a}^A$, respectively. The gauge fields are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PhysGaugeFld}
\tilde A_\mu{}^c{}_d\equiv A_\mu^{ab}f_{abd}{}^c{},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu=0, 1, 2$. Finally, we also impose the reality conditions on the fields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RealCondi}
Z_{A}^{*a}&=&\omega^{AB}\omega_{ab}Z^b_B ,\nonumber\\
\psi_{A}^{*a}&=&\omega^{AB}\omega_{ab}\psi^b_B , \nonumber\\
\tilde A_\mu{}^{*c}{}_d&=&-\omega_{ca}\omega^{db}\tilde
A_\mu{}^a{}_b ,\nonumber\\
A_\mu^{*ab}&=&\omega_{ae}\omega_{bf}A_\mu^{ef}.\end{aligned}$$ The last two equations of (\[RealCondi\]) and Eq. (\[PhysGaugeFld\]) require that the structure constants obey the reality condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RealCondiOnF}
f^*_{abc}{}^d=-\omega^{ae}\omega^{bf}\omega^{cg}\omega_{dh}f_{efg}{}^h.\end{aligned}$$
In terms of the symplectic 3-algebra, now we propose the following manifestly $Sp(4)$ covariant, ${\cal N}=5$ SUSY transformations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GeneSusyTransLaw}\nonumber
\delta Z^a_A&=&i\bar{\epsilon}_A{}^B\psi^a_B\nonumber\\
\delta\psi^a_A&=&\gamma^{\mu}D_\mu Z^a_B\epsilon^B{}_A
+\frac{1}{3}f_{cdb}{}^a\omega^{BC}Z^b_BZ^c_CZ^d_D\epsilon^D{}_A
-\frac{2}{3}f_{cdb}{}^a\omega^{BD}Z^b_CZ^c_DZ^d_A\epsilon^C{}_B
\nonumber\\
\delta \tilde{A}_\mu{}^c{}_d &=&
i\bar{\epsilon}^{AB}\gamma_\mu\psi^b_BZ^a_Af_{abd}{}^c.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\epsilon^{AB}$ is the antisymmetric supersymmetry parameter, satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SusyPara}\nonumber
&&\epsilon^{AB}=-\epsilon^{BA}\nonumber\\
&&\omega_{AB}\epsilon^{AB}=0\nonumber\\
&&\epsilon^{*}_{AB}=\omega^{AC}\omega^{BD}\epsilon_{CD}.\end{aligned}$$ Namely, they transform as $\bf 5$ of $Sp(4)$. The last equation of (\[SusyPara\]) is the reality condition on $\epsilon_{AB}$. The covariant derivatives are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
D_\mu Z^A_d &=&
\partial_\mu \bar Z^A_d -\tilde A_\mu{}^c{}_d\bar Z^A_c\\
D_\mu Z_A^d &=&
\partial_\mu Z_A^d +\tilde A_\mu{}^d{}_cZ_A^c.\end{aligned}$$
Following BL’s strategy [@Bagger08:3Alg], we will derive the equations of motion by requiring that the supersymmetry transformations are closed on-shell. Let us first examine scalar supersymmetry transformation. By virtue of the identities in the appendix \[Identities\], we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SusyOnZ}
[\delta_{1}, \delta_{2}]Z^{a}_{A}&=&v^{\mu}D_{\mu}Z^{a}_{A}
-\frac{2}{3}f_{bdc}{}^a\Lambda^{cd}Z^{Ab}+\frac{2}{3}
f_{cdb}{}^a\Lambda^{cd}Z^b_A,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
v^{\mu} &\equiv& -\frac{i}{2}\bar{\epsilon}_{2}^{BD}\gamma^{\mu}
\epsilon_{1BD},\\
\Lambda^{cd}&\equiv& -\frac{i}{2}Z^{c}_DZ^{d}_{C}
(\bar{\epsilon}_{1}^{CE}\epsilon_{2E}{}^D-\bar{\epsilon}_{2}^{CE}
\epsilon_{1E}{}^D)=\Lambda^{dc},\end{aligned}$$ and the $\epsilon$ bilinear is symmetric in $CD$. While the first term of Eq. (\[SusyOnZ\]) is the gauge covariant translation, we have to impose some conditions on the structure constants so that the remaining terms add up to be a gauge transformation. (We will read off the parameter of the gauge transformation by looking the closure of the algebra on the gauge fields.)
We tentatively assume that the third term of Eq. (\[SusyOnZ\]) is proportional to the gauge transformation. So the second term of Eq. (\[SusyOnZ\]) should be also proportional to the gauge transformation. This leads us to impose an additional constraint condition on the structure constants: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ConditionOnF}
\frac{1}{2}(f_{bdc}{}^a+f_{bcd}{}^a)=\frac{\alpha}{2}f_{cdb}{}^a,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is a constant, to be determined later. Now the second and third term of Eq. (\[SusyOnZ\]) can be combined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GaugePrmt1}
\frac{1}{3}(-\alpha+2)f_{cdb}{}^a\Lambda^{cd}Z^b_A,\end{aligned}$$ which should be the gauge transformation.
Let us now look at the gauge fields: $$\begin{aligned}
[\delta_1, \delta_2]\tilde{A}_\mu{}^a{}_b&=& v^\nu\tilde{F}_{\nu\mu}{}^a{}_b-(D_\mu\Lambda^{cd})f_{cdb}{}^a \nonumber\\
&&+v^\nu[\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}{}^a{}_b-\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}(Z^c_AD^\lambda Z^{Ad}-\frac{i}{2}\bar{\psi}^{Bc}\gamma^\lambda\psi^d_B)f_{cdb}{}^a]\nonumber\\
&&+ {\cal O}(Z^4),\label{SusyOnA}\end{aligned}$$ where the last term ${\cal O}(Z^4)$ is fourth order in the scalar fields $Z$. We recognize the second term of the first line as a gauge transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GaugePrmt2}
-(D_\mu\Lambda^{cd})f_{cdb}{}^a=-D_\mu(\Lambda^{cd}f_{cdb}{}^a)\end{aligned}$$ by a parameter $\tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_b=\Lambda^{cd}f_{cdb}{}^a$, since the FI (\[FFI\]) or (\[InvOfStru\]) implies that $D_\mu
f_{cdb}{}^a=0$ [@Bagger08:3Alg]. In accordance with the parameter, now (\[GaugePrmt1\]) must satisfy the following equation: [^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SolvingAlpha}
\frac{1}{3}(-\alpha+2)f_{cdb}{}^a\Lambda^{cd}Z^b_A=
\Lambda^{cd}f_{cdb}{}^aZ^b_A.\end{aligned}$$ This equation can be solved by setting $\alpha=-1$. Or in other words, Eq. (\[SolvingAlpha\]) can be solved if Eq. (\[ConditionOnF\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RqmtOnF}
f_{(bcd)}{}^a=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to Eq. (\[ConstraintOn3Bracket\]). Now Eq. (\[SusyOnZ\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
[\delta_{1}, \delta_{2}]Z^{a}_{A}&=&v^{\mu}D_{\mu}Z^{a}_{A}+\tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_bZ^b_A,\end{aligned}$$ as expected.
Following Gustavsson’s approach [@Gustavsson], one can demonstrate that the FI (\[FFI\]) admits an explicit solution in terms of a tensor product: $f_{abc}{}^d=k_{mn}\tau^m_{ab}T^{nd}_{c}$, where $k_{mn}$ is the Killing-Cartan metric of $Sp(2L)$, and $\tau^m_{ab}=\omega_{ac}T^{mc}{}_b$ [@GaWi]. The matrix $T^{mc}{}_b$ is in the fundamental representation of $Sp(2L)$, and $\omega_{ac}$ is the $Sp(2L)$-invariant anti-symmetric tensor. Now Eq. (\[RqmtOnF\]) implies that $k_{mn}\tau^m_{(ab}\tau^n_{c)d}=0$, which is first derived by GW [@GaWi]. In the GW theories, it is the key requirement for enhancing the ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry to the ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetry.
By using the FI (\[FFI\]) and the symmetry conditions (\[SymmeOfF\]), one can prove that the last term of Eq. (\[SusyOnA\]) vanishes: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal O}(Z^4)=0.\end{aligned}$$ So the second line of Eq. (\[SusyOnA\]) must be the equations of motion for the gauge fields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EOMofA}
\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}{}^a{}_b-\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}(Z^c_AD^\lambda
Z^{Ad}
-\frac{i}{2}\bar{\psi}^{Bc}\gamma^\lambda\psi^d_B)f_{cdb}{}^a=0.\end{aligned}$$ Now only the first line of Eq. (\[SusyOnA\]) remains: $$\begin{aligned}
[\delta_1, \delta_2]\tilde{A}_\mu{}^a{}_b&=& v^\nu\tilde{F}_{\nu\mu}{}^a{}_b-D_\mu\tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_b,\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired result.
Finally we turn to the fermion supersymmetry transformation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SusyOnPsi}
\nonumber [\delta_1,\delta_2]\psi^a_{A} &=& v^\mu D_\mu
\psi^a_{A} + \tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_{b}
\psi^b_{A}\\
\nonumber &&+\frac{i}{2}(\bar\epsilon_1^{BC}\epsilon_{2BA}
-\bar\epsilon_2^{BC}\epsilon_{1BA})E^a_{C}\\
&&
-\frac{1}{2}v_\nu\gamma^\nu E^a_{A},\end{aligned}$$ where $$E^a_{A} = \gamma^\mu D_\mu\psi^a_{A}
-f_{cdb}{}^aZ^b_BZ^{Bc}\psi^d_A+2f_{cdb}{}^aZ^b_BZ^c_A\psi^{Bd}.$$ Hence the equations of motion for fermionic fields are $E^a_{A}=0$. The scalar equations of motion can be derived by taking the super-variation of the fermionic equations of motion: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E^a_A=0.\end{aligned}$$ After Fierz transformation, we obtain two independent parts, containing $\gamma^\mu\epsilon_{BC}$ and $\epsilon_{BC}$, respectively. The part containing $\gamma^\mu\epsilon_{BC}$ merely implies the equations of motion for the gauge fields, so we will not write it down here. The part containing $\epsilon_{BC}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EOMofZ}
\bigg(\delta^{[C}_AF^{B]a}+ G_A{}^{BCa}\bigg)\epsilon_{BC}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F^{Ba}\equiv
-D^2Z^{Ba}+if_{cdb}{}^aZ^{Cb}\bar{\psi}^{Bc}\psi^d_C+\frac{1}{3}f_{efd}{}^g
f_{gcb}{}^aZ^b_CZ^{Cc}Z^d_DZ^{De}Z^{Bf},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\quad G_A{}^{BCa}\epsilon_{BC} &\equiv&
\bigg[if_{cdb}{}^a(\frac{3}{2}Z^{Bd}
\bar{\psi}^{Cc}\psi^b_A+Z^{c}_A\bar{\psi}^{Cb}\psi^{Bd})+if_{d[cb]}{}^aZ^{Bb}
\bar{\psi}^{Cc}\psi^d_A\\
&&+\frac{2}{3}(f_{efd}{}^g f_{gcb}{}^a+f_{ceb}{}^g f_{gfd}{}^a
+2f_{ebd}{}^g
f_{gfc}{}^a)Z^b_DZ^{Dc}Z^{Cd}Z^{Be}Z^f_A\bigg]\epsilon_{BC}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Since the parameters $\epsilon_{BC}$ are traceless, in the sense that $\omega^{BC}\epsilon_{BC}=\epsilon_{B}{}^B=0$, Eq. (\[EOMofZ\]) must be equivalent to the following traceless equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{[C}_AF^{B]a}-\frac{1}{4}\omega^{BC}F^a_A + G_A{}^{BCa}-\frac{1}{4}\omega^{BC}\omega_{DE}G_A{}^{EDa}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Contracting on $AC$ gives the scalar equations of motion: $$\begin{aligned}
F^{Ba}+\frac{4}{5}G_A{}^{BAa}-\frac{1}{5}G^B{}_A{}^{Aa}=0.\end{aligned}$$ After some simplification we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&0=-D^2 Z^B_a-if_{abc}{}^d(
Z_d^{B}\bar{\psi}^{Cc}\psi^b_C-2Z^{Cc}\bar{\psi}^{b}_C\psi^{B}_d)
\\
&&\quad\quad
-\frac{1}{5}(f_{abc}{}^gf_{gde}{}^f+f_{abd}{}^gf_{gce}{}^f+
3f_{abe}{}^gf_{cdg}{}^f-3f_{abe}{}^gf_{gdc}{}^f)Z^b_AZ^{Ac}Z^d_CZ^{Ce}
Z^{B}_f.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
All the equations of motion can be derived as the Euler-Lagrangian equations from the following action: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GeneN5Lagran}\nonumber
{\cal L}&=&\frac{1}{2}(-D_\mu
\bar Z_a^AD^{\mu}Z^a_A+i\bar{\psi}_a^AD_\mu\gamma^\mu\psi^a_A)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{i}{2}\omega^{AB}\omega^{CD}\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^e(Z^a_AZ^c_B\bar{\psi}^b_C\psi^d_D-
2Z^a_AZ^c_D\bar{\psi}^b_C\psi^d_B)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}(\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^eA_\mu^{ab}\partial_\nu
A_\lambda^{cd}+\frac{2}{3}\omega_{fh}f_{abc}{}^gf_{gde}{}^hA_\mu^{ab}A_\nu^{cd}A_\lambda^{ef})\\
&&-\frac{1}{60}(2f_{abc}{}^gf_{gdf}{}^e-9f_{cda}{}^gf_{gfb}{}^e+2f_{abd}{}^gf_{gcf}{}^e)Z^f_A
Z^{Aa}Z^b_BZ^{Bc}Z^d_C Z^{C}_e.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ With the reality conditions (\[HermiCondiOnF\]) and the first equation of (\[RealCondi\]), one can recast the potential term into the following form: $$V=\frac{2}{15}(\Upsilon^d_{ABC})^*\Upsilon^d_{ABC},$$ where $$\Upsilon^d_{ABC}\equiv f_{abc}{}^d(Z^a_AZ^b_BZ^c_C
+\frac{1}{4}\omega_{BC}Z^a_AZ^b_DZ^{Dc}).$$ Therefore the potential term is actually positive definite. Also it is not difficult to verify that the Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]) has manifest ${\cal N}=5$ supersymmetry with $Sp(4)$ R-symmetry; namely it is indeed invariant (up to some boundary terms) under the supersymmetry transformations (\[GeneSusyTransLaw\]). It is easy to check that the above Lagrangian is a scale invariant, local field theory, provided that the structure constants are dimensionless. This implies that the theory is classically conformal invariant. We expect that after quantization it is conformally invariant at the quantum level.
In the same manner as in our previous paper [@ChenWu1], if we specify the 3-brackets properly, certain Lie algebra of the gauge groups can be generated by the FI (\[FFI\]) of the 3-algebra. In the next subsection, we will provide the ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2N)\times
O(M)$ CSM theory as an example.
${\cal N}=5, Sp(2N)\times O(M)$ CSM theory {#Sp2NOM}
------------------------------------------
To generate a direct product gauge group, such as $Sp(2N)\times
O(M)$, we first split one 3-algebra index into two indices: $a\rightarrow k\hat{k}$. As a result, a 3-algebra valued field becomes $Z^{a}_A \rightarrow Z^{k\hat{k}}_A$. We also decompose the antisymmetric tensor as $\omega_{ab}\rightarrow
\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}\delta_{kl}$, where $\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}$ is anti-symmetric, and require $Z^{k\hat{k}}_A$ to be valued in the bi-fundamental representation of $Sp(2N)\times O(M)$. (Here $k,l=1,\cdots,M$ are the $O(M)$ indices while $\hat{k},\hat{l}=1,\cdots,2N$ the $Sp(2N)$ indices.) With this decomposition of $\omega_{ab}$, we can rewrite the reality condition (\[RealCondi\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{\dag A}_{\hat{k}k}\equiv
\omega^{AB}\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}\delta_{kl}Z^{l\hat{l}}_B,\end{aligned}$$ and similar conditions for the fermion and gauge fields. Consequently, the hermitian bilinear form of two fields $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{AB}\omega_{ab}Z^b_BZ^a_A= Z^{*a}_AZ^a_A=\bar Z_a^AZ^a_A,\end{aligned}$$ can be rewritten in a trace form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Trace}
Z^{\dag A}_{\hat{k}k}Z^{k\hat{k}}_A= {\rm Tr}(Z^{\dag A}Z_A)\end{aligned}$$
We then specify the 3-brackets as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
[T_{k\hat{k}}, T_{l\hat{l}};
T_{m\hat{m}}]=k(\delta_{kl}\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{m}}T_{m\hat{l}}
+\delta_{kl}\omega_{\hat{l}\hat{m}}T_{m\hat{k}}
-\delta_{km}\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}T_{l\hat{m}}
+\delta_{lm}\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}T_{k\hat{m}}).\end{aligned}$$ The overall coefficient $k$ on the right-hand side is assumed to be a real constant. It is straightforward to verify that the 3-brackets satisfy the FI (\[FFI\]) and the constraints (\[ConstraintOn3Bracket\]). The corresponding structure constants are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sp2NOMStru}
f_{\hat{k}k,\hat{l}l,\hat{m}m}{}^{\hat{n}n}
=-k[(\delta_{km}\delta^n_{l}-\delta^n_{k}\delta_{lm})
\omega_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}\delta_{\hat{m}}^{\hat{n}}
-\delta_{kl}\delta_{m}^n(\delta_{\hat{k}\hat{m}}
\delta_{\hat{l}}^{\hat{n}}+\delta_{\hat{k}}^{\hat{n}}
\omega_{\hat{l}\hat{m}})] .\end{aligned}$$ It is not hard to check that the structure constants have the symmetry properties (\[SymmeOfF\]), and satisfy the reality condition (\[RealCondiOnF\]). We observe that the structure constants are the same as the components of an embedding tensor in Ref. [@Bergshoeff]. This is not merely an accident, and we will explore their relations in a coming paper. With this choice of structure constants, the gauge fields (\[PhysGaugeFld\]) become: (We re-scale $A_\mu^{ab}$ by $\frac{1}{k}$ in eq. (\[PhysGaugeFld\]).) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde{A}_{\mu}{}^{m\hat{m}}{}_{n\hat{n}}
&=&A_\mu{}^{k\hat{k},l\hat{l}}
f_{\hat{k}k,\hat{l}l,\hat{n}n}{}^{m\hat{m}}\\
\nonumber &=&-(A_{\mu\hat{nl}}{}^{l\hat{m}}
+A_{\mu}{}^{l\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}l})\delta^m{}_n
+(A_{\mu\hat{l}n}{}^{m\hat{l}}
+A_{\mu}{}^{m\hat{l}}{}_{\hat{l}n})\delta^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}
\\ \nonumber
&\equiv&-(A_{\mu\hat{n}}{}^{\hat{m}}
+A_{\mu}{}^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}})\delta^m{}_n +(-B_{\mu
n}{}^m+B_\mu{}^m{}_n)\delta^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}\label{PhysGaugeFld1}
\\
&\equiv& \hat{A}_{\mu}{}^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}\delta^m{}_n
+A_\mu{}^m{}_n\delta^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $\hat{A}_{\mu}{}^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}$ is the $Sp(2N)$ part of the gauge potential, because it can be written as $A_{\mu}^{\hat{k}\hat{l}}(t_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}){}^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}$, where $(t_{\hat{k}\hat{l}}){}^{\hat{m}}{}_{\hat{n}}$ is the fundamental representation of the ordinary Lie algebra $Sp(2N)$. Similarly, we can identify $A_\mu{}^m{}_n$ as the $O(M)$ part of the gauge potential. As we explained in our previous paper [@ChenWu1], the Lie algebra of the gauge group $Sp(2N)\times
O(M)$ is actually generated by the FI (\[FFI\]) after we specify the structure constants by Eq. (\[Sp2NOMStru\]).
We would like to derive the ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2N)\times O(M)$ Lagrangian and the corresponding supersymmetry transformation law in the 3-algebraic framework. With the notation (\[Trace\]), the kinetic terms for matter fields in the Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}(D_\mu Z^{\dag A}D^\mu
Z_A-i\bar{\psi}^{\dag A}D_\mu\gamma^\mu\psi_A ).\end{aligned}$$
With the choice of the structure constants (\[Sp2NOMStru\]), we learn that $$\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^eX^aY^bZ^cW^d=-k\rm{Tr}(XY^\dag ZW^\dag+YX^\dag
ZW^\dag-ZX^\dag YW^\dag-ZY^\dag XW^\dag).$$ Hence the Yukawa terms in the Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
&&ik
\varepsilon^{ABCD}{\rm Tr}(Z_A\bar{\psi}^\dag_BZ_C\psi^\dag_D)
\\ \nonumber
&&-i\frac{k}{2}{\rm Tr}(\bar{\psi}^\dag_AZ_BZ^{\dag
B}\psi^A-\bar{\psi}_AZ^{\dag}_BZ^B\psi^{\dag
A}-2\bar{\psi}^\dag_AZ_BZ^{\dag A}\psi^B+2\bar{\psi}^AZ^{\dag
B}Z_A\psi^\dag_B),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the following $Sp(4)$ identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sp4Id1}
\varepsilon^{ABCD}&=&-\omega^{AB}\omega^{CD}
+\omega^{AC}\omega^{BD}-\omega^{AD}\omega^{BC}.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting the definition of the gauge fields (\[PhysGaugeFld1\]) into the ‘twisted’ Chern-Simons term in the Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]) gives the conventional Chern-Simons term $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4k}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}{\rm Tr} (\hat
A_\mu\partial_\nu\hat A_\lambda+\frac{2}{3}\hat A_\mu\hat A_\nu\hat
A_\lambda-A_\mu\partial_\nu A_\lambda-\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu
A_\lambda).\end{aligned}$$
Finally we want to calculate the potential terms in the Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]). By using $\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^e=\omega_{ce}f_{abd}{}^e$, they can be re-written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\frac{1}{60}{\rm Tr}(2[Z^A,Z_B;Z^B][Z^C,Z_A;Z_C]^\dag-9[Z^B,Z_C;Z^A][Z^C,Z_B;Z_A]^\dag
\\&&\quad\quad\quad+2[Z^A,Z_B;Z_C][Z^C,Z_A;Z^B]^\dag).\end{aligned}$$ The last two terms can be combined together: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&-\frac{4k^2}{15}(\omega_{AF}\omega_{BE}\omega_{CD}-2\omega_{AF}\omega_{BC}\omega_{DE}
+2\omega_{AC}\omega_{BF}\omega_{DE}
-\omega_{AE}\omega_{BF}\omega_{CD}\\
&&\quad\quad\quad+\omega_{AC}\omega_{BE}\omega_{DF}-\omega_{AE}\omega_{BC}\omega_{DF}){\rm Tr}(Z^BZ^{\dag D}Z^AZ^{\dag C}Z^EZ^{\dag F}).\end{aligned}$$ The first term becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{k^2}{30}(2\omega_{AD}\omega_{BE}\omega_{CF}+4\omega_{AB}\omega_{CF}\omega_{DE}
-2\omega_{AE}\omega_{BD}\omega_{CF}+\omega_{AD}\omega_{BC}\omega_{EF}\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad-2\omega_{AB}\omega_{CD}\omega_{EF}-\omega_{AC}\omega_{BD}\omega_{EF}
+\omega_{AD}\omega_{BF}\omega_{CE}+2\omega_{AB}\omega_{CE}\omega_{DF}\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad-\omega_{AF}\omega_{BD}\omega_{CE}){\rm Tr}(Z^BZ^{\dag D}Z^AZ^{\dag C}Z^EZ^{\dag F}).\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, they can be simplified further. Taking account of the cyclic property of the trace, there are only four possible potential terms: $$\begin{aligned}
&&(c_1\omega_{AD}\omega_{BE}\omega_{CF}+c_2\omega_{BD}\omega_{CE}\omega_{AF}
+c_3\omega_{AD}\omega_{CE}\omega_{BF}
+c_4\omega_{CD}\omega_{AE}\omega_{BF})\nonumber\\&&\quad\times{\rm Tr}(Z^AZ^{\dag D}Z^BZ^{\dag E}Z^CZ^{\dag F}),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1,\cdots$ and $c_4$ are constants. After some work, we reach the final expression for the potential: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\frac{k^2}{6}{\rm Tr}(-6Z_AZ^{\dag A}
Z_BZ^{\dag C}Z_CZ^{\dag B} +4Z_AZ^{\dag
C}Z_BZ^{\dag A}Z_CZ^{\dag B} \\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad+Z_AZ^{\dag A}Z_BZ^{\dag B}Z_CZ^{\dag C}
+Z_AZ^{\dag B}Z_BZ^{\dag C}Z_CZ^{\dag A}).\end{aligned}$$ In deriving this potential, we have used another $Sp(4)$ identity [@Hosomichi:2008jb]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sp4Id2} \varepsilon_{GABC}\varepsilon^{GDEF}
&=&3!\delta_{[A}^D\delta_B^E\delta_{C]}^F\\ \nonumber
&=&3(-\delta_{[A}^D\omega^{EF}\omega_{BC]}
+\delta_{[A}^E\omega^{DF}\omega_{BC]}
-\delta_{[A}^F\omega^{DE}\omega_{BC]}) .\end{aligned}$$ In summary, with the choice of the structure constants (\[Sp2NOMStru\]), the Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sp2NOMSLagran}\nonumber
{\cal L}&=&-\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}(D_\mu Z^{\dag A}D^\mu
Z_A-i\bar{\psi}^{\dag A}D_\mu\gamma^\mu\psi_A ) +ik
\varepsilon^{ABCD}{\rm Tr}(Z_A\bar{\psi}^\dag_BZ_C\psi^\dag_D)
\\ \nonumber
&&-i\frac{k}{2}{\rm Tr}(\bar{\psi}^\dag_AZ_BZ^{\dag
B}\psi^A-\bar{\psi}_AZ^{\dag}_BZ^B\psi^{\dag
A}-2\bar{\psi}^\dag_AZ_BZ^{\dag A}\psi^B+2\bar{\psi}^AZ^{\dag
B}Z_A\psi^\dag_B)
\\ \nonumber
&&+\frac{1}{4k}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}{\rm Tr} (\hat
A_\mu\partial_\nu\hat A_\lambda+\frac{2}{3}\hat A_\mu\hat A_\nu\hat
A_\lambda-A_\mu\partial_\nu A_\lambda-\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu
A_\lambda) \\ \nonumber &&+\frac{k^2}{6}{\rm Tr}(-6Z_AZ^{\dag A}
Z_BZ^{\dag C}Z_CZ^{\dag B} +4Z_AZ^{\dag
C}Z_BZ^{\dag A}Z_CZ^{\dag B} \\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad+Z_AZ^{\dag A}Z_BZ^{\dag B}Z_CZ^{\dag C}
+Z_AZ^{\dag B}Z_BZ^{\dag C}Z_CZ^{\dag A}),\end{aligned}$$
Substituting the structure constants $(\ref{Sp2NOMStru})$ into $(\ref{GeneSusyTransLaw})$, the SUSY transformation law reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sp2NOMSusyTrans}\nonumber
\delta Z_A&=&i\bar{\epsilon}_A{}^B\psi_B\nonumber\\
\delta\psi_A&=&\gamma^{\mu}D_\mu
Z_B\epsilon^B{}_A-\frac{2k}{3}\epsilon^C{}_A(Z_{[B}Z^{\dag
B}Z_{C]}+Z_BZ^\dag_CZ^B)\nonumber\\&&+\frac{4k}{3}\epsilon^C{}_B(Z_{[C}Z^{\dag
B}Z_{A]}+Z_CZ^\dag_AZ^B)\nonumber\\
\delta A_\mu{}&=&ik\bar{\epsilon}^{AB}\gamma_\mu
(Z_A\psi^\dag_B+\psi_BZ^\dag_A)\nonumber\\ \delta
\hat{A}_\mu{}&=&-ik\bar{\epsilon}^{AB}\gamma_\mu
(\psi^\dag_BZ_A+Z^\dag_A\psi_B).\end{aligned}$$ The ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2N)\times O(M)$ Lagrangian (\[Sp2NOMSLagran\]) and the supersymmetry transformation law (\[Sp2NOMSusyTrans\]) are in agreement with those given in ref. [@Hosomichi:2008jb], which were derived in terms of ordinary Lie algebra. This theory has been conjectured to be the dual gauge theory of M2 branes probing a $\textbf{C}^4/\hat{\textbf{D}}_k$ singularity, where $\hat{\textbf{D}}_k$ is the binary dihedral group [@Hosomichi:2008jb; @Aharony:2008gk].
$D=3, {\cal N}=6$ CSM Theories from 3-algebras {#3AlgN6}
==============================================
In Ref. [@Hosomichi:2008jb], the ${\cal N}=6$ theories are derived from the ${\cal N}=5$ theories by enhancing the R-symmetry from $Sp(4)$ to $SU(4)$. In this section we will implement the same idea in the context of 3-algebras. We will call the symplectic 3-algebras presented in this paper and in Ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg], respectively, to construct the ${\cal N}=5$, ${\cal N}=6$ theories as the “${\cal N}=5$, ${\cal N}= 6$ 3-algebra", respectively. We will see that the symplectic 3-algebra provides framework unifying the ${\cal N}=5$ and ${\cal N}=6$ CSM models.
General ${\cal N}$=6 CSM Theories {#N6}
---------------------------------
The enhancement of R-symmetry from $Sp(4)$ to $SU(4)$ in ref. [@Hosomichi:2008jb] is based on the following observation: The reality condition (\[RealCondi\]) implies that the complex conjugate of a matter field can be obtained by a similarity transformation. Therefore the matter fields actually furnish a pseudo-real presentation of the gauge group. If we decompose this pseudo-real representation into a complex representation and its conjugate representation, then the $Sp(4)$ R-symmetry will be enhanced to $SU(4)$, and the global ${\cal N}=5$ SUSY will get enhanced to ${\cal N}=6$.
In this section, we will show that this enhancement can be implemented exclusively in the framework of symplectic 3-algebra, which thus provides a unified framework for both ${\cal N}=5$ and ${\cal N}=6$ theories. Since in our approach the ordinary Lie algebra of the gauge groups is generated by the FI and the 3-brackets, the challenge we face is to derive the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra from the 3-algebra proposed in this paper.
Following ref. [@Hosomichi:2008jb], we first decompose an ${\cal
N}=5$ scalar field as a direct sum of an ${\cal N}=6$ scalar field and its complex conjugate (See eq. (\[N6RealCondi\])): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DecomScaFld}
(Z_A^a)_{{\cal N}=5}\rightarrow Z_A^{a\alpha}=
\bar{Z}^a_A\chi_{1\alpha}+
\omega_{AB}Z^B_a\chi_{2\alpha}=\bar{Z}^a_A\delta_{1\alpha}+
\omega_{AB}Z^B_a\delta_{2\alpha} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the right hand side of the arrow contains ${\cal N}=6$ fields. Here the index $a$ of the left hand side of the arrow runs from $1$ to $2L$, while the index $a$ of the right hand side of the arrow runs from $1$ to $L$. And $\chi_{1\alpha}$ and $\chi_{2\alpha}$ are “spin up" and “spin down" spinor, respectively; i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{1\alpha}=\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}\;,
\;\;\;\;\; \chi_{2\alpha}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ To make the ${\cal N}=5$ SUSY transformation law (\[GeneSusyTransLaw\]) consistent with that of ${\cal N}=6$ (see below the first two equations of eq. (\[N6susy\])), we have to decompose the ${\cal N}=5$ fermion fields as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DecomFerFld}
(\psi^a_A)_{{\cal N}=5}\rightarrow
\psi^{a\alpha}_A=\omega_{AB}\psi^{Ba}\delta_{1\alpha}
-\psi_{Aa}\delta_{2\alpha} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the right hand side contains ${\cal N}=6$ fermion fields. We further decompose the anti-symmetric tensor $\omega_{ab}$ and its inverse as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DecomMetr}\nonumber
\omega_{ab}\rightarrow
\omega_{a\alpha,b\beta}=\delta_a{}^b\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta}
-\delta^a{}_b\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta},\\
\omega^{ab}\rightarrow \omega^{a\alpha,b\beta}
=\delta_a{}^b\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}
-\delta^a{}_b\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Then the reality condition (\[RealCondi\]) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6RealCondi}
Z^{*A}_a= \bar Z_A^{a},\quad\quad \psi^{*Aa}=\psi_{Aa},\end{aligned}$$ in agreement with those for ${\cal N}=6$ theories. This justifies the above decomposition (\[DecomMetr\]) of the anti-symmetric tensor of the ${\cal N}=5$ 3-algebra to derive the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra.
To be compatible with the decomposition of scalar and fermion fields, one has to decompose the gauge fields as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6GaugFld}
(\tilde{A}_\mu{}^a{}_b)_{{\cal N}=5}\rightarrow
\tilde{A}_\mu{}^{a\alpha}{}_{b\beta}=
\tilde{A}_\mu{}^a{}_b\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}
-\tilde{A}_\mu{}^b{}_a\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{2\beta} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the right hand side is a direct sum of ${\cal N}=6$ gauge fields and their complex conjugates. Since our gauge fields $(\tilde{A}_\mu{}^c{}_d)_{{\cal N}=5}$ are defined in terms of the structure constants of a 3-algebra, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde{A}_\mu{}^c{}_d)_{{\cal
N}=5}=(A_\mu^{ab}f_{abd}{}^{c})_{{\cal N}=5} ,\end{aligned}$$ (see also Eq. (\[PhysGaugeFld\])), we have to decompose its structure constants properly to result in the desired decomposition Eq. (\[N6GaugFld\]). We find that Eq. (\[N6GaugFld\]) indeed follows from the decomposition of the structure constants given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DecomStrucConst}\nonumber
(\omega_{de}f_{abc}{}^e)_{{\cal N}=5}&\rightarrow& \omega_{d\delta,e\eta}f_{a\alpha,b\beta,c\gamma}{}^{e\eta}\nonumber\\
&=&f^{ac}{}_{db}\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}\delta_{2\gamma}\delta_{1\delta}
+f^{ad}{}_{cb}\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}\delta_{1\gamma}\delta_{2\delta}\nonumber\\
&&+f^{bc}{}_{da}\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta}\delta_{2\gamma}\delta_{1\delta}
+f^{bd}{}_{ca}\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta}\delta_{1\gamma}\delta_{2\delta},\end{aligned}$$ combined with the decomposition of $(A_\mu^{ab})_{{\cal N}=5}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DecomGauFld}
(A_\mu^{ab})_{{\cal N}=5}\rightarrow
A_\mu^{a\alpha,b\beta}=-\frac{1}{2}(A_\mu{}^a{}_b\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta}
+A_\mu{}^b{}_a\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}) .\end{aligned}$$ With these decompositions, the ${\cal N}=6$ gauge fields become: (see the right side of Eq. (\[N6GaugFld\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6PhyGaugFld}
\tilde{A}_\mu{}^{c}{}_{d}=A_\mu{}^b{}_af^{ca}{}_{bd} .\end{aligned}$$ Later we will identify the above $f^{ca}{}_{bd}$ in the right side of eq. (\[DecomStrucConst\]) as the structure constants of the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra. With eq. (\[DecomMetr\]) and (\[DecomStrucConst\]), the reality condition of the structure constants (\[RealCondiOnF\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RealCondiOnN6F}
f^{*ab}{}_{cd}=f^{cd}{}_{ab} ,\end{aligned}$$ as desired for the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra [@Bagger08:3Alg; @ChenWu1].
Since we decompose a matter field as a direct sum of a ${\cal N}=6$ matter field and its *complex conjugate*, it is necessary to decompose a generator of the 3-algebra as a direct sum of a generator of a 3-algebra and its *complex conjugate*. This can be accomplished by setting $$\begin{aligned}
(T_{a})_{{\cal N}=5}\rightarrow T_{a\alpha} &=&\bar
t_{a}\delta_{1\alpha}-t^{a}\delta_{2\alpha} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $t^a$ is a generator of the 3-algebra, and $\bar{t}_a$ its complex conjugate.
The hermitian bilinear form of two ${\cal N}=5$ fields will be (for instance): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
(Z^{*a}_{1A}Z_{2A}^a)_{{\cal N}=5}
&=&(\omega_{ab}\omega^{AB}Z_{1B}^bZ_{2A}^a)_{{\cal N}=5}\\
\nonumber &\rightarrow&\omega_{a\alpha, b\beta}
\omega^{AB}Z_{1B}^{b\beta}Z_{2A}^{a\alpha}\\
&=&\bar Z_{2A}^aZ^A_{1a}+\bar Z_{1A}^aZ^A_{2a}.\end{aligned}$$ Namely, it becomes a sum of the hermitian bilinear form of two ${\cal N}=6$ fields and its complex conjugate. Generally speaking, the hermitian bilinear form of two arbitrary ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra valued fields will become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6InnerProd}
h(X,Y)=X^*_aY_a\equiv \bar{X}^aY_a.\end{aligned}$$
The reality condition (\[RealCondiOnN6F\]) and Eq. (\[DecomStrucConst\]) imply that the ${\cal N}=5$ 3-bracket (\[Symp3Bracket\]) can be decomposed as a direct sum of ${\cal
N}=6$ brackets and their complex conjugates as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DecomBracket}\nonumber
[T_a,T_b; T_c]_{{\cal N}=5}&\rightarrow &[T_{a\alpha},T_{b\beta};
T_{c\gamma}]\\
\nonumber&=&[t^a,t^c;\bar{t}_b]\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}\delta_{2\gamma}
+[t^a,t^c;\bar{t}_b]^*\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta}\delta_{1\gamma}\\
&&
+[t^b,t^c;\bar{t}_a]\delta_{1\alpha}\delta_{2\beta}\delta_{2\gamma}
+[t^b,t^c;\bar{t}_a]^*\delta_{2\alpha}\delta_{1\beta}\delta_{1\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the 3-brackets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6Bracket}
[t^a,t^c;\bar{t}_b]=f^{ac}{}_{bd}t^d .\end{aligned}$$ are those for the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra. Such 3-brackets were first proposed by Bagger and Lambert [@Bagger08:3Alg] for a ${\cal
N}=6$ CSM theory. An unusual feature of the 3-brackets is that it involves complex conjugate for the third generator. Our above decomposition from the ${\cal N}=5$ 3-algebra reveals clearly the origin of the need for complex conjugation of the third generator.
Later we will see that the structure constants defined in Eq. (\[N6Bracket\]) are indeed *anti-symmetric* in the first two indices. (See Eq. (\[SymmeOfN6F\]).) With Eq. (\[DecomBracket\]), the fundamental identity (\[FFI\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6FI}
f^{fc}{}_{dg}f^{ag}{}_{eb}-f^{af}{}_{gb}f^{gc}{}_{de}
+f^{cf}{}_{eg}f^{ag}{}_{db}-f^{ac}{}_{gb}f^{gf}{}_{ed}=0 ,\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Also the constraint condition (\[ConstraintOn3Bracket\]) on the structure constants and the symmetry properties (\[SymmeOfF\]) of the structure constants reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SymmeOfN6F}
f^{ab}{}_{cd}=-f^{ba}{}_{cd}=f^{ba}{}_{dc} .\end{aligned}$$ One easily recognizes that eqs. (\[N6InnerProd\]), (\[N6Bracket\]), (\[N6FI\]), (\[RealCondiOnN6F\]), and (\[SymmeOfN6F\]) are those defining the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra used in ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg]. (The relation between the ${\cal
N}=6$ 3-algebra and super Lie algebra was discussed in Ref. [@Jakob].)
Substituting Eq. (\[DecomScaFld\]), (\[DecomFerFld\]), (\[DecomStrucConst\]), and (\[DecomGauFld\]) into the ${\cal
N}=5$ Lagrangian (\[GeneN5Lagran\]) and the SUSY transformation law (\[GeneSusyTransLaw\]), and using the $Sp(4)$ identity (\[Sp4Id1\]) and (\[Sp4Id2\]), we reproduces the ${\cal N}=6$ Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6Lagrangian}
\nonumber {\cal L} &=& -D_\mu
\bar{Z}_A^aD^\mu Z^A_a - i\bar\psi^{Aa}\gamma^\mu D_\mu\psi_{Aa}\\
\nonumber && -if^{ab}{}_{cd}\bar\psi^{Ad} \psi_{Aa}
Z^B_b\bar{Z}_B^c+2if^{ab}{}_{cd}\bar\psi^{Ad}
\psi_{Ba}Z^B_b\bar{Z}_A^c\\ \nonumber
&&-\frac{i}{2}\varepsilon_{ABCD}f^{ab}{}_{cd}\bar\psi^{Ac}
\psi^{Bd}Z^C_aZ^D_b -\frac{i}{2}\varepsilon^{ABCD}f^{cd}{}_{ab}
\bar\psi_{Ac}\psi_{Bd}\bar{Z}_C^a\bar{Z}_D^b \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}
(f^{ab}{}_{cd}A_{\mu}{}^c{}_b\partial_\nu A_{\lambda}{}^d{}_a
+\frac{2}{3}f^{ac}{}_{dg}f^{ge}{}_{fb}
A_{\mu}{}^b{}_aA_{\nu}{}^d{}_c A_{\lambda}{}^f{}_e)\\ \nonumber &&
-\frac{2}{3}(f^{ab}{}_{cd}f^{ed}{}_{fg}
-\frac{1}{2}f^{eb}{}_{cd}f^{ad}{}_{fg})\bar{Z}_A^c Z^A_e\bar{Z}_B^f
Z^B_a\bar{Z}_D^g Z^D_b ,\end{aligned}$$ and the ${\cal N}=6$ SUSY transformation law reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N6susy}
\nonumber \delta Z^A_d &=& -i\bar\epsilon^{AB}\psi_{Bd} \\
\nonumber
\delta \bar{Z}_{A}^{d}
&=& -i\bar\epsilon_{AB}\psi^{Bd} \\
\nonumber
\delta \psi_{Bd} &=& \gamma^\mu D_\mu Z^A_d\epsilon_{AB} +
f^{ab}{}_{cd}Z^C_aZ^A_b \bar{Z}_{C}^{c} \epsilon_{AB}+f^{ab}{}_{cd}
Z^C_a Z^D_{b} \bar{Z}_{B}^{c}\epsilon_{CD} \\
\delta \psi^{Bd} &=& \gamma^\mu D_\mu \bar{Z}_A^d\epsilon^{AB} +
f^{cd}{}_{ab}\bar{Z}_C^a \bar{Z}_A^b Z^{C}_{c} \epsilon^{AB}
+f^{cd}{}_{ab}\bar{Z}_C^a \bar{Z}_D^{b} Z^{B}_{c}\epsilon^{CD} \\
\nonumber
\delta \tilde A_\mu{}^c{}_d &=&
-i\bar\epsilon_{AB}\gamma_\mu Z^A_a\psi^{Bb} f^{ca}{}_{bd} +
i\bar\epsilon^{AB}\gamma_\mu \bar{Z}_{A}^{a}\psi_{Bb}f^{cb}{}_{ad}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the SUSY transformation parameters $\epsilon_{AB}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{AB}&=&-\epsilon_{BA}\\
\epsilon^*_{AB}&=&\epsilon^{AB}
=\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{ABCD}\epsilon_{CD}\end{aligned}$$
Now the parameters $\epsilon_{AB}$ transform as the $\bf 6$ of $SU(4)$. It is in this sense that the global ${\cal N}=5$ SUSY gets enhanced to ${\cal N}=6$. The Lagrangian (\[N6Lagrangian\]) and the transformation law (\[N6susy\]) are the same as the ones obtained in the 3-algebra approach for ${\cal N}=6$ theories in ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg].
The ${\cal N}=6$ superconformal CSM theories in three dimensions can be classified by super Lie algebras [@GaWi; @Hosomichi:2008jb; @Kac] or by using group theory [@Schn]. Two primary types are allowed: with gauge group $U(M)\times U(N)$ and $Sp(2N)\times U(1)$, respectively. In the next two subsections we will drive these two theories by specifying the structure constants of the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra.
${\cal N}=6$, $Sp(2N)\times U(1)$ {#Sp2NU1}
---------------------------------
The Lagrangian and SUSY transformation law for this theory were first constructed in ref. [@ChenWu1], starting from a formalism for the symplectic 3-algebra, involving an anti-symmetric tensor, that is different from the 3-algebra formalism of Bagger and Lambert [@Bagger08:3Alg]. Here we would like to present the theory completely in the framework of ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg]. We first specify the structure constants as [^5] $$\label{SyplStruc1}
\omega_{a-,e+}\omega_{b-,f+}f^{e+,f+}{}_{c+,d+} =
-k[(\omega_{ab}\omega_{cd}
+\omega_{ac}\omega_{bd})h_{+-}h_{+-}+(\omega_{ad}\epsilon_{+-})(\omega_{bc}
\epsilon_{+-})],$$ where $k$ is a real constant, $\omega^{ab}$ an antisymmetric bilinear form ($a,b=1,2,\cdots,2N$), $h_{+-}=h_{-+}=1$ and $\epsilon_{+-}=-\epsilon_{-+}=ih_{+-}$. Here $a,b$ are the $Sp(2N)$ indices while $+,-$ the $SO(2)$ indices. And $\omega_{a-,e+}\equiv
\omega_{ae}h_{-+}$ is the gauge invariant antisymmetric tensor. Since $\omega_{a-,e+}$ is non-singular, Eq. (\[SyplStruc1\]) is equivalent to the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{a+,b+}{}_{c+,d+} &=&k(\omega^{ab}\omega_{cd} +\delta^a{}_d\delta^b{}_c
-\delta^a{}_c{}\delta^b{}_d)\delta^{+}{}_{+}\delta^{+}{}_{+}.\end{aligned}$$ Suppressing the $SO(2)$ indices gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SyplStruc}
f^{ab}{}_{cd} &=&k(\omega^{ab}\omega_{cd} +\delta^a{}_d\delta^b{}_c
-\delta^a{}_c{}\delta^b{}_d).\end{aligned}$$ It is not too difficult to check that the structure constants satisfy the FI (\[N6FI\]) and the reality condition (\[RealCondiOnN6F\]), and also have the desired symmetry properties (\[SymmeOfN6F\]). We see that *after* suppressing the $SO(2)$ indices, the structure constants are the same as the components of an embedding tensor in Ref. [@Bergshoeff].
In fact, in accordance with Eqs. (\[N6PhyGaugFld\]) and (\[SyplStruc\]), the gauge fields can be decompoesed into two parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde A_\mu{}^c{}_d &=& A_\mu{}^b{}_af^{ca}{}_{bd}\\
\nonumber
&=&-(A_{\mu d}{}^{c}+A_\mu{}^c{}_d)+(A_\mu{}^a{}_a)\delta^c{}_d \\
\nonumber &\equiv & B_\mu{}^c{}_d+A_\mu\delta^c{}_d.\end{aligned}$$ It is natural to identify $A_\mu$ as the $U(1)$ part of the gauge potential, and $B_\mu{}^c{}_d$ as the $Sp(2N)$ part. The reason is that we can recast $B_\mu{}^c{}_d$ as $A_\mu^{ab}(t_{ab})^c{}_d$, where $(t_{ab})^c{}_d$ is in the fundamental representation of the Lie algebra of $Sp(2N)$.
We substitute the structure constants (\[SyplStruc\]) into (\[N6susy\]). We then obtain the ${\cal N}=6$ (on-shell) SUSY transformation law in the theory (see Appendix B.1). The equations of motion can be derived from the Lagrangian obtained by substituting eqs. (\[SyplStruc\]) into the Lagrangian (\[N6Lagrangian\]) and replacing $ A_\mu{}^b{}_a$ by $\frac{1}{k} A_\mu{}^b{}_a$ (see Appendix B.1). The SUSY transformation law (\[SyplSusyTrasf\]) and the Lagrangian (\[SymplLagrangian\]) are indeed in agreement with the ${\cal N}=6, Sp(2M)\times U(1)$ superconformal CSM theory derived from the symplectic 3-algebra in ref. [@ChenWu1], or from the ordinary Lie algebra in ref. [@Hosomichi:2008jb].
${\cal N}=6$, $U(M)\times U(N)$ {#UMUN}
-------------------------------
The Lagrangian this theory has been constructed in ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg]. For this paper to be self-contained, it is worth to present the Lagrangian and SUSY transformation law of $D=3,
{\cal N}=6$, $U(M)\times U(N)$ theory in this subsection.
To generate a direct gauge group such as $U(M)\times U(N)$, we split up a *lower* 3-algebra index $a$ into two indices: $a\rightarrow n\hat n$, where $n=1,...,M$ is a fundamental index of $U(M)$, $\hat n= 1,...,N$ an anti-fundamental index of $U(N)$. With this decomposition, the hermitian inner product (\[N6InnerProd\]) can be written as a trace: $$X^*_aY_{a}\rightarrow X^*_{n\hat{n}}Y_{n\hat{n}}= X^{*{\rm
t}}_{\hat{n}n}Y_{n\hat{n}}\equiv {\rm Tr}(X^\dag Y) ,$$ where the superscript “t" stands for the usual transpose. On the other hand, according to the definition (\[N6InnerProd\]), the hermitian inner product can be also written as: $X^*_aY_{a}\equiv
\bar{X}^aY_{a}$, which leads us to decompose an *upper* index $a$ as $a\rightarrow \hat nn$. Thus the hermitian inner product can be written as $$X^*_aY_{a}\equiv \bar{X}^aY_{a}\rightarrow \bar{X}^{\hat nn}Y_{n\hat
n}\equiv {\rm Tr}(\bar{X}Y)={\rm Tr}(X^\dag Y).$$ We then specify the 3-bracket $(\ref{N6Bracket})$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Unitary3Bracket}
[t^{\hat kk}, t^{\hat ll}; \bar{t}_{m\hat{m}}]=k(\delta^{\hat
k}{}_{\hat m}\delta^l{}_m t^{\hat lk}-\delta^{\hat l}{}_{\hat
m}\delta^k{}_m t^{\hat kl}) .\end{aligned}$$ The structure constants can be easily read off as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{UnitaryStruc}
f^{\hat kk,\hat ll}{}_{m\hat{m},n\hat n}=k(\delta^{\hat k}{}_{\hat
m}\delta^{\hat l}{}_{\hat n}\delta^k{}_n\delta^l{}_m -\delta^{\hat
k}{}_{\hat n}\delta^{\hat l}{}_{\hat m}\delta^k{}_m\delta^l{}_n).\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to check that the structure constants $f^{\hat
kk,\hat ll}{}_{m\hat{m},n\hat n}$ satisfy the FI (\[N6FI\]) and the reality conditions (\[RealCondiOnN6F\]), and has the symmetry properties (\[SymmeOfN6F\]). The structure constants are first discovered by BL [@Bagger08:3Alg] (though they did not write down Eq. (\[UnitaryStruc\]) explicitly), and they are also the same as the components of an embedding tensor in Ref. [@Bergshoeff].
Now let us show that the 3-bracket (\[Unitary3Bracket\]) is indeed equivalent to Bagger and Lambert’s 3-bracket [@Bagger08:3Alg]. Writing $X=X_{k\hat k}t^{\hat kk}$, and $\bar Z=\bar{Z}^{\hat
mm}\bar{t}_{m\hat{m}}$, by Eq. (\[Unitary3Bracket\]), one can get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BL3Bracket}
[X, Y; \bar{Z}]=k(X\bar{Z}Y-Y\bar{Z}X)_{n\hat n} t^{\hat nn} .\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side is the ordinary matrix multiplication. It is exactly the same as Eq. (53) of Ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg]. In accordance with eq. (\[UnitaryStruc\]), the gauge fields can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\tilde{A}_\mu{}^{\hat kk}{}_{n\hat n}&=& A_\mu{}^{\hat
mm}{}_{l\hat l}f^{\hat kk,\hat ll}{}_{m\hat{m},n\hat n}\\
\nonumber &=&A_\mu{}^{\hat kl}{}_{l\hat n}\delta^k{}_n-A_\mu{}^{\hat
lk}{}_{n\hat l }\delta^{\hat k}{}_{\hat n}\\
&\equiv& \hat{A}_\mu{}^{\hat k}{}_{\hat n}\delta^k{}_n
+A_\mu{}^{k}{}_{n}\delta^{\hat k}{}_{\hat n} .\end{aligned}$$ So the 3-bracket (\[BL3Bracket\]) and the FI (\[N6FI\]) generate a $U(M)\times U(N)$ gauge group [@Bagger08:3Alg], with $\hat{A}_\mu{}^{\hat k}{}_{\hat n}$ the $U(M)$ part and $A_\mu{}^{k}{}_{n}$ the $U(N)$ part of the gauge potential.
The supersymmetry transformation law and the Lagrangian in this theory can be obtained by substituting the expression (\[UnitaryStruc\]) of the structure constants into eqs. (\[N6susy\]) and (\[N6Lagrangian\]), and replacing $A_\mu{}^b{}_a$ by $\frac{1}{k} A_\mu{}^b{}_a$. To make the paper self-contained, we include the results in Appendix B.2. The SUSY transformation law (\[UnitarySusyTrasf\]) and the Lagrangian (\[ABJM\]) are in agreement with the $D=3, {\cal N}=6$ $U(M)\times
U(N)$ CSM theory, which has been derived from the ordinary Lie algebra approach in ref. [@Hosomichi:2008jb] and from the 3-algebra approach in ref. [@Bagger08:3Alg].
This theory is conjectured to be the dual gauge theory of M2 branes a $\textbf{C}^4/\textbf{Z}_k$ singularity. If $M=N$, this theory becomes the well-known ABJM model [@ABJM; @Benna; @Schwarz].
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we first introduce an anti-symmetric tensor $\omega_{ab}$ into a 3-algebra, with structure constants of the 3-bracket being *symmetric* in the first two indices. We call it a symplectic 3-algebra. We then construct the general ${\cal N}=5$ superconformal CSM theory with $Sp(4)$ R-symmetry in three dimensions in terms of this symplectic 3-algebra. All matter fields take values in this symplectic 3-algebra. The gauge symmetry is generated by the 3-bracket and FI. By specifying the 3-brackets, we provide the ${\cal N}=5, Sp(2N)\times O(M)$ CSM theory as an example of our theory. It would be nice to see if CSM theories with other gauge groups (for example, $G_2\times SU(2)$ [@Bergshoeff]) for multiple M2 branes can be generated in a similar way with the 3-algebra approach. Also it would be interesting to generalize the symplectic 3-algebra theory, so that it can describe CSM quiver gauge theories.
We have succeeded in enhancing the ${\cal N}=5$ supersymmetry to ${\cal N}=6$ by decomposing the sympelctic 3-algebra and the fields properly. At the same time, we also demonstrate that the FI and the symmetry and reality properties of the structure constants of the ${\cal N}=6$ 3-algebra can be derived from the ${\cal N}=5$ counterparts. Hence some of ${\cal N}=5, 6$ superconformal CSM theories are described by a unified sympletic 3-algebraic framework. It would be nice to investigate the relation between these two kinds of 3-algebras further. By specifying the 3-brackets, the ${\cal
N}=6$, $Sp(2N)\times U(1)$ and $U(M)\times U(N)$ CSM, including the ABJM theory, are derived. We also compare the approach used in our previous paper [@ChenWu1] with that of this paper. The same theory ($Sp(2N)\times U(1)$) are derived by starting from different 3-algebra formalisms.
It would be nice to construct the ${\cal N}\leq4$ superconformal CSM theories [@MFM:Aug09; @Saemann2] for multiple M2 branes in terms of 3-algebras.
Acknowledgement
===============
We would like to thank Yong-Shi Wu for useful discussions. We also thank the referee for comments.
Conventions and Useful Identities {#Identities}
=================================
In $1+2$ dimensions, the gamma matrices are defined as $\{\gamma_\mu, \gamma_\nu\}= 2\eta_{\mu\nu}$. For the metric we use the $(-,+,+)$ convention. The gamma matrices can be defined as the Pauli matrices: $\gamma_\mu=(i\sigma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_3)$, satisfying the important identity $$\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu=\eta_{\mu\nu}+\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}\gamma^{\lambda}.$$ We also define $\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}=-\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}$. So $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}\varepsilon^{\rho\nu\lambda} =
-2\delta_\mu{}^\rho$. The Fierz transformation is $$(\bar\lambda\chi)\psi = -\frac{1}{2}(\bar\lambda\psi)\chi
-\frac{1}{2} (\bar\lambda\gamma_\nu\psi)\gamma^\nu\chi.$$ Some useful $Sp(4)$ identities are $$\begin{aligned}
\bar\epsilon^{AC}_1\epsilon_{2C}{}^{B}
-\bar\epsilon^{AC}_2\epsilon_{1C}{}^{B}&=&
\bar\epsilon^{BC}_1\epsilon_{2C}{}^{A}
-\bar\epsilon^{BC}_2\epsilon_{1C}{}^{A}\\
\frac{1}{2}\bar\epsilon^{CD}_1\gamma_\nu\epsilon_{2CD}\,\delta^A_B
&=&\bar\epsilon^{AC}_1\gamma_\nu\epsilon_{2BC}
-\bar\epsilon^{AC}_2\gamma_\nu\epsilon_{1BC}\\
\nonumber
2\bar\epsilon^{AC}_1\epsilon_{2BD}
-2\bar\epsilon^{AC}_2\epsilon_{1BD}
&=&\bar\epsilon^{CE}_1\epsilon_{2DE}\delta^A_B
-\bar\epsilon^{CE}_2\epsilon_{1DE}\delta^A_B\\
\nonumber
&-&\bar\epsilon^{AE}_1\epsilon_{2DE}\delta^C_B
+\bar\epsilon^{AE}_2\epsilon_{1DE}\delta^C_B\\
&+& \bar\epsilon^{AE}_1\epsilon_{2BE}\delta^C_D
-\bar\epsilon^{AE}_2\epsilon_{1BE}\delta^C_D\\
\nonumber
&-& \bar\epsilon^{CE}_1\epsilon_{2BE}\delta^A_D
+\bar\epsilon^{CE}_2\epsilon_{1BE}\delta^A_D\\
\nonumber \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{ABCD}
\bar\epsilon^{EF}_1\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{2EF}
&=&\bar\epsilon_{1AB}\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{2CD}
-\bar\epsilon_{2AB}\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{1CD}\\
&+& \bar\epsilon_{1AD}\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{2BC}
-\bar\epsilon_{2AD}\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{1BC}\\
\nonumber
&-&\bar\epsilon_{1BD}\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{2AC}
+\bar\epsilon_{2BD}\gamma_\mu\epsilon_{1AC}\\
\varepsilon^{ABCD}&=&-\omega^{AB}\omega^{CD}
+\omega^{AC}\omega^{BD}-\omega^{AD}\omega^{BC}.\end{aligned}$$ The $Sp(4)$ indices can lowered and raised by the anti-symmetric tensor $\omega_{AB}$ and its inverse $\omega^{AB}$.
SUSY Transformation Law and Lagrangian in $D=3$, ${\cal N}=6$ CSM Theories
==========================================================================
For this paper to be self contained, below we give the explicit form of the SUSY transformation law and the Lagrangian for the $D=3,
{\cal N}=6$ CSM theories with $SU(4)$ $R$-symmetry. For the notations, see the corresponding subsections in the text.
$Sp(2N)\times U(1)$ CSM Theory
------------------------------
The Lagrangian of the theory is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SymplLagrangian}
\nonumber {\cal L} &=& -D_\mu \bar{Z}_A^aD^\mu Z^A_a -
i\bar\psi^{Aa}\gamma^\mu D_\mu\psi_{Aa} \\
&& +ik(\bar{Z}^b_B\bar \psi_{Ab}\psi^{Aa}Z^B_a-\bar Z_B^b
Z^B_b\bar\psi^{Aa}\psi_{Aa}-\bar
Z_B^c\omega_{cd}\bar\psi^{Ad}\psi_{Aa}\omega^{ab}Z^B_b)\\
\nonumber && -2ik(\bar{Z}^b_B\bar \psi_{Ab}\psi^{Ba}Z^A_a-\bar Z_B^b
Z^A_b\bar\psi^{Ba}\psi_{Aa}-\bar
Z_B^c\omega_{cd}\bar\psi^{Bd}\psi_{Aa}\omega^{ab}Z^A_b)\\
\nonumber && -ik\varepsilon^{ABCD}(\bar{Z}^a_A\bar \psi_{Ba}\bar
Z_C^b\psi_{Db}-\frac{1}{2}\bar Z_A^c\omega_{cd}\bar
Z_C^d\bar\psi_{Ba}\omega^{ab}\psi_{Db})\\
\nonumber &&-ik\varepsilon_{ABCD}(\bar\psi^{Ba}Z_a^A\psi^{Db}Z^C_b
-\frac{1}{2}Z^A_a\omega^{ab} Z^C_b\bar\psi^{Bc}
\omega_{cd}\psi^{Dd})\\ \nonumber
&&+\frac{1}{2k}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}A_\mu\partial_\nu
A_\lambda-\frac{1}{4k}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}
{\rm Tr}(B_\mu\partial_\nu B_\lambda +\frac{2}{3}B_\mu B_\nu B_\lambda)\\
\nonumber &&-3k^2Z^B_a\omega^{ab}Z^D_b\bar Z_D^eZ^A_e \bar
Z_A^c\omega_{cd}\bar Z_B^d
+\frac{5k^2}{3}\bar Z_A^aZ^B_a \bar Z_B^bZ^D_b\bar Z_D^cZ^A_c\\
\nonumber &&-2k^2\bar Z_A^aZ^B_a\bar Z_D^bZ^D_b\bar Z_B^c Z^A_c
+\frac{k^2}{3}\bar Z_B^aZ^B_a\bar Z_D^bZ^D_b\bar Z_A^c Z^A_c .\end{aligned}$$
The SUSY transformation laws are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SyplSusyTrasf}
\nonumber \delta Z^A_d &=& -i\bar\epsilon^{AB}\psi_{Bd} \\
\nonumber
\delta \bar{Z}_{A}^{d} &=& -i\bar\epsilon_{AB}\psi^{Bd} \\
\nonumber
\delta \psi_{Bd} &=& \gamma^\mu D_\mu Z^A_d\epsilon_{AB} -
kZ^C_a\omega^{ab}Z^A_b \omega_{dc}\bar{Z}_{C}^{c} \epsilon_{AB}-k
Z^C_a \omega^{ab}Z^D_{b}\omega_{dc}\bar{Z}_{B}^{c}\epsilon_{CD}
\\ \nonumber
&&-k\bar Z_C^a Z^C_a Z^A_d\epsilon_{AB}+k\bar Z_C^a Z^A_a
Z^C_d\epsilon_{AB}-2k\bar Z_B^a Z^C_a Z^D_d\epsilon_{CD}
\\ \nonumber
\delta \psi^{Bd} &=& \gamma^\mu D_\mu \bar{Z}_A^d\epsilon^{AB} -
k\bar{Z}_C^a \omega_{ab}\bar{Z}_A^b \omega^{dc}Z^{C}_{c}
\epsilon^{AB} -k\bar{Z}_C^a \omega_{ab}\bar{Z}_D^{b}
\omega^{dc}Z^{B}_{c}\epsilon^{CD}
\\ \nonumber &&-k\bar Z_C^a Z^C_a \bar Z_A^d\epsilon^{AB}
+k\bar Z_A^a Z^C_a \bar Z_C^d\epsilon^{AB} -2k\bar Z_C^a Z^B_a \bar
Z_D^d\epsilon^{CD}\\ \nonumber
\delta A_\mu &=&
-ik\bar\epsilon_{AB}\gamma_\mu \psi^{Ba}Z^A_a+
ik\bar\epsilon^{AB}\gamma_\mu \bar{Z}_{A}^{a}\psi_{Ba}\\
\nonumber \delta B_\mu{}^{c}{}_d &=& ik\bar\epsilon_{AB}\gamma_\mu
\omega^{ca}Z^A_a\omega_{db}\psi^{Bb} -i k\bar\epsilon^{AB}\gamma_\mu
\omega_{db}\bar Z_A^b\omega^{ca}\psi_{Ba}\\
&& +ik\bar\epsilon_{AB}\gamma_\mu Z^{A}_{d}\psi^{Bc}
-ik\bar\epsilon^{AB}\gamma_\mu \bar Z_{A}^{c}\psi_{Bd}.\end{aligned}$$
$U(M)\times U(N)$ CSM Theory
----------------------------
The Lagrangian of the theory is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ABJM}
\nonumber {\cal L} &=& -{\rm Tr}(D_\mu \bar{Z}_A D^\mu Z^A) -
i{\rm Tr}(\bar\psi^{A}\gamma^\mu D_\mu\psi_A) -V+{\cal L}_{CS}\\
\nonumber && -ik{\rm Tr}(\bar\psi^{A} \psi_{A} \bar{Z}_B
Z^B-\bar\psi^{A} Z^B \bar{Z}_B\psi_{A})\\
&&+2ik {\rm Tr}(\bar\psi^{A}\psi_{B} \bar{Z}_A Z^B
-\bar\psi^{A} Z^B \bar{Z}_A\psi_{B})\\ \nonumber
&&+ik\varepsilon_{ABCD}{\rm Tr}(\bar\psi^{A} Z^C\bar\psi^{B}Z^D)
-ik\varepsilon^{ABCD}{\rm Tr}(\bar{Z}_D \psi_A \bar{Z}_C\psi_B)\ .\end{aligned}$$ The Lagrangian (\[ABJM\]) is the same obtained by BL [@Bagger08:3Alg], except for that we re-scale the gauge fields by a factor $\frac{1}{k}$. The potential term is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber V&=&2k^2{\rm Tr}(\bar Z_AZ^A\bar Z_BZ^C\bar
Z_CZ^B)-\frac{4k^2}{3}{\rm Tr}(Z^A\bar Z_BZ^C\bar Z_AZ^B\bar Z_C)\\
&&-\frac{k^2}{3}{\rm Tr}(Z^A\bar Z_AZ^B\bar Z_BZ^C\bar Z_C+\bar
Z_AZ^A\bar Z_BZ^B\bar Z_CZ^C).\end{aligned}$$ The Chern-Simons term reads $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{CS}=\frac{1}{2k}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}{\rm
Tr}\bigg(\hat{A}_ \mu\partial_\nu\hat{A}_\lambda+\frac{2}{3}\hat{A}_
\mu\hat{A}_\nu\hat{A}_\lambda-A_ \mu\partial_\nu
A_\lambda-\frac{2}{3}A_ \mu A_\nu A_\lambda\bigg) .\end{aligned}$$
The ${\cal N}=6$ SUSY transformation laws, which are closed on-shell with the equations of motion derivable from the above lagrangian (\[ABJM\]), are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{UnitarySusyTrasf}
\nonumber \delta Z^A &=& -i\bar\epsilon^{AB}\psi_{B} \\
\nonumber
\delta \bar{Z}_{
A}&=& -i\bar\epsilon_{AB}\bar{\psi}^{B} \\
\nonumber \delta \psi_{B} &=& \gamma^\mu D_\mu Z^A\epsilon_{AB} +
k(Z^C\bar{Z}_C Z^A-Z^A\bar{Z}_C
Z^C)\epsilon_{AB}+2kZ^C\bar{Z}_BZ^D\epsilon_{CD}\\ \nonumber \delta
\bar{\psi}^{B} &=& \gamma^\mu D_\mu \bar{Z}_A\epsilon^{AB}+
k(\bar{Z}_AZ^C\bar{Z}_C -\bar{Z}_CZ^C\bar{Z}_A)\epsilon^{AB}+2k\bar
{Z}_DZ^B\bar{Z}_C\epsilon^{CD}\\ \nonumber
\delta\hat{A}_\mu&=&-ik\bar{\epsilon}_{AB}\gamma_\mu\bar{\psi}^B
Z^A+ik\bar{\epsilon}^{AB}\gamma_\mu\bar{Z}_A\psi_B\\
\delta A_\mu&=&ik\bar{\epsilon}_{AB}\gamma_\mu Z^A\bar{\psi}^B
-ik\bar{\epsilon}^{AB}\gamma_\mu\psi_B\bar{Z}_A .\end{aligned}$$
[99]{}
W. Chen, G.W. Semenoff and Y.S. Wu, “Scale and Conformal Invariance in Chern-Simons-Matter Field Theory”, Phys. Rev. D44, 1625 (1991).
W. Chen, G. Semenoff and Y.S. Wu, “Probing Topological Features in Perturbative Chern-Simons Gauge Theory”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A5, 1833 (1990).
W. Chen, G.W. Semenoff and Y.S. Wu, “Two-Loop Analysis of Chern-Simons-Matter Theory”, Phys. Rev. D46, 5521 (1992); arXiv:hep-th/9209005.
O.M. Del Cima, D.H.T. Franco, J.A. Helayel-Neto and O. Piguet, “An algebraic proof on the finiteness of Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory in D=3”, Lett. Math. Phys. 47, 265 (1999); arXiv:math-ph/9904030.
Nikolas Akerblom, Christian Saemann, Martin Wolf, “Marginal Deformations and 3-Algebra Structures", arXiv:0906.1705 \[hep-th\].
Y. Nambu, Generalized Hamiltonian mechanics, Phys. Rev. **D7** (1973), 2405-2412.
H. Awata, M. Li, D. Minic, T. Yoneya, “On the quantization of nambu brackets,” arXiv:hep-th/9906248.
Giulio Bonelli, Alessandro Tanzini, Maxim Zabzine, “Topological branes, p-algebras and generalized Nahm equations ,” Phys.Lett.B 672: 390-395, 2009, arXiv:0807.5113 \[hep-th\].
J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Modeling multiple M2’s,” Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 045020 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611108; J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Gauge Symmetry and Supersymmetry of Multiple M2-Branes,” Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 065008 (2008), arXiv:0711.0955 \[hep-th\]; J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Comments On Multiple M2-branes,” JHEP [**0802**]{}, 105 (2008), arXiv:0712.3738 \[hep-th\]. A. Gustavsson, “Algebraic structures on parallel M2-branes,” arXiv:0709.1260 \[hep-th\]; “Selfdual strings and loop space Nahm equations,” JHEP [**0804**]{}, 083 (2008), arXiv:0802.3456 \[hep-th\]. Marcus K. Benna, Igor R. Klebanov, Thomas Klose, “Charges of Monopole Operators in Chern-Simons Yang-Mills Theory,” arXiv:0906.3008 \[hep-th\].
Andreas Gustavsson, Soo-Jong Rey, “Enhanced N=8 Supersymmetry of ABJM Theory on R(8) and R(8)/Z(2),” arXiv:0906.3568 \[hep-th\].
O-Kab Kwon, Phillial Oh, Jongsu Sohn, “Notes on Supersymmetry Enhancement of ABJM Theory,” arXiv:0906.4333 \[hep-th\].
J. Distler, S. Mukhi, C. Papageorgakis and M. Van Raamsdonk, “M2-branes on M-folds,” JHEP [**0805**]{}, 038 (2008) arXiv:0804.1256 \[hep-th\].
N. Lambert and D. Tong, “Membranes on an Orbifold,” arXiv:0804.1114 \[hep-th\]. Chethan Krishnan, Carlo Maccaferri, “Membranes on Calibrations,” JHEP [**0807**]{}, 005 (2008) arXiv:0805.3125 \[hep-th\].
Jerome P. Gauntlett, Jan B. Gutowski, “Constraining Maximally Supersymmetric Membrane Actions,” arXiv:0804.3078 \[hep-th\]. G. Papadopoulos “M2-branes, 3-Lie Algebras and Plucker relations ," arXiv:0804.2662 \[hep-th\].
J. Gomis, G. Milanesi and J. G. Russo, “Bagger-Lambert Theory for General Lie Algebras,” arXiv:0805.1012 \[hep-th\]; S. Benvenuti, D. Rodriguez-Gomez, E. Tonni and H. Verlinde, “N=8 superconformal gauge theories and M2 branes,” arXiv:0805.1087 \[hep-th\]; P. M. Ho, Y. Imamura and Y. Matsuo, “M2 to D2 revisited,” arXiv:0805.1202 \[hep-th\]; M. A. Bandres, A. E. Lipstein and J. H. Schwarz, “Ghost-Free Superconformal Action for Multiple M2-Branes,” arXiv:0806.0054 \[hep-th\]; J. Gomis, D. Rodriguez-Gomez, M. Van Raamsdonk and H. Verlinde, “Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory From Lorentzian Three-Algebras,” arXiv:0806.0738 \[hep-th\]. O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” arXiv:0806.1218 \[hep-th\]. M. Benna, I. Klebanov, T. Klose and M. Smedback, “Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories and $AdS_4/CFT_3$ Correspondence,” arXiv:0806.1519 \[hep-th\]. Andreas Gustavsson, Soo-Jong Rey, “Enhanced N=8 Supersymmetry of ABJM Theory on R(8) and R(8)/Z(2),” arXiv:0906.3568 \[hep-th\].
M. Bandres, A. Lipstein and J. Schwarz “Studies of the ABJM Theory in Formulation with Manifest $SU(4)$ R-Symmetry,” arXiv:0807.0880 \[hep-th\]. E. A. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo and O. Hohm, “Multiple M2-branes and the Embedding Tensor,” arXiv:0804.2201 \[hep-th\]; E. A. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, O. Hohm and D. Roest, “Multiple Membranes from Gauged Supergravity,” arXiv:0806.2584 \[hep-th\]. E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, D. Roest, H. Samtleben and E. Sezgin, “The Superconformal Gaugings in Three Dimensions,” arXiv:0807.2841 \[hep-th\]. D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Janus Configurations, Chern-Simons Couplings, And The Theta-Angle in N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory,” arXiv:0804.2907 \[hep-th\]. K. Hosomichi, K. M. Lee, S. Lee, S. Lee and J. Park, “N=4 Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories with Hyper and Twisted Hyper Multiplets,” arXiv:0805.3662 \[hep-th\]. K. Hosomichi, K. M. Lee, S. Lee, S. Lee and J. Park, “N=5,6 Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories and M2-branes on Orbifolds,” arXiv:0806.4977 \[hep-th\]. O. Aharony, O. Bergman and D. L. Jafferis, “Fractional M2-branes,” arXiv:0807.4924 \[hep-th\]. J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Three-Algebras and N=6 Chern-Simons Gauge Theories,” arXiv:0807.0163 \[hep-th\]. Fa-Min Chen, Yong-Shi Wu, “Symplectic Three-Algebra and ${\cal
N}=6, Sp(2N)\times U(1)$ Superconformal Chern-Simons-Matter Theory ," arXiv:0902.3454\[hep-th\].
Jos¨¦ Figueroa-O’Farrill, “Simplicity in the Faulkner construction," arXiv:0905.4900 \[hep-th\].
Paul de Medeiros, Jos¨¦ Figueroa-O’Farrill, Elena M¨¦ndez-Escobar, Patricia Ritter, “On the Lie-algebraic origin of metric 3-algebras," arXiv:0809.1086 \[hep-th\].
Jakob Palmkvist, “Three-algebras, triple systems and 3-graded Lie superalgebras," arXiv:0905.2468 \[hep-th\]
M. Schnabl and Y. Tachikawa, “Classifiction of ${\cal N}=6$ superconformal theories of ABJM type,” arXiv:0807.1102 \[hep-th\]. V. G. Kac, “Lie Superalgebras,” Adv. Math. **26** (1977) 8.
Paul de Medeiros, Jos¨¦ Figueroa-O’Farrill, Elena M¨¦ndez-Escobar, “Superpotentials for superconformal Chern-Simons theories from representation theory,” arXiv:0908.2125 \[hep-th\].
S. Cherkis and C. Saemann, “Multiple M2-branes and generalized 3-Lie algebras,” Phys. Rev. D 78: 066019 (2008), arXiv:0807.0808 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: By our convention, the hermitian bilinear form is $h(T_a,T_b)=\delta^a{}_b$. In [@Bagger08:3Alg], it is denoted as $h_{\bar a b}$, which becomes $\delta_{\bar a b}$ in an orthonormal basis.
[^2]: We gave the name ‘symplectic 3-algebra’ in our previous paper [@ChenWu1].
[^3]: While we were writing this paper, the Ref. [[@Jose]]{} appeared which contains a definition of 3-algebra similar to our definition of symplectic 3-algebra of this paper. See also [@Jose2]. Maybe there is a connection between our approach and theirs.
[^4]: According to our convention, if $\delta_{\tilde{\Lambda}}Z^a_A= \tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_bZ^b_A$, we must set $\delta_{\tilde{\Lambda}}\tilde{A}_\mu{}^a{}_b=
-D_\mu\tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_b$ so that $\delta_{\tilde{\Lambda}}(D_\mu Z^a_A)= \tilde{\Lambda}^a{}_b(D_\mu
Z^b_A)$.
[^5]: In the Lagrangian (\[N6Lagrangian\]) of section \[N6\], the index $a$ runs from 1 to $L$. In this subsection, we split it into two indices: $a\rightarrow a\pm$, and set $L=4N$. We hope this will not cause any confusion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a theoretical study of the electronic structure of magnetically modulated graphene. We consider monolayer graphene in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field and a unidirectional weak magnetic modulation. The density of states and the bandwidth of the Dirac electrons in this system are determined. We have found magnetic Weiss oscillations in the bandwidth and the density of states. These oscillations are out of phase and larger in amplitude than the ones in the electrically modulated graphene. In addition, these oscillations are in phase and smaller in amplitude to those of magnetically modulated standard electron gas system.'
author:
- 'K. Sabeeh$^{1}$'
- 'M. Tahir$^{2\ast}$ and A. MacKinnon$^{2}$'
date: date
title: Electronic structure of magnetically modulated graphene
---
**INTRODUCTION**
=================
The successful preparation of monolayer graphene has allowed the possibility of studying the properties of electrons in this system[@1]. The nature of quasiparticles called Dirac electrons in these two-dimensional systems is very different from those of the conventional two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) systems realized in semiconductor heterostructures. Graphene has a honeycomb lattice of carbon atoms. The quasiparticles in graphene have a band structure in which electron and hole bands touch at two points in the Brillouin zone. At these Dirac points the quasiparticles obey the massless Dirac equation. In other words, they behave as massless Dirac particles leading to a linear dispersion relation $\epsilon_{k}=vk$ ( with the characteristic velocity $v\simeq10^{6}m/s)$. This difference in the nature of the quasiparticles in graphene from conventional 2DEG has given rise to a host of new and unusual phenomena such as anomalous quantum Hall effects and a $\pi$ Berry phase[@1; @2; @3]. Besides the fundamental interest in understanding the electronic properties of graphene there is also serious suggestions that it can serve as the building block for nanoelectronic devices [@4]. Since Dirac electrons can not be confined by electrostatic potentials due to the Klein’s paradox it was suggested that magnetic confinement be considered [@5]. Technology for this already exists as the required magnetic field can be created by having ferromagnetic or superconducting layers beneath the substrate [@6].
In conventional 2DEG systems, electron transport in the presence of electric[@7; @8; @9] and magnetic modulation[@10; @11; @12] has continued to be an active area of research. In graphene, electrical transport, density of states, bandwidth, thermodynamic properties and collective excitations in the presence of electrical modulation have been considered and theoretical predictions made [@13; @14; @15]. It is interesting to study the affects of the magnetic modulation on the Dirac electrons in a graphene monolayer and investigation in this direction has recently been carried out [@16; @17]. In this work we study the effects of magnetic modulation on the bandwidth ($\Delta$) and the density of states (DOS) of the Dirac electrons in graphene. Both these quantities are essential ingredients in studying problems such as electron transport, collective excitations and thermodynamic properties etc. We consider an external magnetic field perpendicular to the graphene monolayer that is modulated weakly and periodically along one direction. We find that the magnetic Weiss oscillations in the bandwidth and density of states are out of phase and larger in amplitude than the electric Weiss oscillations found in the corresponding electrically modulated system.
In section II, we present the formulation of the problem. Section III contains the calculation of the density of states. Bandwidth for magnetically modulated graphene is discussed in section IV followed by conclusions in section V.
FORMULATION
===========
We consider two-dimensional Dirac electrons in graphene moving in the x-y-plane. The magnetic field ($B$) is applied along the z-direction perpendicular to the graphene plane. The perpendicular magnetic field $B$ is modulated weakly and periodically along one direction such that $\mathbf{B}=(B+B_{0}\cos(Kx))\widehat{z}$. Here $B_{0}$ is the strength of the magnetic modulation. In this work we consider the modulation to be weak such that $B_{0}<<B$. We consider the graphene layer within the single electron approximation. The low energy excitations are described by the two-dimensional (2D) Dirac like Hamiltonian ($\hbar=c=1$ here) [@1; @2; @16]$$H=v\overleftrightarrow{\sigma}.(-i\nabla+e\overrightarrow{A}). \label{1}$$ Here $\overleftrightarrow{\sigma}=\{\overleftrightarrow{\sigma}_{x},\overleftrightarrow{\sigma}_{y}\}$ are the Pauli matrices and $v$ characterizes the electron velocity. We employ the Landau gauge and write the vector potential as $\overrightarrow{A}=(0,Bx+(B_{0}/K)\sin(Kx),0)$ where $K=2\pi/a$ and $a$ is the period of the modulation. The Hamiltonian given by Eq. (1) can be expressed as $$H=-iv\overleftrightarrow{\sigma}.\nabla+ev\overleftrightarrow{\sigma_{y}}Bx+ev\overleftrightarrow{\sigma_{y}}\frac{B_{0}}{K}\sin(Kx).$$ The above Hamiltonian can be written as$$H=H_{0}+V^{\prime}(x) \label{2}$$ where $H_{0}$ is the unmodulated Hamiltonian and $V^{\prime}$ is the perturbation potential due to the periodic magnetic field in one direction such that $$H_{0}=-iv\overleftrightarrow{\sigma}.\nabla+ev\overleftrightarrow{\sigma_{y}}Bx$$ and $$V^{\prime}(x)=\omega_{0}\overleftrightarrow{\sigma_{y}}\sin(Kx).$$ where $\omega_{0}=\frac{evB_{0}}{K}.$ The Landau level energy eigenvalues without modulation are given by$$\varepsilon(n)=\omega_{g}\sqrt{n} \label{3}$$ where $n$ is an integer and $\omega_{g}=v\sqrt{2eB}.$ As has been pointed out [@13; @16] the Landau level spectrum for Dirac electrons is significantly different from the spectrum for electrons in conventional 2DEG which is given as $\varepsilon(n)=\omega_{c}(n+1/2)$, where $\omega_{c}=eB/m$ is the cyclotron frequency.
The eigenfunctions without modulation are given by $$\Psi_{n,k_{y}}(r)=\frac{e^{ik_{y}y}}{\sqrt{2L_{y}}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}-i\Phi_{n-1}(x,x_{0})\\
\Phi_{n}(x,x_{0})
\end{array}
\right) \label{4}$$ where$$\Phi_{n}(x,x_{0})=\frac{e^{-(x-x_{0})^{2}/2l}}{\sqrt{2^{n}n!\sqrt{\pi}l}}H_{n}(\frac{x-x_{0}}{l})$$ where $l=\sqrt{1/eB}$ is the magnetic length, $x_{0}=l^{2}k_{y},$ $L_{y}$ is the $y$-dimension of the graphene layer and $H_{n}(x)$ are the Hermite polynomials. Since we are considering weak modulation $B_{0}<<$ $B$, we can apply standard perturbation theory to determine the first order corrections to the unmodulated energy eigenvalues in the presence of modulation$$\Delta\varepsilon_{_{n,k_{y}}}={\displaystyle\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}}
dx{\displaystyle\int\limits_{0}^{L_{y}}}
dy\Psi_{n,k_{y}}^{\ast}(r)H^{\prime}(x)\Psi_{n,k_{y}}(r) \label{5}$$ with the result$$\Delta\varepsilon_{_{n,k_{y}}}=\omega_{0}\cos(Kx_{0})\left( \frac{ 2\sqrt
{n}e^{-u/2}}{Kl}[L_{n-1}(u)-L_{n}(u)]\right) \label{6}$$ where $u=K^{2}l^{2}/2$ and $L_{n}(u)$ are the Laguerre polynomials. Hence the energy eigenvalues in the presence of modulation are $$\varepsilon(n,k_{y})=\varepsilon(n)+\Delta\varepsilon_{_{n,k_{y}}}=\omega
_{g}\sqrt{n}+\omega_{0}G_{n}(u)\cos(Kx_{0}) \label{7}$$ with $G_{n}(u)=\frac{2\sqrt{n}}{Kl}e^{-u/2}[L_{n-1}(u)-L_{n}(u)]$. We observe that the degeneracy of the Landau level spectrum of the unmodulated system with respect to $k_{y}$ is lifted in the presence of modulation with the explicit presence of $k_{y}$ in $x_{0}.$ The $n=0$ Landau level is different from the rest of the levels as the energy of this level vanishes and no modulation induced broadening of this level occurs. The rest of the Landau levels broaden into bands. The Landau bandwidths $\sim G_{n}$ oscillate as a function of $n$ since $L_{n}(u)$ are oscillatory functions of the index $n$.
Before we begin the calculation of the density of states and the bandwidth, it is necessary to discuss the regime of validity of the perturbation theory presented here. For large $n$ the level spacing given by Eq. (3) goes as $\omega_{g}(\sqrt{n}-\sqrt{(n-1)})\longrightarrow\omega_{g}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{n}}$ and the width of the $n$th level given by Eq.(6) goes as $\frac{2\omega
_{0}n^{1/2}}{Kl}.$ There is therefore a value of $n$ at which the width becomes equal to the spacing and the perturbation theory is no longer valid. This occurs when $n_{\max}=\sqrt{2}\pi^{2}\frac{B^{\prime}}{B_{0}}$ where $B^{\prime}=\frac{1}{ea^{2}}=0.0054T$ for a fixed value of $a=350nm$. For a fixed electron density and the period of modulation this suggests the maximum value of the magnetic modulation $B_{0}$ above which it is necessary to carry out a more sophisticated analysis.
At this stage we can compare the energy spectrum of Dirac electrons in magnetically modulated graphene with both the electrically modulated graphene system and the electrically modulated standard electron system. The differences are:
$\bullet$ The standard electron unperturbed energy eigenvalues depend linearly on the magnetic field and the quantum number $n$ while they depend on the square root of both the magnetic field and $n$ for the Dirac electrons in graphene.
$\bullet$ In magnetically modulated graphene, we have the difference of two successive Laguerre polynomials while for standard electrons and electrically modulated graphene, we have the sum and average of the two successive Laguerre polynomials respectively.
$\bullet$ In magnetically modulated graphene the perturbed energy eigenvalues due to modulation are multiplied by the square root of the Landau band index $\sqrt{n}$ that was absent in the expression for the electric case.
These differences will affect the density of states and the band width as we show in the next section. Note that for a weak magnetic modulation case under consideration the quantum numbers $n$ can be referred to as the magnetic Landau band indices and are equivalent to the Landau level quantum number $n$ for the unmodulated system. Thus the magnetic modulation induced broadening of energy spectrum is non-uniform, a feature which will be of significance in understanding the behavior of Dirac electrons in modulated graphene.
The Density of States (DOS)
===========================
It is well known that in the absence of both the magnetic field and modulation, the DOS consists of a series of delta functions at energies equal to $\varepsilon(n)$. The addition of a weak spatially periodic magnetic modulation however modifies the former delta function like DOS by broadening the singularities at the energies($\varepsilon(n)$) into bands. The density of states is given by$$D(\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{A}\underset{nk_{y}}{\sum}\delta(\varepsilon
-\varepsilon(n,k_{y})). \label{8}$$ The sum on $n$ extends over all occupied Landau levels and $A$ is area of the sample. By using the energy eigenvalues given in equation (7), we can express $D(\varepsilon)$ as: $$D(\varepsilon)=2\frac{1}{2\pi al^{2}}\underset{n}{\sum}\overset{a}{\underset{0}{\int}}dx_{0}\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{n}-\left\vert
G_{n}\right\vert \cos(Kx_{0})), \label{9}$$ where $\varepsilon_{n}=\omega_{g}\sqrt{n},$ and a factor $2$ is due to spin degeneracy. Evaluation of the $x_{0}-$integral in the above equation yields the zero temperature density of states of the density modulated two-dimensional Dirac electrons (DM2DDE): $$D(\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{\pi^{2}l^{2}}\underset{n}{\sum}\frac{1}{\sqrt
{\left\vert G_{n}\right\vert ^{2}-(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{n})^{2}}}\theta(\left\vert G_{n}\right\vert -\left\vert \varepsilon-\varepsilon
_{n}\right\vert ). \label{10}$$ where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside unit step function. Here we can see that the one-dimensional van Hove singularities of the inverse square-root type exist on either side of the low and high energy edges of the broadened Landau bands forming a double peak like structure.
The dimensionless density of state as a function of energy at $B=0.35T$ is shown graphically in Fig.(1) as a function of $1/B$, for both the magnetically and electrically modulated graphene using the following parameters [@13; @14; @15; @16]: $v\simeq10^{6}m/s$, $n_{D}=3\times10^{15}$ m$^{-2}$, $a=350$nm, $\omega_{0}$ = 1 meV, and $k_{F}=(2\pi n_{D})^{1/2}$ being the Fermi wave number of the unmodulated system in the absence of magnetic field. The modulation induced pronounced oscillations are apparent in the weak magnetic field regime, these are the Weiss oscillations, superimposed on SdH-type oscillations in the high field regime that are not induced in our results but it is interesting to highlight their characteristics. The origin of these two types of oscillations can be understood by a closer analytic examination of equation (10). In the regime $\omega_{g}>$ $\left\vert
G_{n}\right\vert $, the unit step function vanishes for all but the highest occupied Landau band corresponding, say, to the band index $N$. Hence the sum over $n$ is trivial. The analytic structure primarily responsible for the Weiss type of oscillations is the function $\theta(\left\vert G_{n}\right\vert
-\left\vert \varepsilon-\varepsilon_{n}\right\vert )$, which jumps periodically from zero (when the Fermi level is above the highest occupied Landau band) to unity (when the Fermi level is contained with in the highest occupied Landau band), these oscillations are with constant period in $1/B$ similar to the SdH type of oscillations in case of electrically modulated graphene but are out of phase and larger in amplitude$.$ On the other hand, modulation of the amplitude of the Weiss oscillations displayed in Fig. (1) is largely a consequence of the oscillatory factor $G_{N}$, which exhibits commensurability oscillations. We also find that the minima of the density of states in the magnetically modulated system occur at the maxima of the electrically modulated one with the result that the oscillations in the density of states in the two systems are out of phase. We also observe that broadening of the Landau levels is greater in magnetically modulated graphene compared to electrically modulated graphene. In addition, van Hove singularities forming double peak like structures appear at the low and high energy edges of the broadened Landau levels.
The Bandwidth ($\Delta)$
========================
To better appreciate the modulation of the amplitude of Weiss oscillations we plot the bandwidth as a function of the magnetic field in Fig. 3. The width of the $n$th Landau level is given as$$\Delta=2\left\vert G_{n}\right\vert =\frac{4\omega_{0}\sqrt{n}}{Kl}e^{-u/2}[L_{n-1}(u)-L_{n}(u)]\label{11}$$ This is clearly different from the electrically modulated graphene and magnetically modulated standard electron result [@10; @11; @12]. The bandwidth is plotted for $n=n_{F}$ where $n_{F}=E_{F}^{2}/\omega_{g}^{2}$ is the Landau level index at the Fermi energy similar to the electrically modulated graphene system\[to compare $n_{F}=\frac{E_{F}}{\omega_{c}}-\frac{1}{2},$with $\omega_{c}=\frac{eB}{m}$ for standard electrons in 2DEG\]. In Fig.(2) we present the bandwidths as a function of the magnetic field for both the magnetically modulated graphene and electrically modulated graphene. The parameters used in the figures are: $v\simeq10^{6}m/s$, $n_{D}=3\times10^{15}$ m$^{-2}$, $a=350$nm, $\omega_{0}$ = 1 meV, and $k_{F}=(2\pi n_{D})^{1/2}$. The bandwidths as a function of the magnetic field for the magnetically modulated graphene and magnetically modulated 2DEG are shown in Fig.(3). For the low magnetic fields under consideration, the magnetic modulation induced bandwidth in graphene is out of phase and larger in amplitude ($\sim1.5$ times larger at magnetic field $B=1T$) than the electric modulation induced bandwidth in graphene. In addition, it is in phase but with smaller amplitude ($\sim5$ times smaller at magnetic field $B=1T$) compared to the magnetically modulate 2DEG system.[@10; @11; @12]. An analysis of the observed change in amplitude of the oscillations in the bandwidths of the three systems considered here is presented in the next section.
Asymptotic Expression
---------------------
The asymptotic expression of bandwidth can be obtained by using the folowing asymptotic expression for the Laguerre polynomials in the limit of large $n$ as$$exp^{-u/2}L_{n}(u)\rightarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi\sqrt{nu}}}\cos(2\sqrt
{nu}-\frac{\pi}{4}) \label{12}$$ Using $n=n_{F}=E_{F}^{2}/\omega_{g}^{2}$ and substituting the asymptotic expression given by equation (12) into equation (11) yields the asymptotic expression for the bandwidth$$\Delta=\frac{8\omega_{0}\sqrt{n_{F}}}{Kl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi\sqrt{n_{F}u}}}\sin\left( 1/2\sqrt{u/n_{F}}\right) \sin\left( 2\sqrt{n_{F}u}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right) ,$$$$\Delta=\frac{8\omega_{0}}{Kl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi^{2}R_{g}}{an_{F}}}}\sin\left( \frac{\pi R_{g}}{2an_{F}}\right) \sin\left( \frac{2\pi R_{g}}{a}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right) , \label{13}$$ where we have rewritten equation (11) containing $u=K^{2}l^{2}/2$ in terms of the ratio of the semi-classical orbital radius $R_{g}$ and the modulation period $a$.
To better understand the increase in amplitude in the magnetically modulated graphene system compared to the electrically modulated one we consider the difference in bandwidths in the two cases [@13; @15]. Important feature is the additional $\sin\left( \frac{\pi R_{g}}{2an_{F}}\right) $ term and a factor of $\sqrt{n}$ in the perturbed energy eigenvalues for the magnetically modulated case which is absent in the electrically modulated case. For large value of $n$, $\sin\left( \frac{\pi R_{g}}{2an_{F}}\right) $ can be taken to be equal to $\frac{\pi R_{g}}{2an_{F}}$ and the amplitude of the oscillations in the bandwidth of the magnetically modulated graphene becomes smaller due to this factor compared to the magnetically modulated 2DEG. The result is that the bandwidth in the magnetically modulated $\left( \frac{2\sqrt{n}}{Kl}\sqrt{\frac{u}{n}}\approx1.5\right) $ case is approximately greater by a factor of $1.5\ $compared to the electrically modulated $\left( \frac{a}{\pi^{2}l\sqrt{\frac{K_{F}}{2eB}}}=0.87\right) $ graphene system at magnetic field strength $B$=$1$ Tesla and it is smaller by a factor of $5$ compared to the magnetically modulated ($\frac{aK_{F}}{2\pi}=7.6)$ standard electron gas.
Classical description
---------------------
We now give a classical explanation of the asymptotic expression of bandwidth obtained in equation (13) which is essentially a large $n$ expression. The classical equations of motion along the $x$ and $y$ directions are $x(t)=x_{0}+R_{g}sin(\omega_{g}t+\varphi)$ and $y(t)=y_{0}+R_{g}cos(\omega
_{g}t+\varphi),$ respectively, where $\omega_{g}=v\sqrt{2eB}$, is the cyclotron frequency for Dirac electrons, $R_{g}$ is the cyclotron orbit radius in graphene while $x_{0}$ and $y_{0}$ are the center coordinates and $\varphi$ is the phase factor. Note that $\omega_{c}=\frac{eB}{m}$ for standard electrons which is not the same as what we have for Dirac electrons given above. Now without loss of generality we may take $\varphi=0.$ Thus the increase in the average energy of the cyclotron motion due to the magnetic modulation is evaluated as$$\Delta E(x_{0})=\frac{1}{t_{0}}{\displaystyle\int\limits_{-\frac{t_{0}}{2}}^{+\frac{t_{0}}{2}}}
\omega_{0}\sin(Kx(t))dt$$ where $t_{0}$ is the period of the orbit. Substituting $x(t)$ yields$$\Delta E(x_{0})=\omega_{0}J_{0}(KR_{g})\cos(Kx_{0}) \label{14}$$ with $J_{0}(z)$ the Bessel function of zero order. For $\frac{2\pi R_{g}}{a}\gtrsim1,$one can approximate the Bessel function $J_{0}$ by a cosine function as follows$$J_{0}\left( \frac{2\pi R_{g}}{a}\right) \simeq\left( \frac{a}{\pi^{2}R_{g}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\sin\left( \frac{2\pi R_{g}}{a}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)$$ with the result$$\Delta E(x_{0})=\omega_{0}\left( \frac{a}{\pi^{2}R_{g}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\sin\left( \frac{2\pi R_{g}}{a}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right) , \label{15}$$ which is the classical expression for the bandwidth. This is the same as obtained in equation (13) in the limit of large $n$ which is to be expected as the large $n$ limit corresponds to classical results.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
In this work we have analyzed the electronic spectrum of graphene subjected to a magnetic field perpendicular to the graphene layer and a unidirectional periodic magnetic modulation. We have determined the density of electronic states and the bandwidth of this system. We have also considered the asymptotic expression of bandwidth and its relation to a classical description. To highlight the effects of modulation on the density of states and bandwidth, we have plotted these quantities as a function of the magnetic field for experimentally relevant parameters. We have found that oscillations in the density of states and the bandwidth are out of phase and larger in amplitude compared to the electrically modulated graphene. We also observe that these oscillations are in phase and smaller in amplitude than those of magnetically modulated standard electron gas system.
Acknowledgements
================
One of us (K.S.) would like to acknowledge the support of the Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF) through project No. C-QU/Phys (129). M. T. would like to acknowledge the support of the Pakistan Higher Education Commission (HEC).
\*Permanent Address: Department of Physics, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan.
[99]{}
Novoselov K S, Geim A K, Morozov S V, Jiang D, Katsnelson M I, Grigorieva I V, Dubonos S V and Firsov A A 2005 *Nature* 438 197–200;Zhang Y, Tan Y-W, Stormer H L and Kim P 2005 *Nature* 438, 201–204
Zheng Y and Ando T 2002 Phys. Rev. B 65 245420-1–11.; Gusynin V P and Sharapov S G 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 146801-1–4.
Perez N M R, Guinea F and Castro Neto A H 2006 Phys. Rev. B 73, 125411-1–23.; Katsnelson M I, Novoselov K S and Geim A K 2006 *Nature Phys. 2* 620–625.; Novoselov K S, McCann E, Morozov S V, Falko V I, Katsnelson M I, Zeitler U, Jiang D, Schedin F and Geim A K 2006 *Nature Phys. 2* 177–180.; Sharapov S G, Gusynin V P and Beck H 2004 Phys. Rev. B 69 075104-1–22.
C. Berger,*et.al*, Science 312, 1191 (2006).
A.De Martino *et.al,* Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 066802 (2007).
S. J. Lee *et.al,* Phys.Rep. 394, 1 (2004).
Weiss D, von Klitzing K, Ploog K and Weimann G 1989 *Europhys. Lett.* 8 179–184
Winkler R W and Kotthaus J P 1989 Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 1177–80.
Gerhardts R R, Weiss D and von Klitzing K 1989 Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 1173–76.
F. M. Peeters and P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 47, 1466 (1993).; ; ; (b) J. Shi *et.al,* Phys. Rev. B 66, 035328 (2002).; F. M. Peeters and A. Matulis, Phys. Rev. B 48, 15166 - 15174 (1993).
D. P. Xue and G. Xiao, Phys. Rev. B 45, 5986 (1992); (d) P. De Ye, D. Weiss *et.al,* Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3013 (1994).
P. Vasilopoulos and F. M. Peeters, Superlattices Microstruct. 7, 393-395 (1990).; P. Vasilopoulos and F. M. Peeters, Physica Scripta. Vol. T39, 177-181 (1991).
Matulis A and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 75 125429 (2007).
M. Tahir, K.Sabeeh and A. MacKinnon, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19**,** 406226-1-7 (2007).
R. Nasir, M. A. Khan, M. Tahir and K. Sabeeh, arXiv:0804.1754v1; . Tahir, K.Sabeeh, Phys. Rev. B 76, 195416(2007).
M. Tahir, K.Sabeeh, arXiv:0707.2078v2.
J H Ho, Y H Lai, Y H Chiu and M F Lin, Nanotechnology 19 035712-1-6 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a general approach, based on an exponential inequality, to derive bounds on the generalization error of randomized learning algorithms. Using this approach, we provide bounds on the average generalization error as well as bounds on its tail probability, for both the PAC-Bayesian and single-draw scenarios. Specifically, for the case of subgaussian loss functions, we obtain novel bounds that depend on the information density between the training data and the output hypothesis. When suitably weakened, these bounds recover many of the information-theoretic available bounds in the literature. We also extend the proposed exponential-inequality approach to the setting recently introduced by Steinke and Zakynthinou (2020), where the learning algorithm depends on a randomly selected subset of the available training data. For this setup, we present bounds for bounded loss functions in terms of the conditional information density between the output hypothesis and the random variable determining the subset choice, given all training data. Through our approach, we recover the average generalization bound presented by Steinke and Zakynthinou (2020) and extend it to the PAC-Bayesian and single-draw scenarios. For the single-draw scenario, we also obtain novel bounds in terms of the conditional $\alpha$-mutual information and the conditional maximal leakage.'
author:
- 'Fredrik Hellström, , Giuseppe Durisi, [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: Generalization Bounds via Information Density and Conditional Information Density
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
A randomized learning algorithm $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ consists of a probabilistic mapping from a set of training data ${\boldsymbol{Z}}=(Z_1,\dots,Z_n)\in \mathcal{Z}^n$, which we assume to have been generated independently from an unknown distribution $P_Z$ on the instance space $\mathcal{Z}$, to an output hypothesis $W\in\mathcal{W}$, where $\mathcal{W}$ is the hypothesis space. The goal is to find a hypothesis $W$ that results in a small expected loss $L_{P_Z}(W)= \Exop_{P_Z}[\ell(W,Z)]$, where $\ell(\cdot,\cdot)$ is some suitably chosen loss function. A typical strategy to achieve this goal is *empirical risk minimization*, according to which $W$ is selected so as to minimize the empirical loss $L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}(W)=\tfrac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\ell(W,Z_i)$. A central objective in statistical learning theory is to determine when this choice results in a small population loss $L_{P_Z}(W)$. To this end, one seeks to bound the *generalization error*, defined as $\textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) = L_{P_Z}(W)-L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}(W)$. Since the learning algorithm is randomized, bounds on ${{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$ can come in several flavors. One possibility is to bound the average generalization error $\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}]}$. In practice, one might be more interested in an upper bound on $\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}]}$ that holds with probability at least $1-\delta$ under the product distribution $P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. Here, $\delta\in(0,1)$ is the so-called confidence parameter. Bounds of this type, which are typically referred to as *probably approximately correct (PAC)-Bayesian* bounds [@mcallester98-07a; @guedj19-01a], are relevant for the scenario in which a new hypothesis $W$ is drawn from $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ every time the algorithm is used. For the scenario in which $W$ is drawn from $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ only once—a setup that, following the terminology in [@catoni07-a], we shall refer to as *single-draw*—one may instead be interested in obtaining an upper bound on $\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}$ that holds with probability at least $1-\delta$ under the joint distribution $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. If the dependence of a probabilistic bound (PAC-Bayesian or single-draw) on $\delta^{-1}$ is at most logarithmic, the bound is usually referred to as a *high-probability* bound. Furthermore, a probabilistic bound is termed *data-independent* if it does not depend on the specific instance of ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$, and *data-dependent* if it does. Data-independent bounds allow one to characterize the sample complexity [@shalev-shwartz14-a p. 44], defined as the minimum number of training samples needed to guarantee that the generalization error is within a desired range, with a desired confidence level. However, data-dependent results are often tighter. Indeed, many of the available data-independent bounds can be recovered as relaxed versions of data-dependent bounds.
Classical PAC bounds on the generalization error, such as those based on the Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension [@shalev-shwartz14-a p. 67], are probabilistic bounds of a stronger variety than the PAC-Bayesian and single-draw bounds just introduced. Indeed, they hold uniformly for *all* $w\in \mathcal{W}$ under $P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. As a consequence, these bounds depend on structural properties of the hypothesis class $\mathcal{W}$ rather than on properties of the algorithm, and tend to be crude when applied to modern machine learning algorithms [@Zhang-16].
#### Prior Work {#prior-work .unnumbered}
By generalizing a result obtained in [@russo16-05b] in the context of adaptive data analysis, Xu and Raginsky [@xu17-05a] obtained a bound on the average generalization error in terms of the mutual information $I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$ between the the output hypothesis $W$ and the training data ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$. A drawback of the bound in [@xu17-05a] is that it is vacuous whenever the joint distribution $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, the product of the marginal distributions of $W$ and ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$. This occurs, for example, when $W$ is given by a deterministic function of ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$, and $W$ and ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$ are separately continuous random variables. In [@Bu-19-ISIT], Bu *et al.* rectified this by obtaining a tighter bound in terms of the individual-sample mutual information $I(W;Z_i)$, which can be bounded even when $I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})=\infty$. In [@Asadi2018], Asadi *et al.* combined the mutual information bound with the chaining technique [@vanHandel-16], which exploits structure in the hypothesis class to tighten bounds. In some cases, this is shown to give stronger bounds than either the mutual information bound or the chaining bound individually.
To be evaluated, all of the aforementioned bounds require knowledge of the marginal distribution $P_W$, which depends on the data distribution $P_Z$. In practice, this data distribution is unknown, making the marginal $P_W$ intractable. In light of this, Achille and Soatto [@Achille-18] provided an upper bound on the mutual information between the training data and the output hypothesis in terms of the relative entropy between $P_{W\vert{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ and a fixed, auxiliary distribution on the hypothesis space $\mathcal{W}$, and showed that this results in a computable upper bound on the average generalization error. Similarly, Negrea *et al.* [@Negrea2019] provided generalization bounds in terms of an auxiliary, possibly data-dependent distribution on $\mathcal{W}$. This weakens the bound, but makes it computable. Their use of the expected square root of the relative entropy $\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}$, which they call *disintegrated* mutual information, in place of the mutual information leads to further improvements on the basic bound.
Recent studies, starting with the work of Steinke and Zakynthinou [@steinke20-a], have considered a setting with more structure, where it is assumed that a set ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ consisting of $2n$ independent and identically distributed () training samples from $P_Z$ is available, and that ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$ is formed by selecting $n$ entries of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ at random. We will refer to this setup as the *random-subset setting*, and call the setting without this additional structure the *standard setting*. In the random-subset setting, the average generalization error can be bounded by a quantity that depends on the conditional mutual information between the output hypothesis and the random variable that determines the selected training data ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$, given ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ [@steinke20-a Thm. 5.1]. One advantage of this bound over the standard mutual information bound is that the conditional mutual information is always bounded. This broadens the applicability of the bound and results in tighter estimates. Also, as discussed in [@steinke20-a Sec. 4], the conditional mutual information that appears in the bound has strong connections to classical generalization measures, such as VC dimension, compressibility, and stability. In [@Haghifam2020], Haghifam *et al.* provided an individual-sample strengthening of this result, as well as improvements through their use of disintegration. In all of these derivations, the loss function is required to be bounded, which is a stronger requirement than what is needed in the standard setting.
All of the information-theoretic results discussed so far pertain to bounds on the average generalization error. In [@bassily18-02a App. A.3], Bassily *et al.* provided a PAC-Bayesian bound in terms of mutual information. This bound is essentially a data-independent relaxation of a well-known data-dependent bound from the PAC-Bayesian literature [@guedj19-10a]. The dependence of the original data-dependent PAC-Bayesian bound on the confidence parameter $\delta$ is of order $\log(1/\delta)$, making it a high-probability bound. However, its mutual information relaxation in [@bassily18-02a] has a less benign $1/\delta$-dependence. PAC-Bayesian techniques have recently found some success in producing non-vacuous generalization bounds for (randomized) deep neural networks. In [@Dziugaite2017], Dziugaite and Roy optimized a PAC-Bayesian bound to get non-vacuous generalization estimates for a simple neural network setup. In [@zhou2018nonvacuous], Zhou *et al.* derived a bound for compressed networks, i.e., small neural networks that are formed by pruning larger ones, and illustrated numerically that the bound is non-trivial for realistic settings. An extensive survey of the vast PAC-Bayesian literature, which is beyond the scope of this paper, can be found in, e.g., [@guedj19-01a].
Finally, we survey the single-draw bounds that are relevant for our discussion. In addition to the aforementioned average and PAC-Bayesian bounds, both Xu and Raginsky [@xu17-05a Thm. 3] and Bassily *et al.* [@bassily18-02a] also provided single-draw generalization bounds in terms of mutual information. For both of them, the dependence on $\delta$ is of order $1/\delta$. In [@esposito19-12a], Esposito *et al.* provided bounds in terms of a whole host of information-theoretic quantities, such as the Rényi divergence, the $\alpha$-mutual information, and the maximal leakage. An interesting aspect of their $\alpha$-mutual information bound is that, unlike the mutual information bounds in [@xu17-05a Thm. 3] and [@bassily18-02a], it is a high-probability bound. However, this bound does not imply a stronger mutual information bound. Indeed, if one lets $\alpha \rightarrow 1$, for which the $\alpha$-mutual information reduces to the ordinary mutual information, the bound becomes vacuous. Bounds on the average generalization error are also provided [@esposito19-12a Sec. III.D], but these are generally weaker than the mutual information bounds in [@xu17-05a]. In the same vein, Dwork *et al.* derived single-draw generalization bounds in terms of other algorithmic stability measures, such as differential privacy [@Dwork-14] and (approximate) max-information [@dwork15-06a]. These bounds are of the high-probability variety, but are typically weaker than the aforementioned maximal leakage bound [@esposito19-12a Sec. V]. All of the single-draw bounds mentioned here are data-independent.
#### Contributions {#contributions .unnumbered}
In this paper, we derive bounds of all three flavors—average, PAC-Bayesian, and single-draw—for both the standard setting and the random-subset setting. In the standard setting, we use the subgaussianity of the loss function, together with a change of measure argument, to obtain an exponential inequality in terms of the *information density* between the hypothesis $W$ and the training data ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$. This exponential inequality provides a framework that can be used to recover several known results, which were originally derived using a host of different tools. In this sense, it provides a unifying approach for deriving information-theoretic generalization bounds. Through simple manipulations of the exponential inequality, we recover the average generalization bound in [@xu17-05a Thm. 1] and the data-dependent PAC-Bayesian bound in [@guedj19-10a Prop. 3]. We also derive a novel data-dependent single-draw bound. Moreover, by further relaxing the PAC-Bayesian bound and the single-draw bound, we obtain two novel data-independent bounds that are explicit in the $t$th moments of the relative entropy $\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}$ and of the information density, respectively. The dependence of these bounds on the confidence parameter $\delta$ is of order $1/\delta^t$. This is more favorable than that of similar bounds reported in [@xu17-05a] and [@bassily18-02a], which have a dependence of order $1/\delta$. The moment bounds that we obtain illustrate that tighter estimates of the generalization error are available with higher confidence if the higher moments of the information measures that the bounds depend on are sufficiently small. Through a more refined analysis, we also derive a high-probability data-independent single-draw bound that is as simple to compute as the maximal leakage bound in [@esposito19-12a Cor. 10], but tighter in some cases. Finally, by using a different approach that relies on tools from binary hypothesis testing, we obtain a data-independent single-draw bound in terms of the tail of the information density. Similarly to the moment bounds, this bound illustrates that the faster the decay of the tail of the information density random variable, the more benign the dependence of the bound on $\delta$.
Moving to the random-subset setting, we establish an exponential inequality, similar to that for the standard setting, in terms of the *conditional information density* between the hypothesis and a random variable that selects the data to be used for training, given all data samples. This exponential inequality is derived under the more stringent assumption of a bounded loss function. Then, we use this inequality to reobtain the average generalization bound in [@steinke20-a Cor. 5.2], and to derive novel PAC-Bayesian and single-draw bounds, both of data-dependent and of data-independent flavor. Similarly to the standard setting, we also obtain a bound that is explicit in the tail of the conditional information density by using tools from binary hypothesis testing. Finally, inspired by [@esposito19-12a], we derive a parametric inequality that can be used to obtain data-independent single-draw bounds. Using this inequality, we extend the results in [@esposito19-12a] for bounded loss functions to the random-subset setting, and obtain bounds in terms of the conditional versions of the $\alpha$-mutual information, the Rényi divergence, and the maximal leakage. Under some conditions, the conditional maximal leakage bound turns out to be stronger than its maximal leakage counterpart.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
In this section, we introduce some notation, define relevant information-theoretic quantities, and present some general results that will be used repeatedly in the remainder of this paper.
#### Standard and Random-Subset Settings {#standard-and-random-subset-settings .unnumbered}
Let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the instance space, $\mathcal{W}$ be the hypothesis space, and $\ell:\mathcal{W}\times\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow \reals^+$ be the loss function. In the standard setting, $n$ training samples ${\boldsymbol{Z}}=(Z_1,\dots,Z_n)$ are available. These $n$ samples constitute the training data. We assume that all entries of ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$ are drawn independently from some unknown distribution $P_Z$ on $\mathcal{Z}$. In the random-subset setting, $2n$ training samples ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}=(\tilde Z_1,\dots,\tilde Z_{2n})$ are available, with all entries of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ being drawn independently from $P_Z$. However, only a randomly selected subset of cardinality $n$ is actually used as the training data. Following [@steinke20-a], we assume that the training data ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$ is selected as follows. Let ${\boldsymbol{S}}=(S_1,\dots,S_n)$ be an $n$-dimensional random vector, the elements of which are drawn independently from a $\mathrm{Bern}(1/2)$ distribution and are independent of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. Then, for $i=1,\dots,n$, the $i$th training sample in ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$ is $Z_i(S_i)=\tilde Z_{i+S_in}$. A randomized learning algorithm is a conditional distribution $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. We let $L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}(W)=\tfrac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\ell(w,Z_i)$ denote the empirical loss and $L_{P_Z}(W)=\Exop_{P_Z}[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}]$ the population loss. The generalization error is defined as ${{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}= L_{P_Z}(W)-L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}(W)$.
#### Information Measures {#information-measures .unnumbered}
A quantity that will appear in many of our bounds is the information density, defined as $$\label{eq:def_info_dens}
\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) = \log \frac{\dv P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$$ where $\dv P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}/\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ with respect to $P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. Here, $P_W$ is the distribution induced on the hypothesis space $\mathcal W$ by $P_Z$ through $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. The information density is well defined whenever $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, which we denote by $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\ll P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. The name information density is motivated by the fact that its expectation under $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is the mutual information $I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$. In the random-subset setting, several of our bounds will be in terms of the conditional information density $$\label{eq:conditional_info_density}
\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) = \log \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}} }$$ where $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ is a conditional distribution on $\mathcal{W}$ given ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, obtained by marginalizing out ${\boldsymbol{S}}$. Here, the absolute continuity requirement is that $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}\ll P_{W\vert{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$. In the random-subset setting, this is satisfied since $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ is obtained by marginalizing out the discrete random variable ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ from $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$. If we take the expectation of $\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$ under the joint distribution $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, we obtain the conditional mutual information $I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$, a key quantity in the bounds developed in [@steinke20-a].
Let $\alpha\in (0,1)\cup(1,\infty)$. The Rényi divergence of order $\alpha$ is defined as [@VanErven2014] $$\label{eq:def_renyi_divergence}
\alpharelent{\alpha}{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}=\frac{1}{\alpha-1} \log \Exop_{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\exp\lefto(\alpha{{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right)\right].$$ In the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 1$, it reduces to the relative entropy $\relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$. The conditional Rényi divergence of order $\alpha$ is given by [@verdu15-02a] $$\label{eq:def_cond_renyi_divergence}
\alphaconrelent{\alpha}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} = \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \Exop_{P_ {{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[\exp\lefto(\alpha{{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}\right) \right].$$ The $\alpha$-mutual information, which is studied in depth in [@verdu15-02a], is defined as$$\label{eq:def_alpha_MI}
I_\alpha({\boldsymbol{Z}};W) = \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \Exop_{P_W}^\alpha\lefto[ \Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }^{1/\alpha} \lefto[\exp\lefto(\alpha{{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right) \right] \right].$$ In the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 1$, it reduces to the mutual information $I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$, whereas for $\alpha\rightarrow \infty$, it becomes the maximal leakage [@issa16-a]: $$\label{eq:def_maximal_leakage}
\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W)=\log \Exop_{P_W}\lefto[ \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\exp\lefto({{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right) \right].$$ The conditional $\alpha$-mutual information does not have a commonly accepted definition. In [@Tomamichel2018], three definitions are provided and given operational interpretations, two of which have known closed-form expressions. The first coincides with the conditional Rényi divergence, while the second, which we will term $I_\alpha(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$, is defined as $$\label{eq:def_cond_alpha_MI}
I_\alpha(W; \boldsymbol{S}\vert \tilde{\boldsymbol{Z}} )=\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \Exop_{P_ {\tilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\Exop_{P_{W\vert \tilde{\boldsymbol{Z}} } }^{\alpha}\lefto[ \Exop_{P_{ \boldsymbol{S}\vert \tilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}^{1/\alpha}
\lefto[\exp\lefto(\alpha{{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}\right) \right]\right]\right].$$ In the limit $\alpha\rightarrow \infty$, this reduces to the conditional maximal leakage[@issa16-a Thm. 6] $$\label{eq:def_cond_maximal_leakage}
\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})=\log\esssup_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[ \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }\exp\lefto({{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}\right) \right].$$ Note that ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ and ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ are independent in the random-subset setting. Hence, $P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ can be replaced by $P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}$ in , , and .
#### Useful Results {#useful-results .unnumbered}
Many previous studies have used the data-processing inequality as a tool for deriving generalization bounds [@bassily18-02a; @esposito19-12a]. In binary hypothesis testing, it is known that the data-processing inequality only provides weak converse bounds on the region of achievable error rates. To get strong converse bounds, one relies on the following lemma instead [@polyanskiy19-a Lem. 12.2].
\[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\] Let $P$ and $Q$ be probability distributions on some common space $\mathcal{X}$ such that $P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$, and let $\setE\in \mathcal{X}$ be a measurable set. Then, for all $\gamma\in\reals$, $$\label{eq:lem_strong_converse_lemma}
P[\setE] \leq P\lefto[\log \frac{\dv P}{\dv Q} > \gamma \right] + e^\gamma Q[\setE].$$
In Section \[sec:uncond\_sd\_strong\_conv\] and Section \[sec:cond\_sd\_strong\_conv\], we will show how to use this result to derive generalization bounds.
We will also make repeated use of the following result, due to Hoeffding [@wainwright19-a Prop. 2.5].
\[lem:hoeffdings\_inequality\] Let $X\distas P_X$ be a $\sigma$-subgaussian random variable, i.e., a random variable satisfying the following inequality for all $\lambda\in\reals$: $$\label{eq:lem_hoeffdings_inequality}
\Exop\lefto[\exp(\lambda(X-\Exop[X]) ) \right] \leq \exp\lefto(\frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2}\right).$$ Then, for all $\epsilon>0$, $$P_X\lefto(\abs{X-\Exop[X]}\geq \epsilon \right) \leq 2\exp\lefto(-\frac{\epsilon^2}{2\sigma^2} \right).$$ Note that a random variable bounded on $[a,b]$ is $\sigma$-subgaussian with $\sigma=(b-a)/2$. Also, if $X_i$, for $i=1,\dots,n$, are independent $\sigma$-subgaussian random variables, the average $(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^n X_i$ is $\sigma/\sqrt{n}$-subgaussian.
Generalization Bounds for the Standard Setting {#sec:uncond_results}
==============================================
In this section, we study the standard setting described in Section \[sec:preliminaries\]. We will assume that the loss function $\ell(w,Z)$ is $\sigma$-subgaussian under $P_Z$ for all $w\in\mathcal{W}$. This means that, for all $\lambda\in\reals$ and for all $w\in\mathcal{W}$, $$\label{eq:subgaussian_def}
\Exop_{P_Z}\lefto[ \exp\lefto(\lambda(\Exop_{P_Z}\lefto[\ell(w,Z)\right]-\ell(w,Z) \right) \right]\leq \exp\lefto(\frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2}\right).$$ We will derive bounds on the generalization error of a probabilistic learning algorithm $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ in terms of some function of the information density . As previously mentioned, several different notions of generalization error bounds have been investigated in the literature. One such notion is that of average generalization bounds, where we want to find an $\epsilon$ such that $$\label{eq:uncond_exp_generalization_bound_def}
\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right]} \leq \epsilon.$$ This $\epsilon$ will in general depend on the joint distribution $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, on properties of the loss function, and on the cardinality $n$ of the training data. We will study this type of bounds in Section \[sec:uncond\_exp\].
Another approach, typically studied in the PAC-Bayesian literature, is to find probabilistic bounds of the following form: with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, $$\label{eq:uncond_pacb_generalization_bound_def}
\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right]} \leq \epsilon.$$ This bound is interesting when we have a fixed data set ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$, but draw a new hypothesis according to $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ each time we want to use our algorithm. We derive bounds of this type in Section \[sec:uncond\_pacb\].
Finally, we also consider the single-draw scenario. In this setting, we are interested in bounds of the following flavor: with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, $$\label{eq:uncond_singledraw_generalization_bound_def}
\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}} \leq \epsilon.$$ This type of result is relevant when we draw a single hypothesis $W$ based on our training data, and want to bound the generalization error of this particular $W$ with high probability. The probabilistic bounds in and are said to be high-probability bounds if the dependence of $\epsilon$ on the confidence parameter $\delta$ is at most of order $\log(1/\delta)$.
In Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\] below, we present an exponential inequality that will be used in Section \[sec:uncond\_exp\], Section \[sec:uncond\_pacb\], and Section \[sec:uncond\_sd\] to derive generalization bounds of all three flavors.
\[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\] Let ${\boldsymbol{Z}}=(Z_1,\dots,Z_n)\in\mathcal{Z}^n$ consist of $n$ training samples generated from $P_Z$, and let $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ be a probabilistic learning algorithm. Assume that $\ell(w,Z): \mathcal{W}\times \mathcal{Z}\rightarrow \reals$ is $\sigma$-subgaussian under $P_Z$ for all $w\in \mathcal W$. Also, assume that $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. Then, for all $\lambda\in \reals$, $$\label{eq:unconditional_subgaussian_thm}
\Exop_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{\exp\lefto(\lambda {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}-\frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}-\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \right)}\right]\leq 1.$$
Since $\ell(w,Z)$ is $\sigma$-subgaussian for all $w\in\mathcal{W}$ and the $Z_i$ are , $(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^n \ell(w,Z_i)$ is $\sigma/\sqrt{n}$-subgaussian for all $w\in\mathcal{W}$, as remarked after Lemma \[lem:hoeffdings\_inequality\]. Thus, for all $w\in\mathcal{W}$, $$\label{eq:proof_of_uncond_thm_subgaussian_assuption}
\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} } \lefto[\exp\lefto(\lambda\left(\Exop_{P_Z}\lefto[\ell(w,Z)\right]-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \ell(w,Z_i) \right)\right)\right]
\leq \exp\lefto(\frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}\right).$$ Reorganizing terms and taking the expectation with respect to $P_W$, we get$$\label{eq:thm_1_proof_before_E}
\Exop_{P_W\! P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} } \lefto[\exp\lefto(\lambda {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}- \frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}\right)\right]\leq 1.$$ Now, let $\setE=\textnormal{supp}(P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$ be the support of $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. From , it follows that $$\Exop_{P_W\! P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} } \lefto[1_\setE\cdot\exp\lefto(\lambda {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}- \frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}\right)\right]\leq 1$$ where $1_\setE$ is the indicator function of the set $\setE$. To obtain , we perform a change measure from $P_W\! P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ to $P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ [@polyanskiy19-a Prop. 17.1].
Note that Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\] holds *verbatim* if $P_W$ is replaced with an auxiliary distribution $Q_W$, under a suitable absolute continuity assumption. This is detailed in the next remark.
\[rem:uncond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\] Consider the setting of Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], but with the altered absolute continuity assumption that $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\ll Q_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ for some distribution $Q_W$ on $\mathcal{W}$. Then, $$\label{eq:unconditional_subgaussian_with_Q}
\Exop_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{\exp\lefto(\lambda {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}-\frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}-\log\frac{\dv P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }{\dv Q_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \right)}\right]\leq 1.$$
For the bounds that we will later derive, the choice $Q_W=P_W$ is optimal. Unfortunately, since the data distribution $P_Z$ is considered to be unknown in the statistical learning framework, the marginal distribution $P_W$ is also unavailable. Hence, $P_W$ needs to be replaced by some suitably chosen auxiliary distribution $Q_W$ whenever one wants to numerically evaluate the generalization bounds that we derive later in this section.[^4] In the remainder of this paper, all bounds will be given in terms of $P_W$. Thanks to this choice, many of the terms that appear in our results will be expressible in terms of familiar information-theoretic quantities. However, through repeated references to Remark \[rem:uncond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], we will emphasize that the bounds can easily be generalized to the case in which $P_W$ is replaced by an auxiliary distribution $Q_W$.
Average Generalization Error Bounds {#sec:uncond_exp}
-----------------------------------
We now use Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\] to obtain an average generalization error bound of the form given in .
\[cor:exp\_uncond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], $$\label{eq:cor_exp_uncond}
\abs{ \Ex{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{n}I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}.$$
We apply Jensen’s inequality to , resulting in $$\exp\lefto(\lambda\Exop_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right] - \frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}
-\Ex{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{{{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}} \right) \leq 1.$$ Note that $\Exop_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\imath(W, {\boldsymbol{Z}})\right]=\relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }=I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$. By reorganizing terms, we get $$\lambda \Exop_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right]-\lambda^2\frac{\sigma^2}{2n} - \relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} } \leq 0.$$ We now set $\lambda=n\Exop_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right]/\sigma^2$ to optimize the bound, and thereby get $$\label{eq:exp_uncond_final_line_of_proof}
\Exop^2_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right] - \frac{2\sigma^2}{n}\relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }\leq 0$$ from which directly follows.
The bound in coincides with the result reported in [@xu17-05a Thm. 1]. As noted in Remark \[rem:uncond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], we can substitute an arbitrary $Q_W$ for $P_W$ in , provided that the necessary absolute continuity criterion is fulfilled. This leads to a more general bound involving the relative entropy $\relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{Q_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }$.
PAC-Bayesian Generalization Error Bounds {#sec:uncond_pacb}
----------------------------------------
We now turn to PAC-Bayesian bounds of the form given in . In the following corollary, we reobtain a known data-dependent bound and present a novel data-independent relaxation.
\[cor:pacb\_uncond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ for all $t>0$:
[rCl]{}\[eq:cor\_pacb\_uncond\] &&\
\[eq:cor\_pacb\_uncond\_second\] && .
Here, the first inequality yields a data-dependent bound, while the second inequality provides a data-independent relaxation.
As in Corollary \[cor:exp\_uncond\], we start from and use Jensen’s inequality, but now only with respect to $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. This leads to $$\label{eq:pacb_uncond_after_jensen}
\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\exp\left(\lambda \Ex{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}} }{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}} - \frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}-\relent{P_{W\!\given\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}
\right) \right] \leq 1$$ where we used that, for a fixed ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$, $$\Ex{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}=\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}.$$ Next, we use the following result. Let $U\distas P_U$ be a nonnegative random variable satisfying $\Ex{}{U}\leq 1$. Then, Markov’s inequality implies that $$\label{eq:markov_inequality_Pu}
P_U[U\leq 1/\delta]\geq 1- \Ex{ }{U}\delta\geq 1- \delta.$$ By applying to the random variable in , we obtain $$P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\exp\lefto(\lambda \Ex{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}} } {{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}} - \frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n}-\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}
\right) \leq \frac{1}{\delta}
\right] \geq 1-\delta.$$ Reorganizing terms, we conclude that $$\label{eq:uncond_pacb_proof_markov_pz}
P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2}{2n} -\lambda \Ex{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}} } {{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}
+\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W} +\log\frac{1}{\delta} \geq 0
\right] \geq 1-\delta$$ from which follows after setting $\lambda=n\Exop_{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right]/\sigma^2$. To prove , we apply Markov’s inequality to the random variable $\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}^t$, which after some manipulation yields $$\label{eq:uncond_pacb_proof_markov_with_t}
P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W} \leq
\frac
{\Exop^{1/t}_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}^t\right] }
{\delta^{1/t}} \right]
\geq 1-\delta.$$ We now use the union bound to combine with and perform the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$, after which follows.
Note that by setting $t=1$ in , we get $\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W} \right]=I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$. This choice recovers the result reported in [@bassily18-02a App. 3]. Instead, if we let $t\rightarrow \infty$, the polynomial $\delta$-dependence in disappears and the bound becomes a high-probability bound. This illustrates that one can get progressively better dependence on $\delta$ by letting the bound depend on higher moments of $\relent{P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W}$. The tightness of the resulting bound depends on how well one can control these higher moments. Finally, as per Remark \[rem:uncond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], we can obtain more general bounds by replacing $P_W$ in and with an arbitrary $Q_W$ that satisfies a suitable absolute continuity property.
Single-Draw Generalization Error Bounds {#sec:uncond_sd}
---------------------------------------
We now turn our attention to single-draw bounds of the form given in . We will derive generalization bounds by using two different approaches. Our first approach relies on the exponential inequality from Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], which we use to get a data-dependent bound in terms of the information density ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$. We relax this result in different ways to obtain several data-independent bounds, some of which are tighter than existing results. Our second approach, which yields a generalization bound that is explicit in the tail of the information density, relies on the change of measure result stated in Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\]. This bound can be relaxed to obtain essentially the same data-independent bounds obtained using the first approach.
### Generalization Bounds from the Exponential Inequality
We begin by using Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\] to derive a data-dependent single-draw generalization bound and a data-independent relaxation, similar to the PAC-Bayesian results in Corollary \[cor:pacb\_uncond\]. Both of these bounds are novel.
\[cor:singledraw\_uncond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, the following inequalities hold for all $t>0$:[^5]
[rCl]{}\[eq:cor\_singledraw\_uncond\] &&\
\[eq:cor\_singledraw\_uncond\_second\] & & .
Here, the first inequality provides a data-dependent bound and the second inequality is a data-independent relaxation. In , $M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$ is the $t$th root of the $t$th central moment of $\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})$: $$\label{eq:def_M_P_WZn}
M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}}) = \Exop^{1/t}_{P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\abs{ \imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) - \relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }}^t \right].$$
By directly applying Markov’s inequality to , we conclude that $$P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\exp\biggo(\lambda {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}- \frac{\lambda^2\sigma^2 }{2n}
-\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \right)\leq \frac{1}{\delta} \bigg] \geq 1-\delta$$ from which follows after setting $\lambda=n{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}/\sigma^2$. To prove , we use Markov’s inequality in the following form: for a random variable $U\distas P_U$, the following holds for all $t>0$: $$\label{eq:markov_for_arbitrary_u}
P_U\lefto[U \leq \Exop[U]+ \frac{\Exop^{1/t}[\abs{U-\Exop[U]}^t]}{\delta^{1/t}} \right]\geq 1-\delta.$$ Applying with $U=\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})$ and using the union bound to combine the resulting inequality with , we obtain after performing the substitution $\delta \rightarrow \delta/2$.
As usual, we can obtain more general bounds by substituting $Q_W$ for $P_W$ in Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\], provided that the necessary absolute continuity assumption is satisfied.
Similarly to what we noted for the PAC-Bayesian bound , the $\delta$-dependence in can be made more benign by letting the bound depend on higher central moments of ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$, but the tightness of the resulting bound hinges on how well one can control these higher moments. In particular, if we let $t\rightarrow \infty$ in , we obtain the following high-probability bound: $$\label{eq:cor_singledraw_uncond_t_inf}
\abs{ {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}} \leq
\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{n}\left(I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})+{M_\infty(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})} +\log \frac{2}{\delta}\right)}.$$ Here, ${M_\infty(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$ is given by $$\label{eq:def_M_infinity}
M_\infty(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})=\esssup_{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \abs{\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})- I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}.$$ Note that the supremization in is over the argument of ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$, whereas $I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$ is a constant.
The data-independent relaxation in Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\] is not as tight as the one obtained in Corollary \[cor:pacb\_uncond\]. Indeed, since ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$ can be negative, we had to use a weaker version of Markov’s inequality (compare with ). In the following corollary, we provide two alternative data-independent bounds, both of which are novel. The first bound depends on $\esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\Exop_{P_W}[\exp({{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})})]$, which is a lower bound to the maximal leakage $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W)$ defined in . The second bound is in terms of the Rényi divergence .
\[cor:singledraw\_uncond\_alphadiv\_leakage\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], the following inequalities hold with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$: $$\label{eq:cor_singledraw_uncond_leakage}
\abs{ {{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{n}\left(\log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\Exop_{P_{W} }\lefto[\exp(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})) \right] +2\log \frac{2}{\delta}\right)}$$ and, for all $\alpha,\gamma> 1$ such that $1/\alpha+1/\gamma=1$,
[rCl]{}\[eq:cor\_singledraw\_uncond\_alphadiv\] .
We start by noting that, with probability $1$ under $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, $$\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) = \log \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}\vert W}} \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}.$$ The assumption that $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\ll P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ means that any set in the support of $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is also in the support of $P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. We can therefore upper-bound the $\esssup$ as $$\label{eq:singledraw_uncond_leakage_esssup_weakening}
\log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}\vert W}} \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}.$$ Applying Markov’s inequality with respect to $P_W$ to the random variable $\dv P_{W{\boldsymbol{Z}}} /\dv P_W \!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, we conclude that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W}$, $$\label{eq:cor_uncond_sd_leakage_proof_infdens_bound}
\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} } \Exop_{P_{W}}\lefto[ \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right] + \log\frac{1}{\delta}.$$ By using the union bound to combine with and performing the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$, we obtain .
To prove , we first apply Markov’s inequality and then perform a change of measure to conclude that the following inequalities hold with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$: $$\label{eq:cor_singledraw_uncond_alphadiv_pf_markov_com}
\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \leq \log\Exop_{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right] + \log\frac{1}{\delta} \leq \log\Exop_{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\lefto[\left(\frac{\dv P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{\dv P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right)^2\right] + \log\frac{1}{\delta}.$$ Next, we apply Hölder’s inequality twice as follows. Let $\alpha,\gamma,\alpha',\gamma'> 1$ be constants such that $1/\alpha+1/\gamma=1/\alpha'+1/\gamma'=1$. Then,
[rCl]{} \_[P\_WP\_]{} && \_[P\_W]{}\
&& \_[P\_W]{}\^[1/’]{}\_[P\_W]{}\^[1/’]{}.
Setting $\alpha=\alpha'$, which implies $\gamma=\gamma'$, we conclude that
[rCl]{} \_[P\_WP\_]{} && \_[P\_WP\_ ]{}\^[1/]{}+ \_[P\_WP\_ ]{}\^[1/ ]{}\[eq:choosePandQ\]\
\[eq:cor\_uncond\_sd\_alphadiv\_proof\_infdens\_bound\] &=&D\_(P\_[W ]{}||P\_WP\_)+D\_(P\_[W ]{}||P\_WP\_).
Substituting into , and then combining with through the union bound, we establish after the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$.
The bound in can be relaxed to recover the maximal leakage bound in [@esposito19-12a Cor. 10], the max information bound in [@dwork15-06a Thm. 4] for the case in which the parameter $\beta$ therein is set to $0$, and , all up to a $(2\sigma^2/n)\log(2/\delta)$ term inside the square root. Indeed, we can relax the information density term in as $$\label{eq:measure_lower_bounding_maximal_leakage}
\log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\Exop_{P_{W} }\lefto[\exp(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})) \right] \leq \log \Exop_{P_{W} }\lefto[\esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\exp(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})) \right] = \mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W).$$ Now, let the max information be defined as $$\label{eq:max_mi}
I_{\textnormal{max}}(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}}) = \esssup_{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}).$$ As shown in [@esposito19-12a Lem. 12], $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W)\leq I_{\textnormal{max}}(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$. It is also readily verified that $$I_\textnormal{max}(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})\leq I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})+{M_\infty(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}.$$ To summarize, we have that $$\log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\Exop_{P_{W}}\lefto[\exp(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})) \right] \leq \mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W) \leq I_{\textnormal{max}}(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \leq I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})+{M_\infty(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}.$$ In particular, provided that $$\log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }\Exop_{P_{W}}\lefto[ \exp\lefto(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})\right)\right] \leq \mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W) + \log\frac{2}{\delta}$$ the bound in is tighter than the maximal leakage bound in [@esposito19-12a Cor. 10], the max information bound in [@dwork15-06a Thm. 4] with $\beta=0$, and .
As usual, we can obtain more general bounds by replacing $P_W$ with an arbitrary $Q_W$ in Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\_alphadiv\_leakage\], provided that $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\ll Q_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. However, for the proof of , we still need the original absolute continuity assumption $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\ll P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ to guarantee that holds. Note that a similar extension can easily be performed on [@esposito19-12a Thm. 1] and on the corollaries that are based on it, including [@esposito19-12a Cor. 10].
### Generalization Bounds from the Strong Converse {#sec:uncond_sd_strong_conv}
Next, we use Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\] to derive an additional data-independent single-draw generalization bound. This novel bound depends on the tail of the information density.
\[thm:unconditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, the following holds: $$\label{eq:thm_unconditional_hypothesis_main_bound}
\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}
\leq\sqrt{ \frac{2\sigma^2}{n}
\left(
\gamma + \log\lefto(\frac{2}{\delta-P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})\geq \gamma\right]} \right)
\right)}.$$ This is valid for all $\gamma$ such that the right-hand side is defined and real.
The proof relies on Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\]. We set $P=P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, $Q=P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, and$$\label{eq:high_error_event}
\setE=\{W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}: \abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}>\epsilon \}.$$ Due to the $\sigma$-subgaussianity of the loss function, Hoeffding’s inequality (Lemma \[lem:hoeffdings\_inequality\]) implies that $$\label{eq:thm_main_uncond_hyp_bound_pf_QE_bound}
P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}[\setE] =P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\abs{ L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}(W)-\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} }\lefto[L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}(W)\right]}>\epsilon \right] \leq 2\exp\lefto(-\frac{n\epsilon^2}{2\sigma^2} \right).$$ Substituting into , we get $$\label{eq:strong_conv_solve_for_eps}
P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}[\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}>\epsilon] \leq P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})\geq \gamma\right] + 2\exp\lefto(\gamma-n\frac{\epsilon^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).$$ We obtain the desired result by requiring the right-hand side of to be equal to $\delta$ and solving for $\epsilon$.
As for the previous results, a more general bound can be obtained by setting $Q=Q_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, where $Q_W$ is an arbitrary auxiliary distribution on $\mathcal{W}$, provided that a suitable absolute continuity criterion is fulfilled.
The result in Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\] indicates a trade-off between the decay of the tail of the information density and the tightness of the generalization bound. Indeed, the parameter $\gamma$ has to be chosen sufficiently large to make the argument of the logarithm positive. However, increasing $\gamma$ too much may yield a loose bound because of the $\gamma$ term that is added to the logarithm.
The bound in Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\] can be relaxed to recover some of the data-independent bounds discussed earlier in this section, up to a $(2\sigma^2/n)\log 2$ penalty term inside the square root. In Remarks \[rem:uncond\_alt\_deriv\_moment\] and \[rem:uncond\_alt\_deriv\_leakage\], we present these alternative derivations.
\[rem:uncond\_alt\_deriv\_moment\] Using Markov’s inequality, we conclude that
[rCl]{}\[eq:moment\_bound\_from\_hyptest\_markov\] P\_[W ]{}&& P\_[W ]{}\
&&
where $M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})$ is defined in . Next, we set $$ \gamma =\relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}+\frac{M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}{(\delta/2)^{1/t}}$$ which, once substituted into , implies that $P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})\geq \gamma\right] \leq {\delta}/{2}$. Using this inequality in , we obtain $$\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}
\leq\sqrt{ \frac{2\sigma^2}{n}
\left(
\relent{P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}{P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}+\frac{M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}})}{(\delta/2)^{1/t}} + \log\frac{4}{\delta}
\right)}.$$ This coincides with the bound in , up to a $(2\sigma^2/n)\log 2$ term inside the square root.
\[rem:uncond\_alt\_deriv\_leakage\] Note that $$P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \geq \gamma] \leq P_W\lefto[\esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}\vert W}} \exp\lefto({{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right)\geq e^\gamma\right].$$ Since $P_{W\!{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\ll P_W\!P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, the $\esssup$ can be upper-bounded as in . Hence, $$\label{eq:max_leak_alt_deriv_esssup_weakening}
P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \geq \gamma] \leq P_W\lefto[\esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\exp\lefto({{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right)\geq e^\gamma\right].$$ By applying Markov’s inequality to the right-hand side of , we find that $$\label{eq:max_leak_alt_deriv_tail_bound}
P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}) \geq \gamma] \leq e^{-\gamma}\Ex{P_W}{\esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\exp\lefto({{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}\right)}=e^{-\gamma} \exp\lefto(\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W)\right).$$ Substituting into and setting $\gamma = \mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W) + \log(2/\delta)$, we conclude that with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\! {\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, $$\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}}\leq \sqrt{ \frac{2\sigma^2}{n}\left(\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}\rightarrow W)+\log 2+2\log \frac{2}{\delta} \right) }.$$ This coincides with the maximal leakage-weakening of up to a $(2\sigma^2/n)\log 2$ term inside the square root, and with [@esposito19-12a Cor. 10] up to a $(2\sigma^2/n)\log (4/\delta)$ term inside the square root.
Generalization Bounds for the Random-Subset Setting
===================================================
We now consider the random-subset setting described in Section \[sec:preliminaries\]. For this setting, we will require the stronger assumption that the loss function $\ell(\cdot,\cdot)$ is bounded, rather than the subgaussian assumption in Section \[sec:uncond\_results\]. As detailed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\] below, boundedness will be crucial to establish an inequality similar to for the case in which the expectation over ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ is replaced by an expectation over the selection random variable ${\boldsymbol{S}}$.
The bounds in this section will depend on the conditional information density . Intuitively, rather than asking how much information on the training data ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$ can be inferred from $W$, we instead ask how much information $W$ reveals about whether ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}_{i}$ or ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}_{i+n}$ has been used for training, for $i=1,\dots,n$, given the knowledge of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. We will make this intuition more precise and highlight the advantages of the random-subset approach when we compare the generalization error bounds obtained in this section to the ones in Section \[sec:uncond\_results\], under the assumption of a bounded loss function.
As in Section \[sec:uncond\_results\], the generalization bounds in this section will take different forms: average generalization bounds, PAC-Bayesian bounds, and single-draw bounds. The average bound for the random-subset setting has a form similar to , namely $$\label{eq:conditional_exp_gen_error_def}
\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}} }\lefto[ \textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})) \right] } \leq \epsilon.$$ For the PAC-Bayesian and single-draw settings, it will turn out to be convenient to first obtain probabilistic bounds on the following quantity: $$\label{eq:genshat_definition}
{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \lefto(\ell(W,( Z_i(\bar S_i)) - \ell(W,Z_i(S_i)) \right).$$ Here, $\bar {\boldsymbol{S}}$ is a vector whose entries are modulo-$2$ complements of the entries of ${\boldsymbol{S}}$. As a consequence, ${\boldsymbol{Z}}(\bar{\boldsymbol{S}})$ contains all the elements of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ that are not in ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$. So, instead of comparing the loss on the training data to the expected loss on a new sample, we compare it to a test loss, i.e., the loss on $n$ samples that are independent of $W$. Note that quantities similar to are what one computes when empirically assessing the generalization performance of a learning algorithm.
In the PAC-Bayesian setting, we will be interested in deriving bounds of the following form: with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}} =P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:conditional_pacb_gen_error_def}
\abs{ \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}} \lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right] } \leq \epsilon.$$ Similarly, in the single-draw setting, the bounds of interest will be of the following form: with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}=P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:conditional_sd_gen_error_def}
\abs{ {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} \leq \epsilon.$$ As we establish in Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\] below, the probabilistic bounds on ${\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}$ given in and can be converted into probabilistic bounds on ${{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))}$ by adding a $\delta$-dependent penalty term.
\[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\] Let ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}=(\tilde Z_1,\dots,\tilde Z_{2n})\in \mathcal{Z}^{2 n}$ consist of $2n$ training samples generated from $P_Z$ and let ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ be a random vector, independent of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, with entries drawn independently from a $\mathrm{Bern}(1/2)$ distribution. Let ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$ denote the subset of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ obtained through ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ by the rule $Z_i(S_i)=\tilde Z_{i+S_in}$, for $i=1,\dots,n$. Also, let $\bar {\boldsymbol{S}}$ be the modulo-$2$ complement of ${\boldsymbol{S}}$. Let $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})}$ be a randomized learning algorithm.[^6] Assume that $\ell(w,z)$ is bounded on $[a,b]$ for all $w\in \mathcal W$ and all $z\in\mathcal{Z}$. Also, assume that the following two probabilistic inequalities hold: with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:pf_of_lem_genShat_condition}
\abs{{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} \leq \epsilon_{\textnormal{SD}}(\delta)$$ and with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:pf_of_lem_genShat_condition_pb}
\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right]} \leq \epsilon_{\textnormal{PB}}(\delta).$$ Then, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:lem_genShat_to_gen_bound}
\abs{ \textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})) } \leq \epsilon_{\textnormal{SD}}\lefto(\frac{\delta}{2}\right) + \sqrt{\frac{(b-a)^2}{2n}\log\frac{4}{\delta}}$$ and with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:lem_genShat_to_gen_bound_pb}
\abs{\Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[\textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))\right]} \leq \epsilon_{\textnormal{PB}}\lefto(\frac{\delta}{2}\right) + \sqrt{\frac{(b-a)^2}{2n}\log\frac{4}{\delta}}.$$
Since $\ell(w,Z_i(S_i))$ is bounded on $[a,b]$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$, it is $(b-a)/2$-subgaussian for all $w\in \mathcal{W}$. From this, it follows that $L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}(\bar{\boldsymbol{S}})}(w)$ is $(b-a)/2\sqrt{n}$-subgaussian for all $w\in \mathcal{W}$. Hence, using Hoeffding’s inequality, stated in Lemma \[lem:hoeffdings\_inequality\], we have that, for all $\epsilon>0$,
[rCl]{} &= &
with probability no larger than $\delta=2\exp(-2\epsilon^2n/(b-a)^2)$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$. From this it follows that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:genshat_to_gens}
\abs{ L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}(\bar{\boldsymbol{S}})}(W) - \Exop_{P_Z}\lefto[\ell(W,Z)\right] } \leq \sqrt{\frac{(b-a)^2}{2n}\log\frac{2}{\delta}}.$$ Now note that, by the triangle inequality, $$\abs{{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))}} \leq \abs{{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} + \abs{ L_{{\boldsymbol{Z}}(\bar{\boldsymbol{S}})}(W) - \Exop_{P_Z}\lefto[\ell(W,Z)\right] } .$$ The result in now follows by combining and via the union bound and performing the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$. The proof of follows along the same lines.
We now turn to proving an exponential inequality similar to Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_subgaussian\], but for the random-subset setting. This inequality will later be used to derive generalization bounds of the forms given in , , and .
\[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\] Consider the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\]. Then, for all $\lambda\in \reals$, $$\label{eq:conditional_inequality_thm}
\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}} \lefto[{\exp\lefto(\lambda {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}-\frac{\lambda^2(b-a)^2}{2n}-\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) \right)} \right]\leq 1.$$
Due to the boundedness of $\ell(\cdot,\cdot)$, the random variable $\ell(W,Z_i(\bar S_i))-\ell(W,Z_i(S_i))$ is bounded on $[(a-b),(b-a)]$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. As remarked in Lemma \[lem:hoeffdings\_inequality\], this implies that it is $(b-a)$-subgaussian, and that ${\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}$ therefore is $(b-a)/\sqrt{n}$-subgaussian. Furthermore, ${\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}$ enjoys the symmetry property ${\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}=-\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, \bar{\boldsymbol{S}})$. From this, it follows that $\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right]=0$. By the definition of subgaussianity, we therefore have that $$\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }\lefto[\exp(\lambda {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})})\right] \leq \exp\left(\frac{\lambda^2(b-a)^2}{2n} \right).$$ Reorganizing terms and taking the expectation with respect to $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, we obtain $$\label{eq:where_we_can_choose_other_QWZ_in_thm}
\Exop_{P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }\lefto[\exp\left(\lambda {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}- \frac{\lambda^2 (b-a)^2}{2n} \right) \right] \leq 1.$$ Now let $\setE=\textnormal{supp}(P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}})$ be the support of $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$. Then, implies that $$\Exop_{P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }\lefto[1_\setE \cdot \exp\left(\lambda {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}- \frac{\lambda^2 (b-a)^2}{2n} \right) \right] \leq 1.$$ Since $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ is induced from $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}{\boldsymbol{S}}}$ by the probability mass function $P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, the probability distribution $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}$. We can therefore perform a change of measure to $P_{W \! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, as per [@polyanskiy19-a Prop. 17.1(4)], after which the desired result follows.
Similar to the discussion in Remark \[rem:uncond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\] holds *verbatim* with $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ replaced by an auxiliary conditional distribution $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, provided that a suitable absolute continuity assumption holds. This is detailed in the following remark.
\[rem:cond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\] Consider the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\]. Also, assume that the absolute continuity assumption $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\ll Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}$ holds for some conditional distribution $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ on $\mathcal{W}$. Then, $$\label{eq:conditional_inequality_thm_with_Q}
\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}} \lefto[{\exp\lefto(\lambda {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}-\frac{\lambda^2(b-a)^2}{2n}-\log \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} } \right)} \right]\leq 1.$$ The proof of is exactly the same as the proof of Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\], except that we choose $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ in place of $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ in .
For the bounds that we will later derive, the optimal choice is $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}=P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$. However, similar to the standard setting, this choice is not always feasible when one is interested in numerically evaluating the bounds. While it is technically possible to compute $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ for a given instance of ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$ by marginalizing out ${\boldsymbol{S}}$, this would involve executing the probabilistic learning algorithm $P_{W\vert {\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})}$ a total of $2^n$ times. For many algorithms, this is prohibitively expensive from a computational standpoint. Therefore, it can be convenient to have the choice of relaxing the bound by expressing it in terms of some auxiliary distribution $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, suitably chosen so as to trade accuracy with computational complexity.
In the remainder of this section, we will use Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\] to derive an average generalization bound, as well as PAC-Bayesian bounds and single-draw bounds. We start with the average generalization bound.
Average Generalization Error Bounds {#sec:cond_exp}
-----------------------------------
In the same spirit as Corollary \[cor:exp\_uncond\], the following bound on the average generalization error, which is explicit in the conditional mutual information $I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$, is directly derived from Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\].
\[cor:exp\_cond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], $$\label{eq:cor_exp_cond}
\abs{ \Ex{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{ \textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})) }} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}.$$
Starting from , we apply Jensen’s inequality, which results in $$\exp\lefto(\lambda\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right] - \frac{\lambda^2(b-a)^2}{2n}
-\Ex{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \right) \leq 1.$$ From , it follows that $\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right] = \Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[\textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))\right]$, since $W$ and ${\boldsymbol{Z}}(\bar{\boldsymbol{S}})$ are independent. Also, we have that $$\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\right] = \conrelent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}=I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}).$$ We therefore get, after reorganizing terms, $$\lambda\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))}\right] - \frac{\lambda^2(b-a)^2}{2n}
-\conrelent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} \leq 0.$$ Setting $\lambda = n \Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))}\right] / (b-a)^2$ to optimize the bound, we obtain $$\label{eq:exp_cond_final_line_of_proof}
\Exop_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}^2\lefto[{{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))}\right] - \frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}\conrelent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} \leq 0$$ from which follows directly.
The bound in recovers the result from [@steinke20-a Cor. 5.2]. As detailed in Remark \[rem:cond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], we can substitute $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ for $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ in to obtain a more general but weaker bound in terms of the conditional relative entropy $\conrelent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}$, provided that an appropriate absolute continuity assumption is satisfied.
Under some conditions, the bound in Corollary \[cor:exp\_cond\] can be shown to be tighter than that in Corollary \[cor:exp\_uncond\] for the case of a bounded loss function. Indeed, using the chain rule for mutual information, the Markov property $({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})$—${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$—$W$, and the fact that ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$ is a deterministic function of $({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})$, we can rewrite the bound in as $$\textnormal{gen}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})) \leq \sqrt{ \frac{(b-a)^2}{2n}I(W;
{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))
} = \sqrt{ \frac{(b-a)^2}{2n}\left(I(W;{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})+I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) \right) }.$$ Hence, if $I(W;{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})>3I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$, the bound in Corollary \[cor:exp\_cond\] is tighter than that in Corollary \[cor:exp\_uncond\]. In particular, note that there are many practical scenarios in which the bound in Corollary \[cor:exp\_uncond\] is vacuous because $I(W;{\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}))=\infty$. On the contrary, $I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\leq n\log 2$.
PAC-Bayesian Generalization Error Bounds {#sec:cond_pacb}
----------------------------------------
We now turn to PAC-Bayesian bounds of the form given in . The next corollary provides bounds that are analogous to those in Corollary \[cor:pacb\_uncond\], but for the random-subset setting. The bounds in the corollary are novel, and extend known PAC-Bayesian bounds to the random-subset setting.
\[cor:pacb\_cond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$ for all $t>0$:
[rCl]{}\[eq:cor\_pacb\_cond\] &&\
\[eq:cor\_pacb\_cond\_second\] && .
Here, the first inequality is a data-dependent bound, while the second provides a data-independent relaxation.
Since the proof follows along the same lines as that of Corollary \[cor:pacb\_uncond\], we only highlight the differences. We start from , apply Jensen’s inequality with respect to $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, and note that $$\Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }\lefto[{{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}\right] = \relent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }.$$ To obtain , we use and set $\lambda = n \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right] / (b-a)^2$. To prove , we apply Markov’s inequality to $\relent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }^t$, similarly to . Combining the resulting inequality with through the union bound and then performing the substitution $\delta \rightarrow \delta/2$, we obtain the desired result.
For the case $t=1$ in , we have $\Exop_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }\lefto[\relent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }\right]=I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$. The corresponding bound extends the results in [@steinke20-a] by providing a PAC-Bayesian generalization error bound in terms of the conditional mutual information $I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$. Similar to the discussion following Corollary \[cor:exp\_cond\], this bound is, under some conditions, tighter than the corresponding bounds for the standard setting in Corollary \[cor:pacb\_uncond\]. Much like the moment bounds in and , the bound in illustrates a trade-off between the confidence and the tightness of the generalization estimate, mediated by the magnitude of the higher moments of $\relent{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }$. Also, as indicated in Remark \[rem:cond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], if the appropriate absolute continuity criterion is satisfied, we can replace $P_{W\vert{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ with $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ in and to obtain more general bounds that are better suited for numerical evaluations.
Single-Draw Generalization Error Bounds {#sec:cond_sd}
---------------------------------------
In this section, we will derive several bounds on the single-draw generalization error in the random-subset setting. Three different approaches will be used to obtain these bounds. The first one relies on the exponential inequality given in Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\], and results in a data-dependent bound from which several data-independent relaxations follow. The second one relies on Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\], and allows us to derive a bound that is explicit in the tail of the conditional information density, similar to Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\]. Essentially equivalent versions of the data-independent relaxations obtainable via the first approach can be derived from this tail-based bound. The third approach, which is inspired by [@esposito19-12a], builds on repeated applications of Hölder’s inequality. This results in a family of data-independent bounds. Through this approach, we extend many of the results for bounded loss functions in [@esposito19-12a] to the random-subset setting.
### Generalization Bounds from the Exponential Inequality
In the next two corollaries, we derive novel bounds that are analogous to the ones in Corollaries \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\] and \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\_alphadiv\_leakage\], but for the random-subset setting.
\[cor:singledraw\_cond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$ for all $t>0$:[^7]
[rCl]{}\[eq:cor\_singledraw\_cond\] &&\
\[eq:cor\_singledraw\_cond\_second\] && .
Here, the first inequality provides a data-dependent bound and the second is a data-independent relaxation. In , the term $\widetilde M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$ is the $t$th root of the $t$th central moment of $\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$: $$\label{eq:def_tilde_M_conditional}
\widetilde M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) = \Exop^{1/t}_{P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[\abs{ \imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) - I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) }^t \right].$$
The proof is analogous to that of Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\]. We start by applying Markov’s inequality in the form of to , which with $\lambda=n{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}/(b-a)^2$ results in . We then apply with $U=\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$. Combining the resulting inequality with through the union bound, we obtain after performing the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$.
By increasing $t$ in , a more benign $\delta$-dependence can be obtained by letting the bound depend on higher central moments of ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}$. The tightness of the resulting bound depends on how well these higher moments are controlled. As usual, we can get more general bounds by replacing $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ with an arbitrary $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, provided that a suitable absolute continuity assumption is satisfied.
Just as in Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\_alphadiv\_leakage\], we can derive alternative data-independent relaxations for the data-dependent bound in . We present these novel bounds in the following corollary. The first bound is given in terms of $\log\esssup_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}} \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[ \exp\lefto(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\right) \right]$, which is a lower bound to the conditional maximal leakage . The second bound depends on the conditional Rényi divergence .
\[cor:singledraw\_cond\_alphadiv\_leakage\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], the following inequalities hold with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$: $$\label{eq:cor_singledraw_cond_leakage}
\abs{ {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}\left(\log\esssup_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}} \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[ \exp\lefto(\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\right) \right] +2\log \frac{2}{\delta}\right)}$$ and, for all $\alpha,\gamma> 1$ such that $1/\alpha+1/\gamma = 1$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:cor_singledraw_cond_alphadiv}
\abs{ {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} \leq \bigg[\frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}\bigg(\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\alphaconrelent{\alpha}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} \\+ \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}\alphaconrelent{\gamma}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}+2\log \frac{2}{\delta}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}.\end{gathered}$$
Analogously to the proof of Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_uncond\_alphadiv\_leakage\], we start from the inequality in and bound $\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$. With probability $1$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:singledraw_cond_leakage_esssup_weakening}
\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) = \log \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} } \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} } \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} } \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }.$$ Here, the second inequality holds due to the absolute continuity property $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\ll P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$. By applying Markov’s inequality with respect to $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ to the random variable $\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}/\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, we conclude that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$: $$\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} } \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[ \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }\right] + \log\frac{1}{\delta}.$$ Finally, with probability $1$ under $P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, we get $$\label{eq:cor_cond_sd_leakage_proof_infdens_bound_last}
\log \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} } \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[ \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }\right] \leq \log \esssup_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} } \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[ \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }{\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }\right].$$ Using the union bound to combine with the probabilistic inequality on ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}$ resulting from -, we obtain after performing the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$.
To prove , we apply Markov’s inequality and then perform a change of measure from $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$ to $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ to conclude that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$,
[rCl]{} (W,) && \_[P\_[W ]{}P\_ [ ]{}]{}+\
&=& \_[P\_[W]{}P\_ [ ]{}]{}+ .\[eq:infodens\_bound\_by\_holder\]
Next, we apply Hölder’s inequality thrice as follows. Let $\alpha,\gamma,\alpha',\gamma',\tilde \alpha, \tilde \gamma> 1$ be constants such that $1/\alpha+1/\gamma=1/\alpha'+1/\gamma'=1/\tilde \alpha + 1/\tilde \gamma=1$. Then,
[rCl]{} & & \_[P\_[W]{}P\_ [ ]{}]{}= \_[P\_[W]{}P\_ P\_]{}\
&& \_[P\_[W]{}P\_ ]{}\
&& \_[P\_ ]{}\
&&\_[P\_ ]{}\^[1/’]{}\_[P\_ ]{}\^[1/’]{}. \[eq:holdering\_gives\_alphadiv\]
We now substitute into and set $\alpha=\alpha'=\tilde \alpha$, which implies $\gamma=\gamma'=\tilde \gamma$. Using , we conclude that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:infodens_bounded_by_alpha_divs}
\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) \leq \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\alphaconrelent{\alpha}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}} \\+ \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}\alphaconrelent{\gamma}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}+\log\frac{1}{\delta}.\end{gathered}$$ Combining with through the union bound and performing the substitution $\delta\rightarrow \delta/2$, we obtain .
As usual, we can replace $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ by some auxiliary $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ to get more general bounds, provided that a suitable absolute continuity assumption is satisfied.
We can relax the bound in and express it in terms of the conditional maximal leakage $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W \vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$. Indeed, we have the following inequality:
[rCl]{} \_[P\_[ ]{}]{} \_[P\_[W]{}]{}&& \_[P\_]{} \_[P\_[W]{}]{}\
\[eq:lower\_bound\_to\_conditional\_leakage\] &=& (W).
Substituting into , we obtain the desired generalization bound. The bound in and its relaxation in terms of the conditional maximal leakage can be tighter than the maximal leakage bound in [@esposito19-12a Cor. 9].[^8] This is the case since the conditional maximal leakage $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W \vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$ is upper-bounded by the maximal leakage $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})\rightarrow W )$. We prove this result in the following theorem.
\[propo:leakage\_bounds\_cond\_leakage\] Consider the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\]. Then, $$\label{eq:propo_leakage_bounds_cond_leakage}
\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W \vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) \leq \mathcal{L}( {\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}) \rightarrow W).$$
Because of the Markov property $({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})$—${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$—$W$ and the fact that ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$ is a deterministic function of $({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}},{\boldsymbol{S}})$, the equality $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}}) \rightarrow W) =\mathcal{L}(({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}},{\boldsymbol{S}}) \rightarrow W)$ holds [@issa16-a Lem. 1]. We begin by moving one essential supremum outside of the expectation:
[rCl]{}\[eq:cond\_max\_leak\_prop\_proof\_eq\_1\] ((,)W) = \_[P\_W]{}\_[P\_ ]{} \_[P\_W]{}.
Now, let $\setE_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}=\textnormal{supp}(P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}})$. It follows from that $$\mathcal{L}(({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}},{\boldsymbol{S}})\rightarrow W)
\geq \log \esssup_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} } \Exop_{P_W}\lefto[ 1_{\setE_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} } \esssup_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}} \frac{\dv P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}}{\dv P_W \! P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}} }\right].$$ Next, we perform a change of measure from $P_W$ to $P_{W\vert{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$:
[rCl]{} \_[P\_ ]{} \_[P\_W]{}= \_[P\_ ]{} \_[P\_[W]{} ]{}.
Finally, since $\dv P_W/\dv P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ is independent of ${\boldsymbol{S}}$,
[rCl]{} \_[P\_ ]{} \_[P\_[W]{} ]{}&=&\_[P\_ ]{} \_[P\_[W]{} ]{}\
&=&(W).
### Generalization Bounds from the Strong Converse {#sec:cond_sd_strong_conv}
In this section, we will use Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\] to derive single-draw generalization error bounds in the random-subset setting. In Theorem \[thm:conditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\] below, we use Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\] to obtain a novel bound in terms of the tail of the conditional information density ${{\imath}(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}$.
\[thm:conditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\label{eq:thm_conditional_hypothesis_main_bound}
\abs{{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}}
\leq\sqrt{ \frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}
\left(
\gamma + \log\lefto(\frac{2}{\delta-P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\geq \gamma\right]} \right)
\right)}.$$ This is valid for all $\gamma$ such that the right-hand side is defined and real.
We will use Lemma \[lem:strong\_converse\_lemma\] with $P=P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $Q=P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$ and $$\label{eq:high_error_event_cond}
\setE=\{W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}}: \abs{{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}}>\epsilon \}.$$ Let the set $\setE_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}=\{{\boldsymbol{S}}: (W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}},{\boldsymbol{S}})\in \setE \}$ denote the fibers of $\setE$ with respect to $W$ and ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$. As noted in the proof of Theorem \[thm:conditional\_bounded\_inequality\], ${\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}$ is a $(b-a)/\sqrt{n}$-subgaussian random variable with $\Exop_{P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}\lefto[{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}\right]=0$. By using Hoeffding’s inequality (Lemma \[lem:hoeffdings\_inequality\]), we therefore conclude that, for all $W$ and ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$, $$\label{eq:mcdiarmid_es_bound}
P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\setE_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} \right] \leq 2 \exp\lefto(-\frac{n\epsilon^2}{2(b-a)^2} \right).$$ From this, it follows that $Q[\setE]\leq 2\exp\lefto(-n\epsilon^2/2(b-a)^2 \right)$. Inserting this inequality into , we get $$\label{eq:strong_conv_cond_solve_for_eps}
P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\abs{{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}}>\epsilon\right] \leq P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\geq \gamma\right] + 2\exp\lefto(\gamma-\frac{n\epsilon^2}{2(b-a)^2}\right).$$ We obtain the desired result by requiring the right-hand side of to be equal to $\delta$ and solving for $\epsilon$.
Similar to the discussion in Remark \[rem:cond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], a completely analogous result holds with an auxiliary distribution $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ in place of $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, provided that a suitable absolute continuity assumption is satisfied.
As for the bound in Theorem \[thm:unconditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\], the bound in illustrates that the faster the rate of decay of the tail of the conditional information density, the sharper the generalization bound. Specifically, the parameter $\gamma$ has to be chosen large enough so that the argument of the logarithm is positive, but a greater $\gamma$ also contributes to an increased value for the bound.
The bound in Theorem \[thm:conditional\_hypothesis\_main\_bound\] can be relaxed to give essentially equivalent versions of some of the previously presented data-independent bounds. We show this in the following remarks.
Markov’s inequality implies that
[rCl]{}\[eq:moment\_bound\_from\_hyptest\_markov\_cond\] P\_[W ]{}&&
where $\widetilde M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$ is defined in . Next, we set $$ \gamma =I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})+\frac{\widetilde M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}{(\delta/2)^{1/t}}$$ which, once substituted into , implies that $P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\geq \gamma \right] \leq {\delta}/{2}$. Using this inequality in , we conclude that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\abs{{\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}}
\leq\sqrt{ \frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}
\left(
I(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})+\frac{\widetilde M_t(W;{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})}{(\delta/2)^{1/t}} + \log\frac{4}{\delta}
\right)}.$$ This coincides with the bound in , up to a $(2(b-a)^2/n)\log 2$ term inside the square root.
Note that
[rCl]{} P\_[W ]{}&& P\_[W]{}\
&& \_[P\_]{}P\_[W]{}.
By upper-bounding the $\esssup$ as in and using Markov’s inequality, we conclude that
[rcl]{} P\_[W ]{}&& (-) \_[P\_ ]{}\
&=& ((W)-).
Setting $\gamma=\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}) + \log(2/\delta)$ and substituting the resulting upper-bound on the probability $P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\geq \gamma\right]$ into , we conclude that, with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}$, $$\abs{ {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}\left(\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})+\log 2 + 2\log \frac{2}{\delta}\right)}.$$ This recovers the conditional maximal leakage weakening of , as detailed in , up to a $(2(b-a)^2/n)\log 2$ term inside the square root.
### Generalization Bounds from a Hölder-Based Inequality
We now present a third approach to obtain data-independent single-draw bounds in the random-subset setting. The approach is based on a proof technique developed in [@esposito19-12a], where similar bounds are derived in the standard setting. We first prove a useful inequality in Theorem \[thm:esposito\_cond\], from which several generalization bounds follow.
\[thm:esposito\_cond\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], for all $\alpha, \gamma,\alpha',\gamma',\tilde \alpha, \tilde \gamma> 1$ such that $1/\alpha + 1/\gamma =1/\alpha'+1/\gamma'=1/\tilde \alpha + 1/\tilde \gamma =1$ and all measurable sets $\setE\in \mathcal{W}\times \mathcal{Z}^{2n}\times \{0,1\}^n$, $$\label{eq:thm_esposito_cond}
P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}[\setE]
\leq \Exop_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}} }^{1/\tilde \gamma}\lefto[ \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}^{\tilde \gamma/\gamma '}\lefto[P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}^{\gamma'/\gamma}\lefto[\setE_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right] \right] \right] \cdot \Exop_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}^{1/\tilde \alpha}\lefto[ \Exop_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}^{\tilde \alpha/\alpha '}\lefto[\Exop_{P_S}^{\alpha ' /\alpha}\lefto[\exp\lefto(\alpha\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\right) \right] \right] \right].$$ Here, $\setE_{W\!{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}=\{{\boldsymbol{S}}: (W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}},{\boldsymbol{S}})\in \setE \}$ denotes the fibers of $\setE$ with respect to $W$ and ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}$.
First, we rewrite $P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}[\setE] $ in terms of the expectation of the indicator function $1_\setE$ and perform a change of measure:
[rCl]{} P\_[W ]{}\[\]&=& \_[P\_[W]{}P\_[ ]{}]{} = \_[ P\_[W]{} P\_ P\_]{} .
To obtain the desired result, we apply Hölder’s inequality thrice. Let $\alpha, \gamma,\alpha',\gamma',\tilde \alpha, \tilde \gamma> 1$ be constants such that $1/\alpha + 1/\gamma =1/\alpha'+1/\gamma'=1/\tilde \alpha + 1/\tilde \gamma =1$. Then,
[rCl]{} [P\_[W ]{}]{}\[\] &&\_[P\_[W]{}P\_]{}\
&&\_[P\_]{}\
&&\_[P\_]{}\^[1/]{}\_[P\_]{}\^[1/]{}.
Similar to the discussion in Remark \[rem:cond\_conversion\_to\_Q\_bounds\], the result in Theorem \[thm:esposito\_cond\] would still hold if we were to substitute an auxiliary distribution $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ for $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, provided that a suitable absolute continuity condition is satisfied.
By choosing particular values for the three free parameters in the inequality , we can derive generalization bounds in terms of various information-theoretic quantities. We will focus on a bound that depends on the conditional $\alpha$-mutual information $\alphaconMI{\alpha}{W }{{\boldsymbol{S}}}{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, which can be relaxed to obtain a bound in terms of the conditional Rényi divergence $\alphaconrelent{\alpha}{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\!{\boldsymbol{S}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}} }{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}}{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}$ or be specialized to obtain a bound that depends on the conditional maximal leakage $\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$.
\[cor:singledraw\_esposito\_cond\_alphaMI\] Under the setting of Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\], the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$ under $P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}$ for all $\alpha > 1$: $$\label{eq:cor_singledraw_esposito_cond_alphaMI}
\abs{ {\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2(b-a)^2}{n}\left(\alphaconMI{\alpha}{W }{{\boldsymbol{S}}}{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}+\log 2 + \frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\log \frac{1}{\delta}\right)}.$$
In , set $\tilde \alpha = \alpha$ and let $\alpha' \rightarrow 1$, which implies that $\tilde \gamma = \gamma$ and $\gamma' \rightarrow\infty$. Also, let $\setE$ be the error event . For this choice of parameters, the second factor in reduces to $$\label{eq:esposito_alphami_proof_info_dens_factor}
\Exop_{P_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}^{1/\alpha}\lefto[ \Exop^{\alpha}_{P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}}\lefto[\Exop^{1/\alpha}_{P_S}\lefto[\exp\lefto(\alpha\imath(W,{\boldsymbol{S}}\vert{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})\right) \right] \right] \right] = \exp\lefto(\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\alphaconMI{\alpha}{W }{{\boldsymbol{S}}}{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right).$$ Furthermore, we can bound $P_{{\boldsymbol{S}}}\lefto[\setE_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right]$ in the first factor in by using . Substituting into the first factor in , we conclude that
[rCl]{}\[eq:esposito\_alphami\_proof\_E\_dep\_factor\] \_[’ ]{} \_[P\_]{}\^[1/ ]{}&=& \^[1/]{}\_[P\_]{}\
&& ( 2 (- ))\^[1/]{}.
By substituting and into , noting that $1/\gamma = (\alpha-1)/\alpha$, we conclude that $$P_{W\! {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}\! {\boldsymbol{S}}}[\setE]
\leq \left( 2 \exp\lefto(-\frac{n\epsilon^2}{2(b-a)^2} \right) \right)^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha} } \cdot \exp\lefto(\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\alphaconMI{\alpha}{W }{{\boldsymbol{S}}}{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}\right).$$ We obtain the desired result by requiring the right-hand side to be equal to $\delta$ and solving for $\epsilon$.
As usual, we can obtain a more general version of Corollary \[cor:singledraw\_esposito\_cond\_alphaMI\] by replacing $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ with an auxiliary distribution $Q_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$, provided that a suitable absolute continuity assumption is satisfied.
We can also obtain a bound in terms of the conditional maximal leakage by letting $\alpha\rightarrow \infty$ in and using that $\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow\infty} \alphaconMI{\alpha}{W }{{\boldsymbol{S}}}{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}= \mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{S}}\rightarrow W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}})$. The resulting bound is tighter than the conditional maximal leakage bound obtained from by a $(2(b-a)^2/n)\log (2/\delta)$ term inside the square root.
Furthermore, the conditional $\alpha$-mutual information that appears in can be relaxed to obtain a novel bound in terms of the conditional Rényi divergence of order $\alpha$. Indeed, by Jensen’s inequality, the following holds for $\alpha>1$:
[rCl]{}\[eq:cond\_alpha\_mi\_to\_cond\_renyi\_start\] & = &\_[P\_ ]{}\
& & \_[P\_ ]{}\
&=& .\[eq:cond\_alpha\_mi\_to\_cond\_renyi\_end\]
The conditional Rényi divergence bound obtained by substituting into is different from the one in , and there is no clear ordering between them in general. The two bounds can, however, be directly compared if we set $\alpha=\gamma=2$, or if we let $\alpha\rightarrow \infty$, and hence $\gamma \rightarrow 1$. For both of these choices of parameters, the conditional Rényi divergence bound obtained from is tighter than by a $(2(b-a)^2/n)\log (2/\delta)$ term inside the square root.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a general framework for deriving generalization bounds for probabilistic learning algorithms, not only in the average sense, but also for the PAC-Bayesian and the single-draw setup. Using this framework, we recovered several known results, and also presented new ones. Due to its unifying nature, the framework enables the transfer of methods for tightening bounds in one setup to the other two setups. In particular, by reobtaining previously known results, we showed that our framework subsumes proofs that are based on the Donsker-Varadhan variational formula for relative entropy [@xu17-05a Thm. 1], [@guedj19-10a Prop. 3], on Hölder’s inequality [@esposito19-12a Thm. 1], and on the data-processing inequality [@bassily18-02a Thm. 8], [@esposito19-12a p. 10]. We further demonstrated the versatility of the framework by applying it to the random-subset setting recently introduced by Steinke and Zakynthinou [@steinke20-a]. In doing so, we were able to extend the bounds on the average generalization error obtained in [@steinke20-a] to the PAC-Bayesian setup and the single-draw setup. In addition to this, we used tools inspired by binary hypothesis testing to derive generalization bounds in terms of the tail of the conditional information density. We also obtained novel bounds in terms of the conditional maximal leakage and the conditional $\alpha$-mutual information by adapting a proof technique due to Esposito *et al.* [@esposito19-12a] to the random-subset setting.
As pointed out throughout this paper, the numerical evaluation of the presented generalization bounds requires that one replaces the marginal distribution $P_W$ (or $P_{W\vert {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}}$ in the random-subset setting) with a suitably chosen auxiliary distribution that can be computed without *a priori* knowledge of the data distribution $P_Z$. Some possible choices, in the context of deep neural networks, are provided in [@Negrea2019], [@Dziugaite2017]. However, the extent to which information-theoretic bounds such as the ones presented in this paper can guide the design of modern machine learning algorithms remains unclear.
[^1]: This work was partly supported by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
[^2]: Parts of the material of this paper will be presented at the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), June 2020, Los Angeles, CA. [@hellstrom-20a]
[^3]: F. Hellström and G. Durisi are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, (e-mail: {frehells,durisi}@chalmers.se).
[^4]: This issue is well understood in the PAC-Bayesian literature, where the available bounds are given in terms of an auxiliary distribution $Q_W$ that does not depend on the unknown data distribution $P_Z$.
[^5]: Note that the argument of the square root in can be negative, but that this happens with probability at most $\delta$. Therefore, the right-hand side of is well-defined with probability at least $1-\delta$.
[^6]: Note that, by construction, $W$ and $({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}},{\boldsymbol{S}})$ are conditionally independent given ${\boldsymbol{Z}}({\boldsymbol{S}})$.
[^7]: Note that the argument of the square root in can be negative, but that this happens with probability at most $\delta$. Therefore, the right-hand side of is well-defined with probability at least $1-\delta$.
[^8]: Note that $\eqref{eq:cor_singledraw_cond_leakage}$ provides a bound on ${\widehat{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{S}})}$, whereas the bound in [@esposito19-12a Cor. 9] is on ${{\textnormal{gen}}(W,{\boldsymbol{Z}})}$. To compare the two, one therefore has to add the $\delta$-dependent penalty term in Theorem \[thm:hoeffding\_genshat\_to\_gens\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents the first results from a model for chemical evolution that can be applied to N-body cosmological simulations and quantitatively compared to measured stellar abundances from large astronomical surveys. This model convolves the chemical yield sets from a range of stellar nucleosynthesis calculations (including AGB stars, Type Ia and II supernovae, and stellar wind models) with a user-specified stellar initial mass function (IMF) and metallicity to calculate the time-dependent chemical evolution model for a “simple stellar population” of uniform metallicity and formation time. These simple stellar population models are combined with a semi-analytic model for galaxy formation and evolution that uses merger trees from N-body cosmological simulations to track several $\alpha$- and iron-peak elements for the stellar and multiphase interstellar medium components of several thousand galaxies in the early ($z \geq 6$) universe. The simulated galaxy population is then quantitatively compared to two complementary datasets of abundances in the Milky Way stellar halo, and is capable of reproducing many of the observed abundance trends. The observed abundance ratio distributions are qualitatively well matched by our model, and the observational data is best reproduced with a Chabrier IMF, a chemically-enriched star formation efficiency of $0.2$, and a redshift of reionization of $7$.'
author:
- 'Brian D. Crosby'
- 'Brian W. O’Shea'
- 'Timothy C. Beers'
- Jason Tumlinson
bibliography:
- 'apj-jour.bib'
- 'chem\_evol.bib'
title: Tracing the Evolution of High Redshift Galaxies Using Stellar Abundances
---
\[firstpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We extend the classical path analysis by showing that, for a singly-connected path diagram, the partial covariance of two random variables factorizes over the nodes and edges in the path between the variables. This result allows us to give an alternative explanation to some causal phenomena previously discussed by @Pearl2013, and to show that Simpson’s paradox cannot occur in singly-connected path diagrams.'
author:
- |
Jose M. Peña\
IDA, Linköping University, Sweden\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'CondPathAnalysis.bib'
date: ', , '
title: 'Conditional Path Analysis in Singly-Connected Path Diagrams'
---
Introduction
============
To ease interpretation, linear structural equation models are typically represented as path diagrams: Nodes represent random variables, directed edges represent direct causal relationships, and bidirected edges represent confounding, i.e. correlation between error terms. Moreover, each directed edge is annotated with the corresponding coefficient in the linear structural equation model, a.k.a. path coefficient. Likewise, each bidirected edge is annotated with the corresponding error correlation. A path diagram also brings in computational benefits. For instance, it is known that the covariance $\sigma_{XY}$ of two standardized random variables $X$ and $Y$ can be determined from the path diagram. Specifically, $\sigma_{XY}$ can be expressed as the sum for every $\emptyset$-open path between $X$ and $Y$ of the product of path coefficients and error covariances for the edges in the path [@Wright1921; @Pearl2009]. For non-standardized variables, one has to multiply the product associated to each path with the variance of the root variable in the path, i.e. the variable with no incoming edges. A path can have no root variables ($X \aa Z \ra \cdots \ra Y$ or $X \la \cdots \la Z \aa W \ra \cdots \ra Y$) or one root variable ($X \ra \cdots \ra Y$ or $X \la \cdots \la Z \ra \cdots \ra Y$).
In this note, we develop a similar factorization for the partial covariance $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ in singly-connected path diagrams, i.e. no undirected cycle exists. We also demonstrate our result with some examples borrowed from @Pearl2013, where some causal phenomena are illuminated with the help of path diagrams. Finally, we show that Simpson’s paradox cannot occur in singly-connected path diagrams.
Paths without Colliders
=======================
We start by recalling the separation criterion for path diagrams. A node $C$ in the path $\pi_{XY}$ between two nodes $X$ and $Y$ is a collider if $A \ra C \la B$ or $A \ra C \aa B$ or $A \aa C \aa B$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Otherwise, $C$ is a non-collider. Then, $\pi_{XY}$ is said to be $Z$-open if
- no non-collider in $\pi_{XY}$ is in $Z$, and
- every collider in $\pi_{XY}$ is in $Z$ or has some descendant in $Z$.
If there exists no such path (which we denote as $X \ci Y | Z$), then we can readily conclude that $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}=0$. If on the other hand such a path does exist, we assume in this section that it has no colliders, and defer the case with colliders to the next section. In this case, one may think that $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ can be obtained by first applying path analysis to obtain an expression for $\sigma_{XY}$ and, then, modifying this expression by replacing (co)variances with conditional (co)variances given $Z$. However, this is incorrect as the following example shows.
[c|c]{}
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (1.5,-1.2) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (1.5,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Y); (Y) edge node\[right\] [$\delta$]{} (Z);
&
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (0,1.2) (eX) [$\epsilon_X$]{}; at (1.5,-1.2) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (3,-1.2) (eZ) [$\epsilon_Z$]{}; at (1.5,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (3,0) (eY) [$\epsilon_Y$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Y); (Y) edge node\[right\] [$\delta$]{} (Z); (eX) edge node\[right\] [$1$]{} (X); (eY) edge node\[above\] [$1$]{} (Y); (eZ) edge node\[above\] [$1$]{} (Z);
\
&\
(i) & (ii)
\[exa:counterexample\] Consider the path diagram (i) in Figure \[fig:counterexample\], which corresponds to the following linear structural equation model: $$\begin{aligned}
X &= \epsilon_X\\
Y &= \alpha X + \epsilon_Y\\
Z &= \delta Y + \epsilon_Z.\end{aligned}$$ Consider representing the error terms explicitly in the diagram, which results in the path diagram (ii) in Figure \[fig:counterexample\]. Then, $$\sigma_{XY} = cov(X, \alpha X + \epsilon_Y) = \alpha \sigma^2_X + cov(X,\epsilon_Y) = \alpha \sigma^2_X$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that $cov(X,\epsilon_Y)=0$ since $X \ci \epsilon_Y | \emptyset$. However, $$\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = cov(X, \alpha X + \epsilon_Y | Z) = \alpha \sigma^2_{X \cdot Z} + cov(X,\epsilon_Y | Z) \neq \alpha \sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}$$ where the last inequality follows from the fact that $cov(X,\epsilon_Y | Z) \neq 0$ in general, since $X \ci \epsilon_Y | Z$ does not hold.
For singly-connected path diagrams, the following two theorems show how to obtain $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ from $\sigma_{XY}$. Interestingly, $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ can still be written as a product over the nodes and edges in the path. See Appendix A for the proofs. Hereinafter, we use the following notation. The parents of a node $X$ are $Pa(X) = \{Y | Y \ra X \}$. The children of $X$ are $Ch(X) = \{Y | X \ra Y \}$. The spouses of $X$ are $Sp(X) = \{Y | X \aa Y \}$.
\[the:condpath1\] Let $\pi_{XY}$ be of the form $X = X_m \la \cdots \la X_2 \la X_1 \ra X_{m+1} \ra \cdots \ra X_{m+n} = Y$. Let $Z^i$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Pa(X_i) \cup Sp(X_i) \setminus \pi_{XY}$ by a path.[^1] Let $Z_i$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Ch(X_i) \setminus \pi_{XY}$ by a path. Let $Z_i^i=Z_i \cup Z^i$ and $Z_{1:i}^{1:i} = Z_1^1 \cup \cdots \cup Z_i^i$. Then, $$\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_{1:m+n}^{1:m+n}} = \sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}} \frac{\sigma^2_{X_1 \cdot Z_1^1}}{\sigma^2_{X_1}} \prod_{i=2}^{m+n} \frac{\sigma^2_{X_i \cdot Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i-1} Z_i^i}}{\sigma^2_{X_i \cdot Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i-1} Z^i}}$$ where $\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}}$ is obtained by path analysis.
Each variance ratio above can be interpreted as a deflation factor ($\leq 1$) that accounts for the reduction of the partial variance of $X_i$ when conditioning on $Z_{i}$. The expression above can be simplified if the paths between $Z_i$ and $X_i$ are closed with respect to $Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i-1} \cup Z^i$ (i.e., $Z_i \ci X_i | Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i-1} \cup Z^i$) since, then, the corresponding variance ratio is 1. Note also that $|\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_{1:m+n}^{1:m+n}}|$ is bounded above by $|\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}}|$. Moreover, conditioning does not change the sign of the covariance, i.e. $sign(\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_{1:m+n}^{1:m+n}}) = sign(\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}})$. This implies that if $\pi_{XY}$ is of the form $X \ra \cdots \ra Y$, then conditioning does not change the sign of the regression coefficient of $Y$ on $X$ and, thus, of the causal effect of $X$ on $Y$. This observation will be instrumental in proving that Simpson’s paradox does not occur in singly-connected path diagrams (see Corollary \[cor:Simpson\]).
\[the:condpath2\] Let $\pi_{XY}$ be of the form $X = X_m \la \cdots \la X_2 \la X_1 \aa X_{m+1} \ra \cdots \ra X_{m+n} = Y$. Let $Z^i$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Pa(X_i) \cup Sp(X_i) \setminus \pi_{XY}$ by a path. Let $Z_i$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Ch(X_i) \setminus \pi_{XY}$ by a path. Let $Z_i^i=Z_i \cup Z^i$ and $Z_{1:i}^{1:i} = Z_1^1 \cup \cdots \cup Z_i^i$. Then, $$\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_{1:m+n}^{1:m+n}} = \sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}} \prod_{i=1}^{m+n} \frac{\sigma^2_{X_i \cdot Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i-1} Z_i^i}}{\sigma^2_{X_i \cdot Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i-1} Z^i}}$$ where $\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}}$ is obtained by path analysis, and $Z_{1:0}^{1:0} = \emptyset$.
[c|c|c|c]{}
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (1.5,0) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (3,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (1.5,-1.2) (W) [$W$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Z); (Z) edge node\[above\] [$\beta$]{} (Y); (Z) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma$]{} (W);
&
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (1.5,0) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (3,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (1.5,1.2) (W) [$W$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Z); (Z) edge node\[above\] [$\beta$]{} (Y); (W) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma$]{} (Z);
&
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (1.5,-1.2) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (1.5,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Y); (Y) edge node\[right\] [$\delta$]{} (Z);
&
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (0,-1.2) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (1.5,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [a]{} (Y); (X) edge node\[right\] [b]{} (Z);
\
&&&\
(i) & (ii) & (iii) & (iv)
We now demonstrate the theorems above with some examples. These are borrowed from @Pearl2013, where some causal phenomena are illuminated with the help of path diagrams. Our results provide an alternative explanation for these phenomena.
\[exa:fig2and3\] Consider the path diagram (i) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. The causal effect of $X$ on $Y$ is given by the regression coefficient $\beta_{YX} = \alpha \beta$. Since $W$ does not lie on the causal path from $X$ to $Y$, one may think that the causal effect of $X$ on $Y$ is also given by the partial regression coefficient $\beta_{YX \cdot W}$, which can be computed from the subpopulation satisfying $W=w$ for any $w$. However, this is incorrect as shown by @Pearl2013 [Section 3.2]. It is an example of the bias introduced by conditioning on a proxy of a mediator. According to Pearl, it took decades for epidemiologists to realize this problem. We can confirm the bias by applying Theorem \[the:condpath1\] with $X_1=X, X_2=Z, X_3=Y, Z_1^1=Z^2=Z^3=Z_3^3=\emptyset$, and $Z^2_2=\{W\}$, which gives that $$\sigma_{XY \cdot W} = \sigma_{XY} \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_X} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot W}}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{XY} = \sigma^2_X \alpha \beta$ by path analysis. Then, $$\label{eq:partial}
\beta_{YX \cdot W} = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W}} = \alpha \beta \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W}} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_Z}$$ and, thus, $\beta_{YX \cdot W} \neq \alpha \beta$ unless $\gamma=0$ or $\alpha=\sigma_Z / \sigma_X$. To see it, note that $$\sigma^2_{X \cdot W} = \sigma^2_{X} - \frac{\sigma_{XW} \sigma_{WX}}{\sigma^2_{W}} = \sigma^2_{X} - \frac{( \sigma^2_X \alpha \gamma )^2}{\sigma^2_{W}} = \sigma^2_{X} \Big(\frac{\sigma^2_{W} - \sigma^2_X \alpha^2 \gamma^2}{\sigma^2_{W}} \Big)$$ and, similarly, $$\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W} = \sigma^2_{Z} \Big(\frac{\sigma^2_{W} - \sigma^2_{Z} \gamma^2}{\sigma^2_{W}} \Big).$$ Then, $$\frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W}} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_Z} = \frac{\sigma^2_{W} - \sigma^2_{Z} \gamma^2}{\sigma^2_{W} - \sigma^2_{X} \alpha^2 \gamma^2} = 1$$ if and only if $\gamma=0$ or $\alpha=\sigma_Z / \sigma_X$. In summary, the causal effect of $X$ on $Y$ cannot be computed from the subpopulation satisfying $W=w$ because $\beta_{YX \cdot W} \neq \alpha \beta$. However, if $\sigma^2_{X}$ and $\sigma^2_{Z}$ are known, then the causal effect can be computed from that subpopulation by correcting $\beta_{YX \cdot W}$ as shown in Equation \[eq:partial\].
As also shown by @Pearl2013 [Section 3.2], no bias is introduced in the path diagram (ii) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. To confirm it, we can apply Theorem \[the:condpath1\] with $X_1=X, X_2=Z, X_3=Y, Z_1^1=Z_3^3=\emptyset$, and $Z^2=Z_2^2=\{W\}$, which gives that $$\sigma_{XY \cdot W} = \sigma_{XY} \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_X} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot W}}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{XY} = \sigma^2_X \alpha \beta$ by path analysis. Then, $$\beta_{YX \cdot W} = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W}} = \alpha \beta \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W}} = \alpha \beta$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that $X \ci W | \emptyset$ and, thus, $\sigma^2_X = \sigma^2_{X \cdot W}$.
\[exa:fig4and5\] Consider the path diagram (iii) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. The causal effect of $X$ on $Y$ is given by the regression coefficient $\beta_{YX} = \alpha$. Since $Z$ does not lie on the causal path from $X$ to $Y$, one may think that the causal effect of $X$ on $Y$ is also given by the partial regression coefficient $\beta_{YX \cdot Z}$, which can be computed from the subpopulation satisfying $Z=z$ for any $z$. However, this is incorrect as shown by @Pearl2013 [Section 3.3]. It is an example of the bias introduced by conditioning on a proxy of the effect. Epidemiologists are well-aware of this problem under the name of selection bias or case-control bias, as it frequently occurs. For instance, it occurs when a study only includes patients for whom the proxy of the effect of interest is evidenced, e.g. only patients with a complication (proxy) of a disease (effect) look for help and are accounted in the data. We can confirm the bias introduced by applying Theorem \[the:condpath1\] with $X_1=X, X_2=Y, Z_1^1=Z^2=\emptyset$, and $Z^2_2=\{Z\}$, which gives that $$\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = \sigma_{XY} \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_X} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_Y}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{XY} = \sigma^2_X \alpha$ by path analysis. Then, $$\label{eq:partial2}
\beta_{YX \cdot Z} = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}} = \alpha \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_Y}.$$ and, thus, $\beta_{YX \cdot Z} \neq \alpha$ unless $\delta=0$ or $\alpha=\sigma_Y / \sigma_X$ as shown in Example \[exa:fig2and3\]. In summary, the causal effect of $X$ on $Y$ cannot be computed from the subpopulation satisfying $Z=z$ because $\beta_{YX \cdot Z} \neq \alpha$. However, if $\sigma^2_{X}$ and $\sigma^2_{Y}$ are known, then the causal effect can be computed from the subpopulation by correcting $\beta_{YX \cdot Z}$ as shown in Equation \[eq:partial2\].
As also shown by @Pearl2013 [Section 3.3], no bias is introduced in the path diagram (iv) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. To confirm it, we can apply Theorem \[the:condpath1\] with $X_1=X, X_2=Y, Z_1^1=\{Z\}$, and $Z^2=Z_2^2=\emptyset$, which gives that $$\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = \sigma_{XY} \frac{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_X} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{XY} = \sigma^2_X a$ by path analysis. Then, $$\beta_{YX \cdot Z} = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}} = a.$$
In summary, conditioning on a child of an intermediary or on a child of the effect introduces a bias in the estimation of the causal effect of interest. Appendix B illustrates with experiments how this bias may lead to suboptimal decision making. On the other hand, conditioning on a parent of an intermediary or on a child of the cause does not introduce any bias, which implies that the causal effect of interest can be estimated from a sample of the corresponding subpopulation. For completeness, we show below that conditioning on a parent of the cause or on a parent of the effect does not introduce any bias.
Consider the path diagram (ii) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. The causal effect of $Z$ on $Y$ is given by the regression coefficient $\beta_{YZ} = \beta$. Since $W$ does not lie on the causal path from $Z$ to $Y$, one may think that the causal effect of $Z$ on $Y$ is also given by the partial regression coefficient $\beta_{YZ \cdot W}$. We can confirm that this is correct by applying Theorem \[the:condpath1\] with $X_1=Z, X_2=Y, Z_1^1=\{W\}$, and $Z^2=Z^2_2=\emptyset$, which gives that $$\sigma_{ZY \cdot W} = \sigma_{ZY} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot W}}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{ZY} = \sigma^2_Z \beta$ by path analysis. Then, $$\beta_{YZ \cdot W} = \frac{\sigma_{ZY \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}} = \beta.$$
Consider again the path diagram (ii) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. The causal effect of $X$ on $Z$ is given by the regression coefficient $\beta_{ZX} = \alpha$. Since $W$ does not lie on the causal path from $X$ to $Z$, one may think that the causal effect of $X$ on $Z$ is also given by the partial regression coefficient $\beta_{ZX \cdot W}$. We can confirm that this is correct by applying Theorem \[the:condpath1\] with $X_1=X, X_2=Z, Z_1^1=\emptyset$, and $Z^2=Z^2_2=\{W\}$, which gives that $$\sigma_{XZ \cdot W} = \sigma_{XZ} \frac{\sigma^2_{X}}{\sigma^2_X} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{XZ} = \sigma^2_X \alpha$ by path analysis. Then, $$\beta_{ZX \cdot W} = \frac{\sigma_{XZ \cdot W}}{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W}} = \alpha \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W}} = \alpha$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that $X \ci W | \emptyset$ and, thus, $\sigma^2_X = \sigma^2_{X \cdot W}$.
at (1.5,0) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (3,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (1.5,-1.2) (W1) [$W_1$]{}; at (1.5,-2.4) (d) [$\vdots$]{}; at (1.5,-3.6) (Wn) [$W_n$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Z); (Z) edge node\[above\] [$\beta$]{} (Y); (Z) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma_1$]{} (W1); (W1) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma_2$]{} (d); (d) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma_n$]{} (Wn);
\[exa:dep\] Consider the path diagram in Figure \[fig:dep\], which generalizes the path diagram (i) in Figure \[fig:examples\]. Since $\sigma_{XY}$ factorizes over the path between $X$ and $Y$ due to path analysis and, moreover, $W_i$ does not lie on this path, then one may think that $\sigma_{XY} = \sigma_{XY \cdot W_i}$, where the latter can be computed from the subpopulation satisfying $W_i=w_i$ for any $w_i$. However, this is incorrect due to Theorem \[the:condpath1\]. Interestingly though, Theorem \[the:condpath1\] allows us to prove that the bias introduced by conditioning on $W_i$ decreases with the distance from $W_i$ to $Z$. In other words, $0 = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} < |\sigma_{XY \cdot W_i}| < |\sigma_{XY \cdot W_{i+1}}| < |\sigma_{XY}|$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ where, as discussed before, all these partial covariances have the same sign. This phenomenon has previously been reported by @ChaudhuriandRichardson2003 [Lemma 3.1].
Specifically, the path diagram in Figure \[fig:dep\] implies the linear structural equations $$W_{i+1} = \gamma_{i+1} W_{i-1} + \epsilon_i$$ and thus $$\label{eq:swi+1}
\sigma^2_{W_{i+1}} = \gamma_{i+1}^2 \sigma^2_{W_i} + \sigma^2_{\epsilon_{i+1}}.$$ Moreover, Theorem \[the:condpath1\] implies that $$\label{eq:sxywi}
\sigma_{XY \cdot W_i} = \sigma_{XY} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_i}}{\sigma^2_{Z}} \text{ and } \sigma_{XY \cdot W_{i+1}} = \sigma_{XY} \frac{\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i+1}}}{\sigma^2_{Z}}$$ with $$\label{eq:szwi}
\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_i} = \sigma^2_{Z} - \frac{\sigma_{Z W_i}^2}{\sigma^2_{W_i}}$$ and $$\label{eq:szwi+1}
\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i+1}} = \sigma^2_{Z} - \frac{\sigma_{Z W_{i+1}}^2}{\sigma^2_{W_{i+1}}} = \sigma^2_{Z} - \frac{\sigma_{Z W_{i}}^2 \gamma_{i+1}^2}{\sigma^2_{W_{i+1}}} = \sigma^2_{Z} - \frac{\sigma_{Z W_{i}}^2}{\sigma^2_{W_i} + \sigma^2_{\epsilon_{i+1}}/\gamma_{i+1}^2}$$ where the second equality is by path analysis, and the third by Equation \[eq:swi+1\]. Now, $\sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_i} < \sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i+1}}$ follows from Equations \[eq:szwi\] and \[eq:szwi+1\], which implies that $|\sigma_{XY \cdot W_i}| < |\sigma_{XY \cdot W_{i+1}}|$ by Equation \[eq:sxywi\]. Finally, that $|\sigma_{XY \cdot W_{i+1}}| < |\sigma_{XY}|$ follows from Theorem \[the:condpath1\].
Furthermore, Theorem \[the:condpath1\] allows us to prove that the result above does not only hold for $\sigma_{XY \cdot W_i}$ but also for $\beta_{YX \cdot W_i}$. In other words, $0 = \beta_{YX \cdot Z} < |\beta_{YX \cdot W_i}| < |\beta_{YX \cdot W_{i+1}}| < |\beta_{YX}|$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n-1$, were all these partial regression coefficients have the same sign. This strengthens the result in Example \[exa:fig2and3\]. @ChaudhuriandTan2010 [Theorem 2.1] have previously reported this phenomenon.
Specifically, we assume for simplicity that the random variables are standardized. Then, Theorem \[the:condpath1\] implies that $$\beta_{YX \cdot W_i} = \frac{\sigma^2_{XY \cdot W_{i}}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W_{i}}}=\frac{\sigma^2_{XY} \sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i}}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W_{i}} \sigma^2_{Z}} \text{ and } \beta_{YX \cdot W_{i+1}} = \frac{\sigma^2_{XY} \sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i+1}}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot W_{i+1}} \sigma^2_{Z}}.$$ Assume to the contrary that $|\beta_{YX \cdot W_i}| > |\beta_{YX \cdot W_{i+1}}|$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
|\beta_{YX \cdot W_i}| > |\beta_{YX \cdot W_{i+1}}| & \Leftrightarrow \sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i}} \sigma^2_{X \cdot W_{i+1}} > \sigma^2_{Z \cdot W_{i+1}} \sigma^2_{X \cdot W_{i}}\\
& \Leftrightarrow (1 - \prod_{j=1}^i \gamma_j^2) (1- \alpha^2 \prod_{j=1}^{i+1} \gamma_j^2) > (1 - \prod_{j=1}^{i+1} \gamma_j^2) (1- \alpha^2 \prod_{j=1}^{i} \gamma_j^2)\\
& \Leftrightarrow \gamma_{i+1}^2 > 1\end{aligned}$$ where the second implication is due to path analysis. Note that we have reached a contradiction because $-1 < \gamma_{i+1} < 1$ since the variables are standardized (see also Equation \[eq:swi+1\]). Finally, that $|\beta_{YX \cdot W_{n}}| < |\beta_{YX}|$ can be proven likewise.
[c|c]{}
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (2.5,1.2) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (2,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (1,1.2) (U) [$U$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Y); (U) edge node\[left\] [$\beta$]{} (X); (U) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma$]{} (Y); (U) edge node\[above\] [$\delta$]{} (Z);
&
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (2.5,1.2) (Z) [$Z$]{}; at (2,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (1,1.2) (U) [$U$]{}; (X) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha$]{} (Y); (U) edge node\[left\] [$\beta$]{} (X); (U) edge node\[right\] [$\gamma$]{} (Y); (U) edge node\[above\] [$\delta$]{} (Z);
\
&\
(i) & (ii)
\[exa:fig13\] Consider the path diagram (i) in Figure \[fig:fig13\]. Let us denote it by $G$. Moreover, let $G_{\alpha}$ denote the diagram that results when the edge $X \ra Y$ is deleted from $G$. Since $X \ci Y | U$ holds in $G_{\alpha}$, we have that $\alpha = \beta_{YX \cdot U}$ [@Pearl2009 Theorem 5.3.1]. However, if $U$ is unobserved then $\beta_{YX \cdot U}$ cannot be computed. Assume that the proxy $Z$ of $U$ is observed and, thus, $\beta_{YX \cdot Z}$ can be computed. Of course, $\alpha \neq \beta_{YX \cdot Z}$ because $X \ci Y | Z$ does not hold in $G_{\alpha}$. However, @Pearl2013 [Section 3.11] shows that the bias introduced by adjusting for $Z$ instead of $U$ vanishes as the correlation between $U$ and $Z$ grows, i.e. when $Z$ is a good proxy of $U$. The same occurs in the path diagram (ii) in Figure \[fig:fig13\].
Although the path diagrams in Figure \[fig:fig13\] are not singly-connected, we can still use our results to reach the same conclusions as Pearl. First, note that checking whether $X \ci Y | Z$ holds in $G_{\alpha}$ is equivalent to checking whether $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}=0$ holds in $G_{\alpha}$. Since $G_{\alpha}$ is a singly-connected path diagram, we can apply Theorem \[the:condpath1\] and conclude that $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = \sigma_{XY} \sigma_{U \cdot Z}^2 / \sigma_{U}^2$. This implies that, although conditioning on $Z$ does not nullify the covariance of $X$ and $Y$, it does reduce it. Moreover, the greater the correlation between $U$ and $Z$, the greater the reduction and, thus, the closer $\beta_{YX \cdot Z}$ comes to $\alpha$. We illustrate this with some experiments in Appendix C.
Paths with Colliders
====================
In this section, we address the case where $\pi_{XY}$ has colliders. Specifically, let $\pi_{XY}$ be $Z$-open. Given a collider $C$ in $\pi_{XY}$, an opener is any node $W \in Z$ such that $C = C_1 \ra \cdots \ra C_n = W$ and $C_1, \ldots, C_{n-1} \notin Z$. Note that $C$ is an opener if $C \in Z$.
\[the:collider\] Let $C$ be a collider in $\pi_{XY}$. Moreover, let $\pi_{XY}$ be closed with respect to $Z$ but open with respect to $Z \cup Z_{1:n}^{1:n} \cup W_{1:n}$ where (i) $W_1, \ldots, W_n$ are openers for $C$, (ii) $Z^i$ is a the set of nodes such that each is connected to $Pa(W_i) \cup Sp(W_i) \setminus \pi_{XY} \setminus \pi_{CW_i}$ by a path, (iii) $Z_i$ is a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Ch(W_i)$ by a path, and (iv) $Z_{1:i}^{1:j} = Z_1 \cup \cdots \cup Z_i \cup Z^1 \cup \cdots \cup Z^j$. Then, $$\sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n}^{1:n} W_{1:n}} = - \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\sigma_{X W_i \cdot Z Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i} W_{1:i-1}} \sigma_{W_i Y \cdot Z Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i} W_{1:i-1}}}{\sigma^2_{W_i \cdot Z Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i} W_{1:i-1}}}$$ where $Z_{1:0}^{1:1} = Z^1$ and $W_{1:0}=\emptyset$.
In the theorem above, if $\pi_{X W_i}$ has some collider then $\sigma_{X W_i \cdot Z Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i} W_{1:i-1}}$ is obtained by recursively applying the theorem to $\pi_{X W_i}$. When $\pi_{X W_i}$ has no colliders, $\sigma_{X W_i \cdot Z Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i} W_{1:i-1}}$ is obtained as shown in Theorems \[the:condpath1\] and \[the:condpath2\]. Likewise for $\pi_{W_i Y}$ and $\sigma_{W_i Y \cdot Z Z_{1:i-1}^{1:i} W_{1:i-1}}$. Example \[exa:collider\] demonstrates this recursive procedure. Specifically, let $\pi_{XY}$ have colliders $C_1, \ldots, C_k$, where $C_i$ has openers $\mathcal{W}_i = \{W_{i1}, \ldots, W_{i n_i}\}$. Then, the recursive procedure just described allows us to write $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n}^{1:n} W_{1:n}}$ as $$\label{eq:recursion}
(-1)^k \sum_{O_1 \in \mathcal{W}_1} \cdots \sum_{O_k \in \mathcal{W}_k} \frac{\sigma_{X O_1 \cdot U_{O_1}} \sigma_{O_1 O_2 \cdot U_{O_1 O_2}} \cdots \: \sigma_{O_{k-1} O_k \cdot U_{O_{k-1} O_k}} \sigma_{O_k Y \cdot U_{O_k}}}{\sigma^2_{O_1 \cdot U_{O_1}} \sigma^2_{O_2 \cdot U_{O_1 O_2}} \cdots \: \sigma^2_{O_{k-1} \cdot U_{O_{k-1} O_k}} \sigma^2_{O_k \cdot U_{O_k}}}$$ for some $U_{O_1}, U_{O_1 O_2}, \ldots, U_{O_{k-1} O_k}, U_{O_k}$. In other words, the partial covariance decomposes as a sum over the different ways of opening $\pi_{XY}$, and each term in the sum is a product of calls to Theorems \[the:condpath1\] and \[the:condpath2\]. Then, each term in the sum factorizes over the nodes and edges of $\pi_{XY}$. This resembles how path analysis on unconstrained path diagrams decomposes the covariance of two random variables over the different $\emptyset$-open paths between them.
at (0,0) (X) [$X$]{}; at (1,0) (C) [$C$]{}; at (2,0) (Cp) [$C'$]{}; at (.5,-1) (W1) [$W_1$]{}; at (1.5,-1) (W2) [$W_2$]{}; at (3,0) (Y) [$Y$]{}; at (-.5,-1) (Zp) [$Z^1$]{}; at (.5,-2) (Zc) [$Z_1$]{}; (X) edge (C); (C) edge (Cp); (C) edge (W1); (C) edge (W2); (Y) edge (Cp); (W1) edge (Zc); (Zp) edge (W1);
\[exa:collider\] Consider the path diagram in Figure \[fig:collider\]. Then, the partial covariance $\sigma_{XY \cdot C' Z_1^1 W_{1:2}}$ can be computed with the help of Theorem \[the:collider\] with $Z=\{C'\}$. Specifically, $$\sigma_{XY \cdot C' Z_1^1 W_{1:2}} = - \frac{\sigma_{X W_1 \cdot C' Z^1} \sigma_{W_1 Y \cdot C' Z^1}}{\sigma^2_{W_1 \cdot C' Z^1}} - \frac{\sigma_{X W_2 \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1} \sigma_{W_2 Y \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1}}{\sigma^2_{W_2 \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1}}.$$ Moreover, $\sigma_{X W_1 \cdot C' Z^1}$ and $\sigma_{X W_2 \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1}$ can be computed as shown in Theorem \[the:condpath1\]. On the other hand, $\sigma_{W_1 Y \cdot C' Z^1}$ and $\sigma_{W_2 Y \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1}$ can be computed by applying Theorem \[the:collider\] again with $Z=\{Z^1\}$ and $Z=Z^1_1 \cup \{W_1\}$, respectively. Specifically, $$\sigma_{W_1 Y \cdot C' Z^1} = - \frac{\sigma_{W_1 C' \cdot Z^1} \sigma_{C' Y \cdot Z^1}}{\sigma^2_{C' \cdot Z^1}}$$ and $$\sigma_{W_2 Y \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1} = - \frac{\sigma_{W_2 C' \cdot Z^1_1 W_1} \sigma_{C' Y \cdot Z^1_1 W_1}}{\sigma^2_{C' \cdot Z^1_1 W_1}}$$ where the partial covariances in the numerators can be computed as shown in Theorems \[the:condpath1\] and \[the:condpath2\]. Putting all together, we have that $$\sigma_{XY \cdot C' Z_1^1 W_{1:2}} = \frac{\sigma_{X W_1 \cdot C' Z^1} \sigma_{W_1 C' \cdot Z^1} \sigma_{C' Y \cdot Z^1}}{\sigma^2_{W_1 \cdot C' Z^1} \sigma^2_{C' \cdot Z^1}} + \frac{\sigma_{X W_2 \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1} \sigma_{W_2 C' \cdot Z^1_1 W_1} \sigma_{C' Y \cdot Z^1_1 W_1}}{\sigma^2_{W_2 \cdot C' Z^1_1 W_1} \sigma^2_{C' \cdot Z^1_1 W_1}}$$ which confirms Equation \[eq:recursion\] and the discussion thereof.
@Pearl2013 [Section 3.1] illustrates Simpson’s paradox by applying path analysis on the path diagram $X \ra Z \ra Y \la X$, i.e. the diagram contains an undirected cycle. We now show that Simpson’s paradox cannot occur in singly-connected path diagrams. As discussed before, Theorems \[the:condpath1\] and \[the:condpath2\] imply that conditioning does not change the sign of the covariance for paths without colliders. The following corollary shows that this also holds for paths with colliders.
\[cor:Simpson\] Let $\pi_{XY}$ be open with respect to $Z$ and $Z \cup W$. Then, $sign(\sigma_{XY \cdot Z})=sign(\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W})$.
Discussion
==========
In this note, we have extended the classical path analysis by showing that, for a singly-connected path diagram, the partial covariance of two random variables factorizes over the nodes and edges in the path between the variables. This result applies even when the path contains colliders. We find the case where the path has no colliders particularly interesting, since then the partial covariance can be computed by multiplying the expression for the covariance given by path analysis with a product of deflation factors that account for the reduction of the partial variances of the variables in the path. Moreover, these results have allowed us to give an alternative explanation to some causal phenomena previously discussed by @Pearl2013, and to show that Simpson’s paradox cannot occur in singly-connected path diagrams. Naturally, we would like in the future to extend our results beyond singly-connected path diagrams.
Appendix A: Proofs {#appendix-a-proofs .unnumbered}
==================
Recall that in all the results below the path diagram is assumed to be singly-connected.
\[lem:root\] Let $S$ be the root node in a path $\pi_{XY}$ without colliders, i.e. $A \la S \ra B$ or $S \ra B$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Note that $S=X$ or $S=Y$ in the latter case. Let $W$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Pa(S) \cup Ch(S) \cup Sp(S) \setminus \{A,B\}$ by a path. Then, $$\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{S \cdot ZW}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}.$$
Assume that $W$ is a singleton. Consider first the case where $A \la S \ra B$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Note that $X \ci W | Z \cup S$. Then, $$0 = \sigma_{XW \cdot ZS} = \sigma_{XW \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} = \delta_{XS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}$ where $\delta_{XS \cdot Z} = \sigma_{XS \cdot Z} / \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}$. Likewise, $Y \ci W | Z \cup S$ implies that $\sigma_{YW \cdot Z} = \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}$ where $\delta_{YS \cdot Z} = \sigma_{YS \cdot Z} / \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}$. Likewise, $X \ci Y | Z \cup S$ implies that $$0 = \sigma_{XY \cdot ZS} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = \delta_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} &= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}}\\
& = \delta_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z} - \frac{\delta_{XS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}}\\
& = \delta_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \Big( \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{SW \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} \Big)\\
& = \delta_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{S \cdot ZW} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{S \cdot ZW}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, consider the case where $S \ra B$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Assume without loss of generality that $S=X$. Note that $Y \ci W | Z \cup X$. Then, $$0 = \sigma_{YW \cdot ZX} = \sigma_{YW \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{YX \cdot Z} \sigma_{XW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $$\sigma_{YW \cdot Z} = \frac{\sigma_{YX \cdot Z} \sigma_{XW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} &= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{YX \cdot Z} \sigma_{XW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}}\\
&= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \Big( 1 - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{XW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}} \Big) = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}} \Big( \sigma^2_{X \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{XW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} \Big)\\
&= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{X \cdot ZW}}{\sigma^2_{X \cdot Z}}.\end{aligned}$$
Repeated application of the result above proves the result for when $W$ is a set.
\[lem:nonrootpasp\] Let $S$ be a non-root node in a path $\pi_{XY}$ without colliders, i.e. $A \oa S \ra B$ or $A \oa S$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$.[^2] Note that $S=X$ or $S=Y$ in the latter case. Let $W$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Pa(S) \cup Sp(S) \setminus \{A\}$ by a path. Then, $$\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$$ if $Z$ contains no descendants of $S$.
Assume that $W$ is a singleton. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} &= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}}\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ because $\sigma_{XW \cdot Z}=0$ or $\sigma_{WY \cdot Z}=0$ since $X \ci W | Z$ or $W \ci Y | Z$.
Repeated application of the result above proves the result for when $W$ is a set.
\[lem:nonrootch\] Let $S$ be a non-root node in a path $\pi_{XY}$ without colliders, i.e. $A \oa S \ra B$ or $A \oa S$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Note that $S=X$ or $S=Y$ in the latter case. Let $W$ be a set of nodes such that each is connected to $Ch(S) \setminus \{B\}$ by a path. Then, $$\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{S \cdot ZW}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}.$$
Assume that $W$ is a singleton. Consider first the case where $A \oa S \ra B$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Note that $X \ci W | Z \cup S$. Then, $$0 = \sigma_{XW \cdot ZS} = \sigma_{XW \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} = \sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{SW \cdot Z}$ where $\delta_{SW \cdot Z} = \sigma_{SW \cdot Z} / \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}$. Note also that $Y \ci W | Z \cup S$. Then, $$0 = \sigma_{YW \cdot ZS} = \sigma_{YW \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $\sigma_{YW \cdot Z} = \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}$ where $\delta_{YS \cdot Z} = \sigma_{YS \cdot Z} / \sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}$. Likewise, $X \ci Y | Z \cup S$ implies that $$0 = \sigma_{XY \cdot ZS} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = \sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} &= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XS \cdot Z} \delta_{SW \cdot Z} \delta_{YS \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}}\\
&= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \Big(1 - \frac{\delta_{SW \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} \Big) = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}} \Big(\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z} \delta_{SW \cdot Z} \sigma_{SW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} \Big)\\
& = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{S \cdot ZW}}{\sigma^2_{S \cdot Z}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, consider the case where $A \oa S$ is a subpath of $\pi_{XY}$. Assume without loss of generality that $S=Y$. Note that $X \ci W | Z \cup Y$. Then, $$0 = \sigma_{XW \cdot ZY} = \sigma_{XW \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \sigma_{YW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}$$ which implies that $$\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \sigma_{YW \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{XY \cdot ZW} &= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \sigma_{YW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}}\\
&= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \Big( 1 - \frac{\sigma_{YW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z} \sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} \Big) = \frac{\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}} \Big( \sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z} - \frac{\sigma_{YW \cdot Z} \sigma_{WY \cdot Z}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot Z}} \Big)\\
& = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} \frac{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot ZW}}{\sigma^2_{Y \cdot Z}}.\end{aligned}$$
Repeated application of the result above proves the result for when $W$ is a set.
First, note that $$\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_1^1} = \sigma_{X_m X_{m+n}} \frac{\sigma^2_{X_1 \cdot Z_1^1}}{\sigma^2_{X_1}}$$ by Lemma \[lem:root\]. Then, note that $$\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_1^1 Z^2} = \sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_1^1}$$ by Lemma \[lem:nonrootpasp\]. Finally, note that $$\sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_1^1 Z^2 Z_2} = \sigma_{X_m X_{m+n} \cdot Z_1^1 Z^2} \frac{\sigma^2_{X_1 \cdot Z_1^1 Z^2 Z_2}}{\sigma^2_{X_1 \cdot Z_1^1 Z^2}}$$ by Lemma \[lem:nonrootch\]. Continuing with this process for the rest of the nodes yields the desired result.
Analogous to the proof of Theorem \[the:condpath1\].
First, note that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n}^{1:n} W_{1:n}} &= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n}}\\
&= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}} - \frac{\sigma_{X W_n \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}} \sigma_{W_n Y \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}}}{\sigma^2_{W_n \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}}}\\
&= \sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n-1} W_{1:n-1}} - \frac{\sigma_{X W_n \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}} \sigma_{W_n Y \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}}}{\sigma^2_{W_n \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} W_{1:n-1}}}\end{aligned}$$ because $X \cup Y \ci Z_n | Z \cup Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n} \cup W_{1:n}$ and $X \cup Y \ci Z^n | Z \cup Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n-1} \cup W_{1:n-1}$. Then, the theorem follows by recursively applying the paragraph above to $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n-1} W_{1:n-1}}$ until $n-1=0$, in which case $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z Z_{1:n-1}^{1:n-1} W_{1:n-1}} = \sigma_{XY \cdot Z} = 0$ because $X \ci Y | Z$.
We assume that $W$ is a singleton. Repeated application of the reasoning below proves the corollary for when $W$ is a set. We prove the corollary by induction over the number of colliders in $\pi_{XY}$. If there are no colliders, then the corollary follows from Theorems \[the:condpath1\] and \[the:condpath2\]. We assume as induction hypothesis that the corollary holds if $\pi_{XY}$ has fewer than $k$ colliders, and now prove it for $k$ colliders. We consider the following three cases.
- There is a collider $C$ in $\pi_{XY}$ with the same openers when computing $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ and $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$. Let us denote them by $W_1, \ldots, W_n$. According to Theorem \[the:collider\], $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ decomposes as a sum of terms of the form $$\frac{\sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i} \sigma_{W_i Y \cdot U_i}}{\sigma^2_{W_i \cdot U_i}}$$ for some $U_i$. Note that $X \ci W_i | U_i \cup C$ and thus $$0 = \sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i C} = \sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i} - \frac{\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i} \sigma_{C W_i \cdot U_i}}{\sigma^2_{C \cdot U_i}}$$ which implies that $$\sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i} = \frac{\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i} \sigma_{C W_i \cdot U_i}}{\sigma^2_{C \cdot U_i}}.$$ Likewise for $\sigma_{W_i Y \cdot U_i}$. And likewise for $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$ simply replacing $U_i$ with $U_i'$. Moreover, the induction hypothesis implies that $sign(\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i'}) = sign(\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i})$ and $sign(\sigma_{C W_i \cdot U_i'}) = sign(\sigma_{C W_i \cdot U_i})$, which implies that $sign(\sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i'}) = sign(\sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i})$. Likewise, we can prove that $sign(\sigma_{W_i Y \cdot U_i'}) = sign(\sigma_{W_i Y \cdot U_i})$. Therefore, each term in the sum decomposition of $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$ has the same sign as the corresponding term in the decomposition of $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$.
- There is a collider $C$ in $\pi_{XY}$ with openers $W_1, \ldots, W_n$ when computing $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$, and openers $W_1, \ldots, W_{n-1}, W$ when computing $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$. In other words, $W$ replaces $W_n$ as an opener, which implies that $C \ra \cdots \ra W \ra \cdots \ra W_n$. Note that replacing the $n$-th opener is not a constraint as the labeling of the openers is arbitrary. As in the previous case, $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ decomposes as a sum of terms of the form $$\frac{\sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i} \sigma_{W_i Y \cdot U_i}}{\sigma^2_{W_i \cdot U_i}}$$ for some $U_i$, where $$\sigma_{X W_i \cdot U_i} = \frac{\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i} \sigma_{C W_i \cdot U_i}}{\sigma^2_{C \cdot U_i}}$$ and likewise for $\sigma_{W_i Y \cdot U_i}$. Then, each term in the sum is of the form $$\label{eq:dec}
\frac{\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i} \sigma_{C W_i \cdot U_i} \sigma_{W_i C \cdot U_i} \sigma_{C Y \cdot U_i}}{\sigma^2_{W_i \cdot U_i} \sigma^2_{C \cdot U_i} \sigma^2_{C \cdot U_i}}.$$ Likewise, $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$ decomposes as a sum of terms of the same form for all $1 \leq i \leq n-1$, plus a new term of the form $$\label{eq:dec2}
\frac{\sigma_{X C \cdot U} \sigma_{C W \cdot U} \sigma_{W C \cdot U} \sigma_{C Y \cdot U}}{\sigma^2_{W \cdot U} \sigma^2_{C \cdot U} \sigma^2_{C \cdot U}}$$ for some $U$. Moreover, the induction hypothesis implies that $sign(\sigma_{X C \cdot U}) = sign(\sigma_{X C \cdot U_n})$ and $sign(\sigma_{C Y \cdot U}) = sign(\sigma_{C Y \cdot U_n})$. Therefore, each term in the sum decomposition of $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$ has the same sign as the corresponding term in the decomposition of $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$.
- There is a collider $C$ in $\pi_{XY}$ with openers $W_1, \ldots, W_n$ when computing $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$, and openers $W_1, \ldots, W_n, W$ when computing $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$. In other words, $W$ is an additional opener. Note that $n \geq 1$ for $\pi_{XY}$ to be open. As in the previous case, $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$ decomposes as a sum of terms of the form in Equation \[eq:dec\]. Likewise, $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$ decomposes as a sum of terms of the same form for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, plus a new term of the form in Equation \[eq:dec2\]. Moreover, the induction hypothesis implies that $sign(\sigma_{X C \cdot U}) = sign(\sigma_{X C \cdot U_i})$ and $sign(\sigma_{C Y \cdot U}) = sign(\sigma_{C Y \cdot U_i})$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$. Therefore, the new term has the same sign as the rest of the terms in the decomposition of $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z W}$ and, thus, the same sign as the terms in the decomposition of $\sigma_{XY \cdot Z}$.
[^1]: Including paths of length zero.
[^2]: We use $\oa$ to denote $\ra$ or $\aa$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We report on work to increase the number of well-measured Type Ia supernovae ([SNe Ia]{}) at high redshifts. Light curves, including high signal-to-noise HST data, and spectra of six [SNe Ia]{}that were discovered during 2001 are presented. Additionally, for the two [SNe]{} with $z>1$, we present ground-based $J$-band photometry from Gemini and the VLT. These are among the most distant [SNe Ia]{}for which ground based near-IR observations have been obtained. We add these six [SNe Ia]{}together with other data sets that have recently become available in the literature to the Union compilation [@2008ApJ...686..749K]. We have made a number of refinements to the Union analysis chain, the most important ones being the refitting of all light curves with the [SALT2]{}fitter and an improved handling of systematic errors. We call this new compilation, consisting of ${557}$ supernovae, the [Union2]{} compilation. The flat concordance $\Lambda$CDM model remains an excellent fit to the [Union2]{}data with the best fit constant equation of state parameter $w={-0.997}^{{+0.050}}_{{-0.054}}\mathrm{(stat)}^{{+0.077}}_{{-0.082}}
\mathrm{(stat+sys\ together)}$ for a flat universe, or $w={-1.035}^{{+0.055}}_{{-0.059}}\mathrm{(stat)}^{{+0.093}}_{{-0.097}}
\mathrm{(stat+sys\ together)}$ with curvature. We also present improved constraints on $w(z)$. While no significant change in $w$ with redshift is detected, there is still considerable room for evolution in $w$. The strength of the constraints depend strongly on redshift. In particular, at $z \gtrsim 1$, the existence and nature of dark energy are only weakly constrained by the data.
author:
- 'R. Amanullah, C. Lidman, D. Rubin, G. Aldering, P. Astier, K. Barbary, M. S. Burns, A. Conley, K. S. Dawson, S. E. Deustua, M. Doi, S. Fabbro, L. Faccioli, H. K. Fakhouri, G. Folatelli, A. S. Fruchter, H. Furusawa, G. Garavini, G. Goldhaber, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, I. Hook, D. A. Howell, N. Kashikawa, A. G. Kim, R. A. Knop, M. Kowalski, E. Linder, J. Meyers, T. Morokuma, S. Nobili, J. Nordin, P. E. Nugent, L. Östman, R. Pain, N. Panagia, S. Perlmutter, J. Raux, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, A. L. Spadafora, M. Strovink, N. Suzuki, L. Wang, W. M. Wood-Vasey, N. Yasuda (The Supernova Cosmology Project)'
bibliography:
- 'rahman.bib'
title: 'Spectra and HST Light Curves of Six Type Ia Supernovae at $0.511<z<1.12$ and the [Union2]{}Compilation [^1] '
---
Introduction
============
Type Ia supernovae ([SNe Ia]{}) are an excellent tool for probing the expansion history of the Universe. About a decade ago, combined observations of nearby and distant [SNe Ia]{}led to the discovery of the accelerating universe [@1998Natur.391...51P; @1998ApJ...509...74G; @1998ApJ...507...46S; @1998AJ....116.1009R; @1999ApJ...517..565P].
Following these pioneering efforts, the combined work of several different teams during the past decade has provided an impressive increase in both the total number of [SNe Ia]{}and the quality of the individual measurements. At the high redshift end ($z \gtrsim 1$), the Hubble Space Telescope ([HST]{}) has played a key role. It has successfully been used for high-precision optical and infrared follow-up of [SNe]{}discovered from the ground [@2003ApJ...598..102K; @2003ApJ...594....1T; @2004ApJ...602..571B; @2009ApJ...700.1415N], and, by using the Advanced Camera for Surveys ([ACS]{}), to carry out both search and follow-up from space [@2004ApJ...607..665R; @2007ApJ...659...98R; @2008ApJ...673..981K; @dawson:2009]. At the same time, several large-scale ground-based projects have been populating the Hubble Diagram at lower redshifts. The Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope [@2001ASPC..246..121F], the Nearby Supernova Factory [@2006NewAR..50..436C], the Center for Astrophysics [SN]{}group [@2009ApJ...700..331H], the Carnegie Supernova Project [@2006PASP..118....2H; @2010AJ....139..120F], and the Palomar Transient Factory [@2009PASP..121.1395L] are conducting searches and/or follow-up for [SNe]{}at low redshifts ($z <
0.1$). The [SN]{}Legacy Survey ([SNLS]{}) [@2006AA...447...31A] and [ESSENCE]{}[@2007ApJ...666..674M; @2007ApJ...666..694W] are building [SN]{}samples over the redshift interval $0.3 < z < 1.0$, and the [SDSS]{}[SN]{}Survey [@2008AJ....136.2306H; @2009ApJS..185...32K] is building a [SN]{}sample over the redshift interval $0.1 < z < 0.3$, a redshift interval that has been relatively neglected in the past. These projects have discovered $\sim700$ well-measured [SNe]{}. The number of well-measured [SNe]{}beyond $z\sim1$ is approximately 20 and is comparatively small. @2008ApJ...686..749K (hereafter K08) provided a framework to analyze these and future datasets in a homogeneous manner and created a compilation, called the “Union” [SNe Ia]{}compilation, of what was then the world’s SN data sets. Recently, @2009ApJ...700.1097H (hereafter H09) added a significant number of nearby [SNe]{}to a subset of the “Union” set to create a new compilation, and similarly the [SDSS]{}[SN]{}survey [@2009ApJS..185...32K] (hereafter KS09) carried out an analysis of a compilation including their large intermediate-$z$ data set [@2008AJ....136.2306H]. When combined with baryon acoustic oscillations [@2005ApJ...633..560E], the H09 compilation leads to an estimate of the equation of state parameter that is consistent with a cosmological constant while KS09 get significantly different results depending on which light curve fitter they use.
An important role for [SNe Ia]{}beyond $z \sim 1$, in addition to constraining the time evolution of $w$, is their power to constrain astrophysical effects that would systematically bias cosmological fits. Most evolutionary effects are expected to monotonically change with redshift and are not expected to mimic dark energy over the entire redshift interval over which SNe Ia can be observed. Evolutionary effects might also have additional detectable consequences, such as a shift in the average color of [SNe Ia]{}or a change in the intrinsic dispersion about the best fit cosmology.
Interestingly, the most distant [SNe Ia]{}in the Union compilation (defined here as [SNe Ia]{}with $z\gtrsim 1.1$) are almost all redder than the average color of [SNe Ia]{}over the redshift interval $0.3 < z <
1.1$. The result is unexpected as bluer [SNe Ia]{}at lower redshifts are also brighter and should therefore be easier to detect at higher redshifts. Possible explanations for the redder than average colors of very distant [SNe Ia]{}range from the technical, such as an incomplete understanding of the calibration of the instruments used for obtaining the high redshift data, to the more astrophysically interesting, such as a real lack of bluer [SNe]{}at high redshifts. The underlying assumption in using [SNe Ia]{}in cosmology is that the luminosity of both near and distant events can be standardized with the same luminosity versus color and luminosity versus light curve shape relationships. While drifts in [SN Ia]{}populations are expected from a combination of the preferential discovery of brighter [SNe Ia]{}and changes in the mix of galaxy types with redshift [@2007ApJ...667L..37H] — effects that will affect different surveys by differing amounts — a lack of evolution in these relationships with redshift has not been convincingly demonstrated given the precision of current data sets. This assumption needs to be continuously examined as larger and more precise [SN Ia]{}data sets become available.
In this paper, we report on work to increase the number of well-measured distant [SNe Ia]{}by presenting [SNe Ia]{}that were discovered in ground based searches during 2001 and then followed with WFPC2 on [HST]{}. Two of the new [SNe Ia]{}are at $z \sim 1.1$ and have high-quality ground-based infrared observations that were obtained with [ISAAC]{}on the [VLT]{}and [NIRI]{}on [Gemini]{}. This paper is the first paper in a series of papers that will provide a comparable sample of $z>1$ [SNe Ia]{}to the [SNe]{}now available in the literature. The [SNe Ia]{}in this series of papers were discovered in 2001 (this paper), 2002 (Suzuki [et al.]{}in preparation) and from 2005 to 2006 during the Supernova Cosmology Project ([SCP]{}) cluster survey [@dawson:2009].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:search\], we describe the [SN]{}search and the spectroscopic confirmation, while Sections \[sec:followup\], \[sec:groundphoto\] and \[sec:spacephoto\] contain a description of the follow-up imaging and the [SN]{}photometry. The light curve fitting is described in Section \[sec:lcfitting\]. In Section \[sec:union\] we update the K08 analysis both by adding new data and by improving the analysis chain. The paper ends with a discussion and a summary.
Search, discovery and spectroscopic confirmation {#sec:search}
================================================
The [SNe]{}were discovered during two separate high-redshift [SN]{}search campaigns that were conducted during the Northern Spring of 2001. The first campaign (hereafter Spring 2001) consisted of searches with the [CFH12k]{}[@cuillandre:2000] camera on the 3.4 m Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope ([CFHT]{}) and the [MOSAIC II]{}[@1998SPIE.3355..577M] camera on the 4.0 m Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory ([CTIO]{}) Blanco telescope. The second campaign (hereafter Subaru 2001) was done with [SuprimeCam]{}[@2002PASJ...54..833M] on the 8.2 m Subaru telescope. All searches were “classical” searches [@1995ApJ...440L..41P; @1997ApJ...483..565P], i.e., the survey region was observed twice with a delay of approximately one month between the two observations, and the two epochs were then analyzed to find transients. Details of the search campaigns can be found in and @2010PASJ...62...19M.
The Spring 2001 data were processed to find transient objects and the most promising candidates were given an internal [SCP]{}name and a priority. The priority was based on a number of factors: the significance of the detection, the relative increase in the brightness, the distance from the center of the apparent host, the brightness of the candidate and the quality of the subtraction. Note however that these factors were not applied independently of each other, but the priorities were rather based on a combination of factors. For example, candidates on core were only avoided if they had a small relative brightness increase over the span of 1 month. The AGN structure function shows that AGNs rarely have strong changes over 1 month.
The candidates discovered in the Spring 2001 campaign were distributed to teams working at Keck and Paranal observatories for spectroscopic confirmation. The distribution was based on the likely redshifts. Candidates that were likely to be SNe Ia at $z\gtrsim 0.7$ were sent to Keck, while candidates that were thought to be nearer were sent to the [VLT]{}. In later years, when [FORS2]{}was upgraded with a CCD with increased red sensitivity, the most distant candidates would also be sent to the VLT. All Subaru 2001 candidates were sent to [FOCAS]{}(Faint Object Camera And Spectrograph) on Subaru for spectroscopic confirmation [@2010PASJ...62...19M].
In total, four instruments ([FORS1]{}on the ESO [VLT]{}, ESI and LRIS on Keck, and [FOCAS]{}on [Subaru]{}) were used to determine redshifts and to spectroscopically confirm the SN type. The dates of the spectroscopic runs are listed in Table \[tab:spectroruns\] and the observations of individual candidates are listed in Table \[tab:SpecObservations\] Only those candidates that were confirmed as [SNe Ia]{}were then scheduled for follow-up observations from the ground and with [HST]{}. In total, six [SNe]{}were sent for HST follow-up: one from the Subaru 2001 campaign and five from the Spring 2001 campaign. The [SNe]{}are listed in Tables \[tab:SpecObservations\] and \[tab:SpecResults\]. Finding charts are provided in Figure \[fig:FC\].
{width="\textwidth"}
[lllll]{} Spring 2001 & [FORS1]{}/Antu & & 500 & 2001 April 21 – 22\
Spring 2001 & LRIS/Keck I & & 850 & 2001 April 20\
Spring 2001 & ESI/Keck II & & 5000 & 2001 April 21 – 24\
Subaru 2001 & FOCAS/Subaru & & 1000 & 2001 May 26 – 27\
[llllllll]{} SN 2001cw & Subaru 01 & $15{^\mathrm{h}}23{^\mathrm{m}}06{^\mathrm{s}}.3$ & $+29{^\circ}39{'}32{''}$ & 0.024 & 52056.6 & FOCAS/Subaru & 4200\
SN 2001gn & Spring 01 & $14{^\mathrm{h}}01{^\mathrm{m}}59{^\mathrm{s}}.9$ & $+05{^\circ}05{'}00{''}$ & 0.028 & 52023.1 & ESI/Keck II & 9700\
SN 2001go & Spring 01 & $14{^\mathrm{h}}02{^\mathrm{m}}00{^\mathrm{s}}.9$ & $+05{^\circ}00{'}59{''}$ & 0.027 & 52021.3 & [FORS1]{}/Antu & 2400\
SN 2001gq & Spring 01 & $14{^\mathrm{h}}01{^\mathrm{m}}51{^\mathrm{s}}.4$ & $+04{^\circ}53{'}12{''}$ & 0.027 & 52020.3 & LRIS/Keck & 3600\
SN 2001gy & Spring 01 & $13{^\mathrm{h}}57{^\mathrm{m}}04{^\mathrm{s}}.5$ & $+04{^\circ}31{'}00{''}$ & 0.030 & 52021.3 & [FORS1]{}/Antu & 2400\
SN 2001hb & Spring 01 & $13{^\mathrm{h}}57{^\mathrm{m}}11{^\mathrm{s}}.9$ & $+04{^\circ}20{'}27{''}$ & 0.032 & 52024.3 & ESI/Keck II & 3600\
Here, we describe the analysis of data that were taken with ESI and LRIS. The analyses of the spectra taken with [FORS1]{}and FOCAS (SN 2001cw, SN 2001go and SN 2001gy) are described in and @2010PASJ...62...19M respectively. The spectra of these SN are shown in these papers and will not be repeated here.
ESI
---
The two highest redshift candidates, [2001gn]{}and [2001hb]{}, were observed with the echelette mode of ESI [@2002PASP..114..851S]. A spectrum taken with the echellette mode of ESI and the $20''$ slit covers the 0.39 to 1.09 wavelength range and is spread over 10 orders ranging in dispersion from 0.16[Å]{} per pixel in the bluest order (order 15) to 0.30[Å]{} per pixel in the reddest (order 6). The detector is a MIT-Lincoln Labs 2048 x 4096 CCD with 15 pixels. The slit width was set according to the seeing conditions and varied from $0.7''$ to $1.0''$, which corresponds to a spectral resolution of $R\sim5000$. Compared to spectra obtained with low-resolution spectrographs, such as FORS1, FORS2, LRIS and FOCAS, the fraction of the ESI spectrum that is free of bright night sky lines from the Earth’s atmosphere is much greater. This allows one to de-weight the low signal-to-noise regions that overlap these bright lines when binning the spectra, a method that becomes inefficient with low-resolution spectra as too much of the spectra are de-weighted. Another advantage of ESI was that the MIT-LL CCD offered high quantum efficiency at red wavelengths and significantly reduced fringing compared to conventional backside-illuminated CCDs.
The data were reduced in a standard manner. The bias was removed by subtracting the median of the pixel values in the overscan regions, the relative gains of the two amplifiers were normalized by multiplying one of the outputs with a constant and the data were flat fielded with internal lamps. When extracting SN spectra, a bright star was used to define the trace along each order, and the spectrum of the [SN]{}was used to define the center of the aperture. Once extracted, the 10 orders were wavelength calibrated (using internal arc lamps and cross-checking the result with bright OH lines), flux calibrated and stitched together to form a continuous spectrum.
To reduce the impact that residuals from bright OH lines have on determining the redshift and classifying the candidate, the spectrum was weighted according to the inverse square of the error spectrum and then rebinned by a factor of 20, from 0.19[Å]{}/pixel to 3.8[Å]{}/pixel. The binning was chosen so that features from the host were not lost.
The reduced spectra of [2001gn]{}and [2001hb]{}are presented in Figures \[fig:01gn\] and \[fig:01hb\] respectively.
LRIS
----
The LRIS [@1995PASP..107..375O] data were taken with the 400/8500 grating and the GG495 order sorting filter and were reduced in a standard manner. The bias was removed with a bias frame, the pixel-to-pixel variations were normalized with flats that were taken with internal lamps and the background was subtracted by fitting a low order polynomial along detector columns. The fringes that were not removed by the flat were removed with a fringe map, which was the median of the sky subtracted data that was then smoothed with a 5x5 pixel box. The spectra were then combined, extracted, and calibrated in wavelength and flux.
The reduced spectrum of [2001gq]{}is shown in Figure \[fig:01gq\].
Spectral fitting and supernova typing
-------------------------------------
Light from the host and the [SN]{}are often strongly blended in the spectra of high redshift SN. To separate the two, we followed the spectral fitting technique described in @2005ApJ...634.1190H.
To classify the [SNe]{}, we used the classification scheme described in and added to it the confidence index (CI) described in @2005ApJ...634.1190H. In the scheme, an object is classified as a [SN Ia]{}if the Si II features at 4000[Å]{}and/or 6150[Å]{}or the S II W feature can be clearly identified in the spectrum or if the spectrum is best fit with the spectra of nearby [SN Ia]{}and other types do not provide a good fit. We qualify the classification with the keys “Si II” or “SF” in column 3 of Table \[tab:SpecResults\] depending on whether the classification was done by identifying features or by using the fit. In the scheme described in @2005ApJ...634.1190H, these [SNe]{}would have a CI of 5 and 4, respectively.
Less secure candidates are classified as Ia\*. The asterisk indicates some degree of uncertainty. Usually, this means that we can find an acceptable match with nearby SNe Ia; however, other types, such as SNe Ibc, also result in acceptable matches. These SNe have a confidence index of 3.
Redshifts based on the host have an accuracy that is better than 0.001, and are, therefore, quoted to three decimal places. Redshifts based on the fit are less accurate. For completeness, the redshifts and classifications reported in and @2010PASJ...62...19M are also included.
The agreement between the phase, $t_\mathrm{Spec}$, of the best fit template and the corresponding phase, $t_\mathrm{LC}$, obtained from the light curve fit is also shown in Table \[tab:SpecResults\]. The weighted average difference for all six spectra is $\Delta t =
-0.4$ days with a dispersion of 2.0 days. The dispersion is similar in magnitude to that found in other surveys [@2005AJ....130.2788H; @2008ApJ...684...68F].
[lccllclllr]{}
Photometric observations {#sec:followup}
========================
A total of nine different instruments, listed in Table \[tab:photinst\], were used for the photometric follow-up of the [SNe]{}described in this work.
[lllll]{} [CFHT]{}/[CFH12k]{}& 0.206 & [42$\times$28]{} & & Spring 2001\
[CTIO]{}/[MOSAIC II]{}& 0.27 & [36$\times$36]{} & & Spring 2001\
[VLT]{}/[FORS1]{}& 0.20 & [6.8$\times$6.8]{} & & Spring 2001\
[VLT]{}/[ISAAC]{}& 0.1484 & [2.5$\times$2.5]{} & & Spring 2001\
[NTT]{}/[SuSI2]{}& 0.08 & [5.5$\times$5.5]{} & & Spring 2001\
[Gemini]{}/[NIRI]{}& 0.1171 & [2.0$\times$2.0]{} & & Spring 2001\
[HST]{}/[ACS]{}& 0.05 & [2.4$\times$2.4]{} & & Spring 2001\
[HST]{}/[WFPC2]{}(PC) & 0.046 & [0.61$\times$0.61]{} & & Both\
[Subaru]{}/[SuprimeCam]{}& 0.20 & [34$\times$27]{} & & Subaru 2001\
All observations are listed in Table \[tb:photometry\]. Here the Modified Julian Date (MJD) is the weighted average of all images taken during a given night except for the NIR data where data taken over several nights were combined. We do not report the MJD for combined reference images that were taken over several months.
Ground-based optical observations and reductions
------------------------------------------------
We obtained ground-based optical follow-up data of the [SNe]{}through different combinations of passbands, shown in Figure \[fig:filters\], similar to Bessel $R$ and $I$ [@1990PASP..102.1181B], and [SDSS]{}$i$ [@1996AJ....111.1748F]. Here we used [FORS1]{}[@1998Msngr..94....1A] at [VLT]{}and [SuSI2]{}[@1998SPIE.3355..507D] at [NTT]{}in addition to the search instruments. The [SuSI2]{}, [MOSAIC II]{}, [CFH12k]{}and [SuprimeCam]{}data were obtained in visitor mode, while the [FORS1]{}observations were carried out in service mode.
{height="\textwidth"}
All optical ground data were reduced [@raux:2003] in a standard manner including bias subtraction, flat fielding and fringe map subtraction using the [IRAF]{}[^2] software.
Ground-based IR observations and reduction
------------------------------------------
The two most distant [SNe]{}in the sample, [2001hb]{}and [2001gn]{}, were also observed from the ground in the near-IR. Both [NIRI]{}[@2003PASP..115.1388H] and [ISAAC]{}[@moorwood:1999] were used to observe [2001hb]{}, while [2001gn]{}was observed with [ISAAC]{}only.
The [ISAAC]{}observations were done with the [*Js*]{} filter and the [NIRI]{}observations were carried out with the $J$ filter. The transmission curves of the filters are similar to each other, and the transmission curve of the latter is shown in Figure \[fig:filters\]. The red edges of the filters are defined by the filters and not by the broad telluric absorption band that lies between the $J$ and $H$ windows, and the central wavelength is slightly redder than the central wavelength of the $J$ filter of @1998AJ....116.2475P. Compared to traditional $J$ band filters, photometry with the [ISAAC]{}[*Js*]{} and [NIRI]{}$J$ band filters is less affected by water vapor and is therefore more stable.
The [ISAAC]{}observations were done in service mode and the data were taken on 14 separate nights, starting on 2001 May 7 and ending on 2003 May 30. Individual exposures lasted 30 to 40 s, and three to four of these were averaged to form a single image. Between images, the telescope was offset by $10''$ to $30''$ in a semi-random manner, and typically 20 to 25 images were taken in this way in a single observing block. The observing block was repeated several times until sufficient depth was reached.
The data, including the calibrations, were first processed to remove two electronic artifacts. In about 10% of the data, a difference in the relative level of odd and even columns can be seen. The relative difference is a function of the average count level and it evolves with time, so it cannot be removed with flat fields. In those cases where the effect is present, the data are processed with the `eclipse`[^3] odd-even routine. The second artifact, an electronic ghost, which is most easily seen when there are bright stars in the field of view, is removed with the `eclipse` ghost routine.
The [NIRI]{}observations were done in queue mode and the data were taken on 4 separate nights, starting on 2001 May 25 and ending 2002 Aug 5. Individual exposures lasted 60 s. Between images, the telescope was offset by $10''$ to $30''$ in a semi-random manner, and typically 60 images were taken in this way in a single observing sequence. The sequence was repeated several times until sufficient depth was reached.
Both the [ISAAC]{}and [NIRI]{}data were then reduced in a standard way with the [IRAF]{}XDIMSUM package and our own [IRAF]{}scripts. From each image, the zero-level offset was removed, a flatfield correction was applied, and an estimate of the sky from other images in the sequence was subtracted. Images were then combined with individual weights that depend on the median sky background and the image quality.
HST observations and reduction
------------------------------
Observing [SN Ia]{}at high-$z$ from space has an enormous advantage for accurately following their light curves. The absence of the atmosphere and the high spatial resolution allows high signal-to-noise measurements. The high spatial resolution also helps minimize host contamination through focusing the light over a smaller area. Space also permits observations at longer wavelengths where the limited atmospheric transmission and the high background degrade ground-based data.
High quality follow-up data were obtained for all six [SNe]{}using the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 ([WFPC2]{}) on the Hubble Space Telescope ([HST]{}) during Cycle 9. All but two ([2001cw]{}and [2001gq]{}) of the objects also have [SN]{}-free reference images taken during Cycle 10, with the Advanced Camera for Survey ([ACS]{}). [WFPC2]{}consists of four 800x800 pixel chips of which one, the Planetary Camera ([PC]{}), has twice the resolution of the others. The [SNe]{}were always targeted with the lower left corner of the [PC]{}in order to place them closer to the readout amplifier so that the effects of charge-transfer inefficiency would be reduced. Images of the same target were obtained with roughly the same rotation for all epochs.
Each [SN]{}was followed in two bands. All [SNe]{}were observed in the F814W filter. Additionally, the F675W filter was used for the three [SNe]{}at $z<0.7$ and the F850LP filter was used for the high redshift targets. These filters were chosen to match the filters used on the ground and correspond approximately to rest frame [*UBV*]{} bands as illustrated in Figure \[fig:filters\].
The data were reduced with software provided by the Space Telescope Science Institute ([STScI]{}). [WFPC2]{}images were processed through the [STScI]{}pipeline and then combined for each epoch to reject cosmic rays using the [`crrej`]{}task which is part of [STSDAS]{}[^4] [IRAF]{}package.
The [ACS]{}images were processed using the multi-drizzle [@2002PASP..114..144F] software, which also corrects for the severe geometric distortion of the instrument. For this we used the updated distortion coefficients from the [ACS]{}Data Handbook in November 2006, and drizzled the images to the resolution of the [WFPC2]{}images $0.046''$. Note that the [WFPC2]{}images were *not* corrected for geometric distortion at this stage.
Photometry of the ground-based data {#sec:groundphoto}
===================================
The photometry technique applied to the optical ground-based data is the same as the one applied in , except for the [SuprimeCam]{}$i$ band data. This is also very similar to the method [@fabbro:2001] used in @2006AA...447...31A, and is briefly summarized here:
1. Each exposure of a given [SN]{}in a given passband was aligned to the best seeing *photometric reference* image.
2. In order to properly compare images of different image quality we fitted convolution kernels, $K_i$, modelled by a linear decomposition of Gaussian and polynomial basis functions , between the photometric reference and each of the remaining images, $i$, for the given passband. The kernels were fitted by using image patches centered on fiducial objects across the field.
3. The background sky level for each image, $i$, is not expected to have any spatial variation for a small patch, $I_i(x,y)$, centered on the [SN]{}with a radius of the worst seeing FWHM. We assume that the patch can be modelled by a point spread function ([PSF]{}) at the location of the [SN]{}, a model of the host galaxy and a constant offset for the sky, $$\begin{aligned}
I_i(x,y) & = & f_i\cdot\left[K_i\otimes\mathrm{{PSF\xspace}}\right](x -
x_0, y - y_0 ) + \\
& + & \left[K_i\otimes G\right](x,y)\, + S_i\, .
\end{aligned}$$ For a time-series of such patches we simultaneously fit the [SN]{} position, $(x_0,y_0)$, and brightnesses, $f_i$, host model, $G(x,y)$, and background sky levels, $S_i$. We use a non-analytic host model with one parameter per pixel. This means that the model will be degenerate with the [SN]{}and the sky background. We break these degeneracies by fixing the [SN]{}flux to zero for all reference images and fix the sky level to zero in one of the images. Figure \[fig:patchseries\] shows an example of image patches, galaxy model residuals and resulting residuals when the full model has been subtracted, for increasing epochs.
The [SN]{}light curves were obtained in this manner for one filter and instrument at a time where [SN]{}-free reference images were available. In the cases where [SN]{}-free references did not exist for a given telescope, reference images obtained with other telescopes were used instead.
For the IR image of [2001hb]{}, we performed aperture photometry directly on the images, assuming the [SN]{}to be hostless for the purpose of $J$ band photometry, since no host could be detected at the limit of the [ACS]{}references (see below). For the IR image of [2001gn]{}, we carried out steps 1–2 above, and then subtracted the reference image (Figure \[fig:SN2001gn\]) and did aperture photometry on the resulting image. In both cases the [SN]{}positions from the [HST]{}images were used for centroiding the aperture and the diameter was chosen to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio. The fluxes are corrected to larger apertures by analyzing bright stars in the same image.
{width="10cm"}
The $i$ band data for [2001cw]{}was analyzed together with a larger sample of [SNe]{}discovered at Subaru. The details of this analysis are given in Yasuda [et al.]{}(in preparation).
Calibration of the ground-based data
------------------------------------
Nightly observations of standard stars were not available for all optical instruments and filters. Instead the recipe from , using [SDSS]{}[@2007ApJS..172..634A] measurements of the field stars was applied. However, the [SDSS]{}filter system [@1996AJ....111.1748F] differs significantly from the filters used in this search except for the [SuprimeCam]{}$i$ band. To overcome this difference, we fitted relations between the [SDSS]{}filter system and the Landolt system [@1992AJ....104..340L] in a similar manner to @lupton2005, using stars with [SDSS]{}and Stetson photometry [@2000PASP..112..925S]. Stetson has been publishing photometry of a growing list of faint stars that is tied to the Landolt system within $0.01$ mag [@2000PASP..112..925S]. The most up to date version can be obtained from the Canadian Astronomy Data Center[^5]. In contrast to @lupton2005, we applied magnitude, uncertainty and color cuts ($15<{r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}<18.5$, $\sigma_m<0.03$ mag in ${r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}$ and ${i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}$ and $-0.5 < {r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}< 1.0$) for the stars that went into the fit. We also applied a $5\sigma$ outlier cut after our initial fit (and lost about $\sim6\,\%$ of the sample). After refitting, the following relations were derived for the Landolt $R$ and $I$ filters $$\begin{aligned}
R-{r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}& = -0.13 - 0.32\cdot({r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}})\\
I-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}& = -0.38 - 0.26\cdot({r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}),\end{aligned}$$ which are also shown in Figure \[fig:lupton\]. The results for $R-{r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}$ are close to the ones derived by @lupton2005 as well as to @2003ApJ...594....1T who performed a similar operation. Neither @2003ApJ...594....1T nor @lupton2005 present fits for $I-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}$ vs ${r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}$.
By forcing $\chi^2/\textrm{dof}=1$, we determined that there is a scatter of $0.03$ mag coming from intrinsic spectral distributions. This is a systematic uncertainty for individual stars, but will average out when a big sample is used, assuming that the color distribution of the sample is similar to the stars used to derive the relations.
The transformations were applied to the [SDSS]{}stellar photometry of our [SN]{}field, and these were then used as tertiary standard stars in order to tie the [SN]{}photometry to the Landolt system. The flux of the stars was determined on the photometric reference for each light curve build using the same method as for the [SN]{}and with the same [PSF]{}model that was used for fitting the [SN]{}fluxes. A zero-point relation of the form $$\label{eq:ZP}
m + 2.5\log_{10}f = \mathrm{ZP} + c_X\cdot(R-I)$$ could then be fitted between the measured stellar fluxes, $f$, and their Landolt magnitudes, $m$. Here $\mathrm{ZP}$ is the zero point and $c_X$ is the color term for the filter. We applied the same color cuts ($-0.5 < {r_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}-{i_\mathrm{{SDSS\xspace}}}< 1.0$) to the stars that went into the fit. Unfortunately we did not have enough stars over a wide enough color range to accurately fit the color term. Instead, we used values from the literature or from the observatories, which are summarized in Table \[tb:colorterms\]. The zero-points could then be derived from equation . The values obtained this way are the sums of three components; the instrumental zero-point, the aperture correction to the [PSF]{}normalization radius and the atmospheric extinction for the given airmass, and are shown along with the [SN]{}fluxes in Table \[tb:photometry\].
We also calculated color terms synthetically by using Landolt standard stars that have extensive spectrophotometry from @2005PASP..117..810S. The synthetic Vega magnitudes of the stars were calculated by multiplying the spectra and the Vega spectrum [@2007ASPC..364..315B] with the filter and instrument throughputs provided by the different observatories. The color terms were then fitted by assuming a linear relation for the deviation between the synthetic and the Landolt magnitudes as a function of the Landolt color. The resulting fitted synthetic terms are also presented in Table \[tb:colorterms\].
[lrrrr]{} CFH12k/CFHT & $0.031$ & $0.107$ & $0.066$ & $-0.023$\
[MOSAIC II]{}/CTIO & & $0.030$ & & $0.007$\
FORS1/VLT & $0.034$ & $-0.050$ & $0.040$ & $-0.076$\
\
The difference is $\lesssim0.03$ mag for all but the [CFH12k]{}$I$-band, where there is a significant discrepancy. A mismatch between the effective filter transmission curves we use and the true photometric system is most likely the origin of this. We have investigated if the deviation could be explained by the differences in quantum efficiencies between the different chips of the detector which are presented on the [CFH12k]{}webpage. However these differences propagated to the color term results in relatively low scatter and deviates significantly from the measured value.
For the purpose of fitting the zero-points, we can use the measured color terms, but for light curve fitting erroneous filter transmissions could introduce systematic effects. In order to study the potential impact on the light curve fits we modified the filters to match the measured color terms. The modifications were implemented by either shifting or clipping the filters until the synthetic color terms matched all measured values for a given filter ([e.g.]{}$R$ or $I$ vs $R-I$, $V-I$ and $B-I$ for the ELIXIR measurements for the $I$-band). The light curves were then refitted using the modified filter transmissions and the resulting values were compared. Since the light curves are tightly constrained by the high precision [HST]{}data, the modified filter only leads to negligible differences (less than $30\,\%$ of the statistical uncertainty) in the fitted parameters.
The $J$-band data, on the other hand, were calibrated using G-type standard stars from the Persson LCO standard star catalogue [@1998AJ....116.2475P]. Since the ISAAC and NIRI $J$-band filters are slightly redder and narrower than the Persson $J$-band filter, we subtracted $0.012$ magnitudes from the ISAAC and NIRI zero points to place the ISAAC and NIRI IR photometry onto the natural system. Since the data were taken over many nights, the photometry was carefully cross checked. Differences in the absolute photometry usually amount to less than $0.02$ magnitudes, which we conservatively adopt as our zero-point uncertainty.
Photometry of the HST data {#sec:spacephoto}
==========================
A modified version of the photometric technique from @2003ApJ...598..102K was used for the [HST]{}data presented here. This is similar to the method used for the ground-based optical data above, but instead of aligning and resampling all images to a common frame, the host$+$[SN]{}model is resampled to each individual image. A procedure like this is preferred when the [PSF]{}FWHM is of the same order as the pixel scale, and it also preserves the image noise properties.
Linear geometric transformations were first fitted from each image, $k$, in a given filter to the deepest image of the field using field objects. Due to the similar orientation of the [WFPC2]{}images, linear transformations were sufficient for these, and the geometric distortion of [WFPC2]{}could be ignored. This was however not the case for the transformations between the [ACS]{}and [WFPC2]{}images and the distortion was then hardcoded into the fitting procedure. Due to the sparse number of objects in the tiny [PC]{}field the accuracy of all transformations were only good to $\lesssim1$ pixel ($\sim0.5$ FWHM). Unfortunately, using objects from the remaining three chips for the alignment did not lead to improved accuracy, which is probably due to small movements of the chips between exposures [@2003PASP..115..113A]. This alignment precision was not enough for [PSF]{}photometry, and we therefore allowed the [SN]{}position, $(x_{k0},y_{k0})$ to float for the individual images which increased the alignment precision by a factor of 10. Allowing this extra degree of freedom could bias the results toward higher fluxes since the fit will favor positive noise fluctuations. However, as in @2003ApJ...598..102K, this was shown to be of minor importance by studying the covariance between the fitted flux and [SN]{}position. The full model used to describe each image patch can be expressed as $$\begin{split}
I_k(x_k,y_k) & = f_k\cdot\mathrm{PSF}_k(x_k-x_{k0},y_k-y_{k0}) + \\
& + G(x_k,y_k,a_j)
+ S_k\, .
\label{eq:pcltcv}
\end{split}$$ Here $I_k$ is the value in pixel $(x_k,y_k)$ on image $k$, $f_k$ is the [SN]{}flux, $\mathrm{PSF}_k$ the point spread function, $G$ the host galaxy model that is parameterized by $a_j$ and $S_k$ the local sky background. The fits were carried out using a $\chi^2$ minimization approach using MINUIT [@james:1975].
Four [SNe]{}in the sample had [ACS]{}reference images, and for these cases we used field objects to fit non-analytic convolution kernels, $K$, between the [PC]{}chip and the drizzled [ACS]{}image. These accounted for the difference in quantum efficiency and [PSF]{}shape between the two instruments. When kernels were used, the uncertainties of individual pixels were propagated and the correlation between pixels produced by the convolution were taken into account. Also, in this case equation above was modified so with both the [PC]{}images and the [PC]{}PSF being convolved with the fitted kernel.
The [PSF]{}, $\mathrm{PSF}_k$, of the [WFPC2]{}[PC]{}chip was simulated for each filter and pixel position using the Tiny Tim software [@tinytim] and normalized to the [WFPC2]{}calibration radius $0.5''$. We also did an extensive test where we iteratively updated the simulated [PSF]{}based on the knowledge of the [SN]{}epoch, and therefore the approximate spectral energy distribution ([SED]{}), but this did not have any significant effect on the fitted fluxes. The Tiny Tim [PSF]{}was generated to be subsampled by a factor of 10. For each iteration in the fitting procedure, any shift of the [PSF]{}position was first applied in the subsampled space. The [PSF]{}was then re-binned to normal sampling and convolved with a *charge diffusion kernel* [@tinytim] before it was added to the patch model.
For three of the [SNe]{}, [2001cw]{}, [2001gq]{}and [2001hb]{}we used an analytical model for the host galaxy. Both [2001cw]{}and [2001gq]{}are offset from the core of their respective host galaxies and we therefore chose not to obtain [SN]{}-free references images for these. Instead the hosts could be modeled by a second order polynomial and constrained by the galaxy light in the vicinity of the [SNe]{}. For [2001hb]{}, we did obtain a deep [ACS]{}reference image but no host could be detected. For this [SN]{}we used a simple plane to model the host which was further constrained by fixing the [SN]{}flux to zero for the [ACS]{}reference. One caveat with analytical host modelling in general is that the patch size must be chosen with care. The model will only work if there is no dramatic change in the background across the patch, which is an assumption that is likely to fail if the patch is too large and includes the host galaxy core. On the other hand the patch can not be too small either in order to successfully break the degeneracy between the [SN]{}and the background.
To make sure that the choice of host model does not bias the fitted [SN]{}fluxes we required, in addition to clean residuals once the [SN]{}+ host was subtracted from the data, that the fitted [SN]{}fluxes were insensitive to variations in the patch size of a few pixels. Further, for [2001gq]{}, we tested the host model by putting fake [SNe]{}at different positions around the core of the host. The distances to the core and the fluxes of the fakes were always chosen to match the corresponding values for the real [SN]{}, and the retrieved photometry was always within the expected statistical uncertainty. The recipe described above could not be used for the remaining three [SNe]{}in the sample, since they were located too close to the cores of their host galaxies. Additionally, the hosts have small angular sizes and the light gradients in the vicinity of the [SNe]{}were steep enough to lead to biased photometry due to the coarse geometric alignment. To overcome this we changed the photometric procedure slightly. Instead of fitting the [SN]{}position on each image, we chose to fit it only on the geometric reference image, and then introduce a free shift for the whole model. That is, in this case we used the galaxy model $+$ [SN]{}for the patch alignment. However, this procedure did force us to apply some constraints on the galaxy modelling. Using a non-analytic pixel model, the approach used for the ground-based optical data, was not feasible. It slowed down the fits considerably and rarely converged. Instead we chose to use the [ACS]{}images of the host galaxies directly. The [ACS]{}references were much deeper then the [WFPC2]{}data and choosing this procedure did not increase the uncertainty of the fitted fluxes.
A general problem with doing photometry on [HST]{}images is that [CCD]{}photometry of faint objects over a low background suffers from an imperfect charge transfer, which will lead to an underestimate of the flux. We used the Charge Transfer Efficiency ([CTE]{}) recipe for point sources from @2009PASP..121..655D. The correction for our data is usually around $5\,\%$–$8\,\%$ but it can be as large as $\sim17\,\%$. The uncertainties of the corrections were propagated to the flux uncertainties. The corrected [SN]{}fluxes are given in Table \[tb:photometry\] together with the instrumental zero-points, which were also obtained from Andrew Dolphin’s webpage
Light curve fitting {#sec:lcfitting}
===================
[SN Ia]{}that have bluer colors or broader light curves tend to be intrinsically brighter . Several methods of combining this information into an accurate measure of the relative distance have been used .
K08 consistently fitted all light curves using the [SALT]{} fitter, which is built on the [SN Ia]{}[SED]{}from @2002PASP..114..803N. In this paper, we use [SALT2]{}, which is based on more data.
@2008ApJ...681..482C compared the performances of different light curve fitters while also introducing their own empirical fitter, SiFTO, and concluded that [SALT2]{}along with SiFTO perform better than both [SALT]{}(which is conceptually different from its successor [SALT2]{}) and [MLCS2k2]{}[@2007ApJ...659..122J] when judged by the scatter around the best-fit luminosity distance relationship. Furthermore, [SALT2]{}and SiFTO produce consistent cosmological results when both are trained on the same data. Recently KS09 made a thorough comparison between [SALT2]{}and their modified version of [MLCS2k2]{}[@2007ApJ...659..122J] for a compilation of public data sets, including the one from the [SDSS]{}[SN]{}survey. The two light curve fitters result in an estimate of $w$ (for a flat $w$CDM cosmology) that differs by $0.2$. The difference exceeds their statistical and systematic (from other sources) error budgets. They determine that this deviation originates almost exclusively from the difference between the two fitters in the rest-frame $U$-band region, and the color prior used in [MLCS2k2]{}. They also noted that [MLCS2k2]{}is less accurate at predicting the rest-frame $U$-band using data from filters at longer wavelengths.
This difference in $U$-band performance is not surprising: observations carried out in the observer-frame $U$-band are in general associated with a high level of uncertainty due to atmospheric variations. While the training of [MLCS2k2]{}is exclusively based on observations of nearby [SNe]{}, the SiFTO and [SALT2]{}training address this difficulty by also including high redshift data where the rest-frame $U$-band is observed at redder wavelengths. This approach also allows these fitters to extend blueward of the rest-frame $U$-band.
In addition, for this paper, we have conducted our own test validating the performance of [SALT2]{}by carrying out the Monte-Carlo simulation described in \[sec:verifyinglcfitter\], where we compare the fitted [SALT2]{}parameters to the corresponding real values for mock samples with poor cadence and low signal-to-noise drawn from individual well-measured nearby [SNe]{}.
Given these tests that have been carried out on [SALT2]{}, and its high redshift source for rest-frame $U$-band, we have chosen to use [SALT2]{}in this paper.
[SALT2]{}
---------
The [SALT2]{}[SED]{}model has been derived through a pseudo-Principal component analysis based on both photometric and spectroscopic data. Most of these data come from nearby [SN Ia]{}data, but [SNLS]{}supernovae are also included. To summarize, the [SALT2]{}[SED]{}, $F(\mathrm{{SN\xspace}},p,\lambda)$, is a function of both wavelength, $\lambda$, and time since $B$-band maximum, $p$. It consists of three components; a model of the time dependent average [SN Ia]{}[SED]{}, $M_0(p,\lambda)$, a model of the variation from the average, $M_1(p,\lambda)$, and a wavelength dependent function that warps the model, $CL(\lambda)$. The three components have been determined from the training process and are combined as $$\begin{aligned}
F(\mathrm{{SN\xspace}},p,\lambda) & = & x_0\times\left[M_0(p,\lambda) + x_1\times
M_1(p,\lambda)\right]\times\\
& \times & \exp\left[c\times CL(\lambda)\right]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $x_0$, $x_1$ and $c$ are free parameters that are fit for each individual [SN]{}.
Here, $x_0$, describes the overall [SED]{}normalization, $x_1$, the deviation from the average decline rate ($x_1=0$) of a [SN Ia]{}, and $c$, the deviation from the mean [SN Ia]{}$B-V$ color at the time of $B$-band maximum. These parameters are determined for each observed [SN]{}by fitting the model to the available data. The fit is carried out in the observer frame by redshifting the model, correcting for Milky Way extinction (using the CCM-law from @1989ApJ...345..245C with $R_V=3.1$), and multiplying by the effective filter transmission functions provided by the different observatories. All synthetic photometry is carried out in the Vega system using the spectrum from @2007ASPC..364..315B. Following @2006AA...447...31A we adopt the magnitudes $(U,B,V,R_C,I_C)
= (0.020,0.030,0.030,0.030,0.024)$ mag [@1996AJ....111.1748F] for Vega. For the near-infrared we adopt the values $J=0$ and $H=0$.
In the fit to our data, we take into account the correlations introduced between different light curve points from using the same host galaxy model. We also chose to run [SALT2]{}in the mode where the diagonal of the covariance matrix is updated iteratively in order to take model and $K$-correction uncertainties into account. See for details on this. The Milky Way reddening for our supernovae from the @1998ApJ...500..525S dust maps is given in Table \[tab:SpecObservations\]. The results of the fits are shown in Table \[tb:salt2results\] and plotted in Figure \[fig:lightcurves\] together with the data.
The three parameters $$m_B^\mathrm{max} = -2.5\log_{10}\left[\int_B
F(\mathrm{SN}, 0, \lambda)\, \lambda\,d\lambda\right]\,,\ x_1\
\mathrm{and}\ c$$ can for each [SN]{}be combined to form the distance modulus , $$\mu_B = m_B^\mathrm{corr} - M_B = m_B^\mathrm{max} + \alpha\cdot
x_1 - \beta\cdot c - M_B\, ,\label{eq:magcor}$$ where $M_B$ is the absolute $B$-band magnitude. The resulting color and light curve shape corrected peak $B$-band magnitudes, $m_B^\mathrm{corr}$, are presented in the third column of Table \[tb:salt2results\]. The parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $M_B$ are nuisance parameters which are fitted simultaneously with the cosmological parameters.
The [Union2]{}Compilation {#sec:union}
=========================
K08 presented an analysis framework for combining different [SN Ia]{}data sets in a consistent manner. Since then two other groups (H09 and KS09) have made similar compilations, using different fitters. In this work we carry out an improved analysis, using and refining the approach of K08. We extend the sample with the six [SNe]{}presented here, the [SNe]{}from , the low-$z$ and intermediate-$z$ data from @2009ApJ...700..331H and @2008AJ....136.2306H respectively[^6].
First, all light curves are fitted using a single light curve fitter (the [SALT2]{}method) in order to eliminate differences that arise from using different fitters. For all [SNe]{}going into the analysis we require:
1. data from at least two bands with rest-frame central wavelengths between $2900$[Å]{} and $7000$[Å]{}, the default wavelength range of SALT2
2. that there is at least one point between $-15$ days and $6$ rest frame days relative to the $B$-band maximum.
3. that there are in total at least five valid data points available.
4. that the fitted $x_1$ values, including the fitted uncertainties, lie between $-5 < x_1 < 5$. This is a more conservative cut than that used in K08 and results in several poorly measured [SNe]{}being excluded. Part of the discrepancy observed by KS09 when using different light curve models could be traced to poorly measured [SNe]{}.
5. that the CMB-centric redshift is greater than $z > 0.015$.
We also exclude one [SN]{}from the Union compilation that is 1991bg-like, which neither the [SALT]{}nor the [SALT2]{}models are trained to handle. Note that another 1991bg-like [SN]{}from the Union compilation was removed by the outlier rejection. All [SNe Ia]{}considered in this compilation are listed in Table \[tb:unionsne\]. For each [SN]{}, the redshift and fitted light curve parameters are presented as well as the failed cuts, if any.
It should be pointed out that the choice of light curve model also has an impact on the sample size. Using [SALT2]{}will allow more [SNe]{}to pass the cuts above, since the [SALT2]{}model covers a broader wavelength range than [SALT]{}. This is particularly important for high-$z$ data that heavily rely on rest-frame $UV$ data. For example, [two]{}net [SNe]{}would have been cut from the @2007ApJ...659...98R sample with the [SALT]{}model.
Revised HST zero-points and filter curves {#sec:nicmosphot}
-----------------------------------------
Since @2007ApJ...659...98R, the reported zero-points of both NICMOS and ACS were revised. For the F110W and F160W filters of NICMOS, the revision is substantial. Using the latest calibration [@nicmos2009 and references within], the revised zero-points are, for both filters, approximately $5\,\%$ fainter than those reported in @2007ApJ...659...98R and subsequently used by K08.
For [SNe Ia]{}at $z>1.1$, observations with NICMOS cover the rest frame optical, so the fitted peak $B$-band magnitudes and colors and the corrected $B$-band magnitudes of these [SNe Ia]{}depend directly on the accuracy of the NICMOS photometry. With the new zero-points, [SNe Ia]{}at $z>1.1$ are measured to be fainter and bluer. Our current analysis also corrects an error in the NICMOS filter curves that were used in K08, which also acts in the same direction.
In the introduction, we had noted that almost all [SNe]{}at $z>1.1$ were redder than the average [SN]{}color over the redshift interval $0.3$ to $1.1$. This is surprising as redder [SNe]{}are also fainter and should therefore be the harder to detect in magnitude limited surveys. K08 noted that these [SNe]{}, after light curve shape and color corrections, are also on average $\sim0.1$ mag brighter than the line tracing the best fit $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. They also noted that this was the reason for the relatively high value for the binned value of $w$ in the $[0.5,1]$ redshift bin.
After taking the NICMOS zero-point and filter updates just discussed into account, we repeated the original K08 analysis. This made the NICMOS observed [SNe]{}up to $\sim0.1$ mag fainter, and there no longer is a significant offset from the best fit cosmology. Nor are these [SNe]{}unusually red when compared to [SNe]{}over the redshift interval $0.3$ to $1.1$. For [SALT2]{}the [SNe]{}at $z>1.1$ have an average color of $c={0.06\pm0.03}$, compared to $c={0.02\pm0.01}$ for $0.3<z<1.1$, and no significant offset in the Hubble diagram. There could however still be unresolved NICMOS issues. For example the NICMOS [SN]{}photometry depends on extrapolating the non-linearity correction to low flux levels. We have a program (HST GO-11799) to obtain a calibration of NICMOS at low flux levels. The photometry of the [SNe]{}observed with NICMOS will be revised once this program is completed. The new data presented in this paper also allow us another route to check this color discrepancy with IR data independent of the NICMOS calibration.
Fitting Cosmology
-----------------
Following @2006ApJ...644....1C and K08, we adopt a blind analysis approach for cosmology fitting where the true fitted values are not revealed until the complete analysis framework has been settled. The blind technique is implemented by adjusting the magnitudes of the [SNe]{}until they match a fiducial cosmology (${\Omega_M}=
0.25$, $w = -1$). This procedure leaves the residuals only slightly changed, so that the performance of the analysis framework can be studied. The best fitted cosmology with statistical errors is obtained through an iterative $\chi^2$-minimization of $$\chi_{\mathrm{stat}}^2 =
\sum_\mathrm{{SNe\xspace}}\frac{\left[\mu_B(\alpha, \beta,M) -
\mu(z;{\Omega_M},\Omega_w,w)\right]^2}{ {\sigma_\mathrm{ext}}^2 + {\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}^2 + \sigma_{\mathrm{lc}}^2}\,,\label{eq:cosmochi2}$$ where, $$\sigma_{\mathrm{lc}}^2 = V_{m_B} + \alpha^2 V_{x_1} + \beta^2
V_{c} + 2\alpha V_{m_B,x_1} - 2\beta V_{m_B,c} -
2\alpha\beta V_{x_1,c}\, \label{eq:lcchi2}$$ is the propagated error from the covariance matrix, $V$, of the light curve fits, with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ being the $x_1$ and color correction coefficients of equation . Uncertainties due to host galaxy peculiar velocities of $300$ km/s and uncertainties from Galactic extinction corrections and gravitational lensing as described in \[sec:systematics\] are included in ${\sigma_\mathrm{ext}}$. A floating dispersion term, ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$, which contains potential sample-dependent systematic errors that have not been accounted for and the observed intrinsic [SN Ia]{}dispersion, is also added. The value of ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$ is obtained by setting the reduced $\chi^2$ to unity for each sample. Computing a separate ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$ for each sample prevents samples with poorer-quality data from increasing the errors of the whole sample. This approach does however still assume that all [SNe]{}within a sample are measured with roughly the same accuracy. If this is not the case there is a risk in degrading the constraints from the sample by down weighting the best measured [SNe]{}. It should also be pointed out that the fitted values of ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$ will be less certain for small samples and can therefore deviate significantly from the average established by the larger samples (in particular, the six high-$z$ [SNe]{}presented in this work are consistent with ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}=0$), as are three other samples.
A number of systematic errors are also being considered for the full cosmology analysis. These are taken into account by constructing a covariance matrix for the entire sample which will be described below in \[sec:systematics\]. The terms in the denominator of equation are then added along the diagonal of this covariance matrix.
Following K08, we carry out an iterative $\chi^2$ minimization with $3\sigma$ outlier rejection. Each sample is fit for its own absolute magnitude by minimizing the sum of the absolute residuals from its Hubble line (rather than the sum of the squared residuals). The line is then used for outlier rejection. This approach was investigated in detail in K08, and it was shown with simulations that the technique is robust and that the results are unaltered from the Gaussian case in the absence of contamination and that in the presence of a contaminating contribution, its impact is reduced. Table \[tb:outliercuts\] summarizes the effect of the outlier cut on each sample. We also note that the residuals have a similar distribution to a Gaussian in that $\sim5\%$ of the sample is outside of $2\sigma$.
[lcccccc]{}
Figure \[fig:hubbleindiv\] shows the individual residuals and pulls from the best fit cosmology together with the fitted [SALT2]{}colors for the different samples. The photometric quality is illustrated by the last column in the figure showing the color uncertainty. It is notable how the photometric quality on the high redshift end has improved from the K08 analysis. This is due to the extended rest-frame range of the [SALT2]{}model compared to [SALT]{}.
{width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:diagnostics\] shows the diagnostics used for studying the consistency between the different samples. The left panel shows the fitted ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$ values for each sample together with the RMS around the best fitted cosmology. The intrinsic dispersion associated with all [SNe]{}can be determined as the median of ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$ as long as the majority of the samples are not dominated by observer-dependent uncertainties that have not been accounted for. The median ${\sigma_\mathrm{sys}}$ for this analysis is ${0.15}$ mag, indicated by the leftmost dashed vertical line in the figure. The two mid-panels show the tensions for the individual samples, by comparing the average residuals from the best-fit cosmology. The two panels show the tensions without and with systematic errors (described in \[sec:systematics\]) being considered. Most samples fall within $1\sigma$ and no sample exceeds $2\sigma$. The right panel shows the tension of the slopes of the residuals as a function of redshift. This test may not be very meaningful for sparsely sampled data sets, but could reveal possible Malmquist bias for large data sets.
{height="\textwidth"}
The [SNe]{}introduced in this work show no significant tension in any of the panels. The Hubble residuals for these are also presented in Figure \[fig:hubble\]. Here, the individual [SNe]{}are consistent with the best fit cosmology.
![[*Upper panel:*]{} Hubble diagram for the [Union2]{} compilation. The solid line represents the best fitted cosmology for a flat Universe including the CMB and BAO constraints discussed in the text. The different colors have the same interpretation as in Figures \[fig:hubbleindiv\] and \[fig:diagnostics\]. [*Lower panel:*]{} Hubble diagram residuals where the best fitted cosmology has been subtracted from the light curve shape and color corrected peak magnitudes. The gray points show the residuals for individual [SNe]{}, while the black points show the binned values in redshifts bins of $0.05$ for $z < 1.0$ and $0.2$ for $z > 1.0$. The orange points show the previously unpublished [SNe]{}introduced in this work. The dashed lines show the expected Hubble diagram residuals for cosmological models with $w\pm0.1$ from the best fitted value. \[fig:hubble\]](%
figures/current/union2_hubble_resid.eps){width="50.00000%"}
All tables and figures, including the complete covariance matrix for the sample, are available in electronic format on the Union webpage[^7]. We also provide a CosmoMC module for including this supernova compilation with other datasets.
Systematic errors {#sec:systematics}
-----------------
The K08 analysis split systematic errors into two categories: the first type affects each [SN]{}sample independently, the second type affects [SNe]{}at similar redshifts. Malmquist bias and uncertainty in the colors of Vega are examples of the first and second type, respectively. Typical numbers were derived for both of these types of systematics, and they were included as covariances[^8] between [SNe]{}. Each sample received a common covariance, and all of the high-redshift ($z
> 0.2$) [SNe]{}shared an additional common covariance. Other analyses ([@2006AA...447...31A], [@2007ApJ...666..694W], KS09) have estimated the effect on $w$ for each systematic error and summed these in quadrature. However, [@Kim2006451] show that parameterizing systematic errors (such as uncertain zeropoints) with nuisance parameters is a more apropriate approach and gives better cosmological constraints. For this analysis, all contributing factors, described below, were translated to nuisance parameters, which were then incorporated into a covariance matrix for the distances of the individual [SNe]{}. Appendix \[sec:statistics\] contains the details of converting nuisance parameters to a covariance matrix.
### Zero-point Uncertainties
In order to correctly propagate calibration uncertainties, we computed numerically the effect of each photometric passband on the distance modulus. For each [SN]{}, the photometry from each band was shifted in turn by $0.01$ magnitudes and then refit for $\mu$. We then computed the change in distance modulus, giving $\frac{d\mu(\alpha, \beta)}{d\mathrm{(ZP})}$ for each band. A list of zero-point uncertainties is given in Table \[tb:zperrs\]. For two [SNe]{}, $i$ and $j$, with calibrated photometry obtained in the same photometric system, the zero-point uncertainty, $\sigma_\mathrm{ZP}$ of that system was propagated into the covariance matrix element $U_{ij}$ as $\frac{d\mu_i}{d\mathrm{(ZP)}}\frac{d\mu_j}{d\mathrm{(ZP)}} \sigma_\mathrm{ZP}^2\,$ according to Appendix \[sec:minsyserr\].
This procedure is a more efficient way of including zero-point uncertainties than including a common magnitude covariance (multiplicative in flux space) when performing all of the light curve fits. In testing, both of these methods gave results that agreed at the couple of a percent level. Our method has the advantage that the zero-point errors can be adjusted without rerunning the light curve fits.
Zero-point uncertainties are one of the largest systematic errors (see Table \[tb:werrsys\]). However, we should note that this number is based on a heterogeneous assessment of errors from different datasets (Table \[tb:zperrs\]); the accuracy will vary.
[llll]{} HST & WFPC2 & 0.02 & @Heyer:2004\
& ACS & 0.03 & @Bohlin:2007\
& NICMOS & 0.03 & @nicmos2009\
SNLS & $g$, $r$, $i$ & 0.01 & @2006AA...447...31A\
& $z$ & 0.03 &\
ESSENCE & $R$, $I$ & 0.014 & @2007ApJ...666..694W\
SDSS & $u$ & 0.014 & @2009ApJS..185...32K\
& $g$, $r$, $i$ & 0.009 &\
& $z$ & 0.010 &\
This paper & $R$, $I$ & 0.03 &\
& $J$ & 0.02\
Other & $U$-band & 0.04 & @2009ApJ...700..331H\
& Other Band & 0.02 & @2009ApJ...700..331H\
### Vega
@2006AA...447...31A estimated the broadband Vega magnitude system uncertainty to be within $1\,\%$ by comparing spectroscopy from @1985IAUS..111.....H and @2004AJ....127.3508B. In their analysis, only the uncertainties of Vega colors had implications for cosmological measurements, which they chose to include by adopting a flux uncertainty linear in wavelength that would offset the Vega $B-R$ color by 0.01. The uncertainty of Vega is the single largest source of systematic error when estimating $w$, as shown in Table \[tb:werrsys\], suggesting that a better-understood reference would allow for a significant reduction in systematic errors.
KS09, and recently SNLS , chose [BD$+17^{\circ}4708$]{}as their primary reference star. This star has the advantage of having a well-known SED, measured Landolt magnitudes (in contrast to Vega) and colors that are close to the average colors of the Landolt standards (in contrast to Vega which is much bluer). KS09 studied the implications of switching between [BD$+17^{\circ}4708$]{}and Vega and found zeropoints consistent to $\sim 1\%$.
Given this small difference between using [BD$+17^{\circ}4708$]{}and Vega, we have chosen, for this work, to continue using Vega as our primary reference star. To account for the uncertainty of the magnitude of Vega on the Landolt system, we have assumed a correlated uncertainty of $0.01$ mag for all photometry with a rest-frame wavelength in each of six wavelength intervals defined by the following wavelength boundaries: 2900[Å]{}, 4000[Å]{}, 5000[Å]{}, 6000[Å]{}, 7000[Å]{}, 10000[Å]{}, 16000[Å]{}.
### Rest-frame $U$-Band {#sec:restUband}
[SNe Ia]{}are known to show increasing spectroscopic and photometric diversity for wavelengths shorter than the rest-frame $B$-band. Part of this could perhaps be explained by differences in progenitor metallicity [@1998ApJ...495..617H; @2000ApJ...530..966L], but the spectral variations in the rest-frame UV [@2008ApJ...674...51E] are larger than predicted by existing models.
As discussed in Section \[sec:lcfitting\], KS09 studied how well the [SALT2]{}model describes the rest-frame $U$-band by first running [SALT2]{}with the rest frame $U$-band excluded. Using these fits, they then generated a model for the rest frame $U$-band and binned the magnitude residuals from the actual rest-frame $U$-band data as a function of phase. For the [SDSS]{}and [SNLS]{}datasets, the residuals around the time of maximum are $\sim3\%$. For [SNLS]{}, this is not surprising, as the [SNLS]{}data was used to train the [SALT2]{}model. In this analysis, we use the [SDSS]{}sample as a validation set, and include a correlated $0.03$ magnitude uncertainty for all photometric bands bluer than rest-frame 3500[Å]{}.
We note that the HST and low-redshift datasets are less useful for assessing the size of rest-frame $U$-band uncertainty. For the [HST]{}data, the light curves are poorly constrained without the rest-frame $U$-band. In the case of the nearby sample, the rest-frame $U$-band overlaps with the observed $U$-band for which accurate photometry is generally difficult to obtain (any potential problems with the nearby $U$-band will not impact the light curve fits much, as the low-$z$ fits are typically very well constrained with the remaining bands).
### Malmquist bias
K08 added a $0.02$ magnitude covariance for each sample representing Malmquist bias uncertainty. More recently, KS09 completed a thorough simulation of selection effects for each of the samples in their analyses. They find a 0.024 change in $w$ when making a correction for selection effects. As the $0.02$ magnitude covariance yields a quite similar 0.026 error on $w$, and conducting a full simulation is beyond the scope of this work, we reuse the covariance from K08.
### Gravitational lensing
The effects from gravitational lensing on the Hubble diagram have been discussed in detail in the literature . Gravitational lensing only affects the high redshift end of the data that is currently available, and potential bias on the cosmological parameters from the analysis carried out here due to the asymmetry of the lensing probability density function is expected to be negligible. We adopt the K08 approach of only treating gravitational lensing as a statistical uncertainty by adding a value of $0.093z$ [@2005ApJ...631..678H] in quadrature to ${\sigma_\mathrm{ext}}$ in equation . This is a conservative approach with respect to the values presented by @2006ApJ...639..991J, where they attempt to measure the lensing of individual [SNe]{}by determining the mass distribution along the line of sight. A very important conclusion of their work is that there is no evidence for selection effects due to lensing of the high-redshift [SNe]{}.
### Light curve model {#sec:verifyinglcfitter}
We have studied any potential bias that could arise from poor light curve sampling, by carrying out a similar analysis to K08, updated for [SALT2]{}. We use nine [*BVR*]{} AQUAA templates [@2007ApJ...671.1084S] constructed from observations of very well-observed nearby supernovae. Each set of [*BVR*]{} templates is combined with a [SALT2]{}$U$-band template generated for that supernova, as there were insufficient observations in the $U$-band to construct an AQUAA template.
Mock data sets are then sampled from these templates with the same rest frame dates and signal-to-noise ratios of the real [SNe]{}in our sample. The mock sets are then fitted with [SALT2]{}and the offset between AQUAA corrected magnitude and the corresponding [SALT2]{}fitted value is investigated as a function of the fitted phase of each supernova’s first data point (the phase is with respect to $B$-band maximum). K08 looked at other possible biases, but first phase was the only significant one found. The test is carried out for each of the nine template [SNe]{}.
For [SNe]{}with a first phase at $B$-band maximum, the average bias is close to zero, with an RMS of about 0.03. For [SNe]{}with a first phase at six days past $B$-band maximum, the average bias is still close to zero, but the RMS has increased to about 0.08. Of course, our nine [SN]{}templates might not be a representative sample, but these results are encouraging, since they both suggest that there is no significant bias and indirectly validate the [SALT2]{}performance with respect to the AQUAA templates.
We use a first phase cut of six days, but we conservatively give each [SN]{}that has first phase greater than zero a $0.03$ magnitude covariance. Note that [SALT2]{}does not stretch its definition of phase with light curve width.
### Contamination
As already mentioned, we perform an iterative $\chi^2$ minimization with a $3\sigma$ outlier rejection before fitting cosmology. In K08 we showed that this technique greatly reduces the impact of potential contamination, while maintaining roughly Gaussian statistics. We carried out a Monte-Carlo study showing that the effect of contamination on any individual sample is limited to less than $0.015$ magnitudes. This is under the assumption that the dispersion of the contaminating distribution is of the same order, or greater than, the dispersion of [SNe Ia]{}and that the contamination is less than $30\,\%$. We include a $0.015$ magnitude uncertainty, correlated for each sample, to account for possible contamination.
### Minimum redshift
In order to test for possible effects from using a given minimum redshift cut, we started by constructing a new sample with no minimum redshift. Using this sample, we performed fits which allowed the absolute magnitude to vary independently below and above a dividing redshift in the range $0.01$ to $0.03$. This procedure should test for a Hubble bubble or significantly correlated peculiar velocities. The extra degree of freedom allowed by this step in $M_B$ improved the $\chi^2$ by $\lesssim 1$ regardless of the dividing redshift and the inclusion of systematic errors. This confirms the results of @2007ApJ...664L..13C for [SALT2]{}. We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference between minimum redshifts and use the value of 0.015, as was used in the K08 analysis.
### Galactic extinction
All light curve photometry is corrected for Galactic extinction using the extinction law from @1989ApJ...345..245C, assuming $R_V=3.1$, together with the dust maps from @1998ApJ...500..525S.
In the same procedure as with calibration uncertainties, we increased the Galactic $E(B-V)$ by 0.01 for each supernova and repeated the fit, giving $\frac{d\mu(\alpha, \beta)}{d (E(B-V))}$. A $10\%$ statistical and $16\%$ systematic error was assumed for the Galactic extinction of each supernova [@1998ApJ...500..525S].
### Intergalactic extinction
Dimming of [SNe Ia]{}by hypothetical intergalactic gray dust has been suggested by @1999ApJ...525..583A as an alternative to dark energy to explain the [SN]{}results . This potential dimming was however constrained by studying the colors of high-$z$ quasars [@2003JCAP...09..009M; @2005JCAP...02..005O] and by observations [SNe Ia]{}in the rest frame I-band .
Another possible extinction systematic comes from the dust in galaxy halos that are along the line of sight. @2009arXiv0902.4240M used distant quasars to detect and measure extinction in galactic halos at $z\sim0.3$. They find an average $R_V$ for their galaxies of $3.9\pm2.6$. Using their observed $A_V(r)$, we find an average rest frame $V$-band extinction of $0.004$ magnitudes per intersected halo, assuming $R_V = 3.1$. At redshift 0.5, an average of three halos have been intercepted. At redshift 1.0, the average is seven.
There are three mitigating factors. One is that expansion redshifts photons between the supernova and the intervening galaxy. The CCM law decreases with wavelength (in the relevant wavelength range), so less light is absorbed. @2008MNRAS.385.1053M finds that $\rho_{\mathrm{dust}} \propto (1 + z)^{-1.1}$, which we use to scale the extinction. Finally, most of the extinction is corrected by color correction. The exact amount corrected depends on the redshift and the filters used in the observations, but is around two thirds.
We find an error on $w$ of 0.008 due to this extinction, significantly lower than the value of 0.024 derived by @2009arXiv0903.4199M. However, they used $R_V = 3.9$, rather than $3.1$; the fraction of extinction that is corrected by the color correction will decrease with $R_V$. We also numerically sum the CCM laws, rather than using an analytic approximation. Since we know the exact redshift and filters used in each observation, we can exactly calculate the amount of extinction already handled by the color correction (using our $\frac{d\mu}{d\mathrm{zp}}$ values), without approximation.
### Shape and Color Correction
The most uncertain contribution to the dimming of [SNe Ia]{}is host galaxy extinction. Several studies of [SN Ia]{}colors indicate that the observed [SN Ia]{}reddening does not match the Galactic CCM extinction law with $R_V=3.1$. A stronger wavelength dependence has been found in the optical in most cases, and it remains unclear if CCM models with any value of $R_V$ can be used to describe the data accurately. It is possible that the observed steep reddening originates from a mixture of local effects and host galaxy extinction. Local effects could be intrinsic [SN]{}variations, but also multiple scattering on dust in the circumstellar environment has been suggested [@2005ApJ...635L..33W; @2008ApJ...686L.103G]. This model is potentially supported by detection [@2007Sci...317..924P; @2009ApJ...702.1157S; @2009ApJ...693..207B] of circumstellar material but also by color excess measurements for two of the best observed reddened [SN Ia]{}[@2010AJ....139..120F] being consistent with the expected extinction from circumstellar material.
The [SALT2]{}method approaches the lack of a consistent understanding of [SN Ia]{}reddening by adopting a purely empirical approach. For [SALT2]{}, the [SN Ia]{}luminosity is standardized by assuming that the standardization is linear in both $x_1$ and $c$ as described in equation , where $\beta$ is the empirically determined correction coeffecient that accounts for all linear relations between color and observed peak magnitude. For example if the only source for such [SN Ia]{}reddening originated from CCM extinction then $\beta$ is identically equal to $R_V+1$. We test this approach and propagate relevant systematic uncertainties by dividing the full sample into smaller sets and carrying out independent fits for the $x_1$ and $c$ correction coefficients, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, as shown in Table \[tb:albtredshift\].
When subdividing into redshift bins, we find that the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for the full sample are consistent with values for the three first redshift bins. It is encouraging to see consistency between the global values fit for the full dataset and the values in the best-understood redshift range. Beyond this important test, we also note that the value of $\beta$ in the redshift range 0.5 to 1 is significantly lower than the other values, while the value for $z>1$ is higher than the global value, but is poorly measured. The trend is similar to what was seen in KS09, but we use different binning. This behavior is inconsistent with a monotonic drift in redshift, so we consider other explanations for these results. That conclusion is also supported by the observation that samples at similar redshifts (e.g. @2007ApJ...666..674M and @2006AA...447...31A) can have very different values of $\beta$ when fitted independently. The value of $\alpha$ is consistent across redshift ranges, except at $z>1$, where many light curves are so poorly sampled that it may not be possible to assign reasonable $x_1$ errors.
When subdividing into the four largest data sources (the lower half of Table \[tb:albtredshift\]), we find values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ generally consistent with the global values, with the exception of a lower value of $\beta$ for the SNLS SNe [@2006AA...447...31A]. In general, ignoring or underestimating the errors in $c$ or $x_1$ will decrease the associated correction coefficients, $\beta$ and $\alpha$, as investigated in K08 and KS09 and this may be relevant here. Specifically, two potential sources of problems are an incomplete understanding of calibration and underestimated [SN]{}model variations, either of which could affect these fits. If the SNLS [SNe]{}are physically different, and they are allowed their own $\beta$, then $w$ shifts by 0.02. Alternatively, as one $\beta$ is used for the global sample, the possibility that that $\beta$ is biased from the true global value must be considered. Selecting the global value of $\beta$ from any of the other large samples shifts $w$ by less than 0.02. We have accounted for this systematic by assigning each sample a $0.02$ magnitude covariance (giving a 0.03 error on $w$), which avoids the problem of handling an error on elements of the covariance matrix. To study these details further, we look forward to more data for $z>0.5$, with improved calibration and light curve models. We also perform one additional sanity check by subdividing the data by $x_1$ and $c$. There is evidence for two populations of normal [SN Ia]{}, divided by light curve width (see K08, and references therein). Star-forming galaxies tend to host the population with broader light curves, while [SN]{}hosted by passive galaxies tend to have narrower light curves. As described below, we derive consistent cosmology for these subdivisions as well.
We subdivide[^9] the full sample into two roughly equal subsamples, split first by color and then by $x_1$. In total, this makes four subsamples. We find that the cosmology is close for all subsamples (as can be seen in Table \[tb:albtredshift\]) so the difference from these subdivisions does not contribute significantly to the systematic error on $w$.
It is interesting to note that $\alpha$ is substantially different for the two samples split by light curve width. Likewise, $\beta$ is substantially different for the two samples split by color. This might suggest that the relationships between color and brightness and light curve width and brightness are more complex than a simple linear relationship, or it could be that the errors on $x_1$ and $c$ are not perfectly understood. We also find that $\beta$ is higher for the redder [SNe Ia]{}which is similar to the results from @2008ApJ...681..482C based on comparisons of $U-B$ colors to $B-V$, after correcting for the effect of stretch on the $U$-band. At the same time it should be pointed out that evidence of low $R_V$ values have also been found for a few well-studied, and significantly reddened, nearby [SNe Ia]{}@2010AJ....139..120F.
### Summary of systematic errors
The effect of these systematic errors on $w$ is given in Table \[tb:werrsys\]. The improvement in cosmology constraints over the simple quadrature sum is also shown. Zeropoint and Vega calibration dominate the systematics budget, but understanding the color variations of [SNe]{}is also important. The benefit from making a Malmquist bias correction can be seen; by doing so, KS09 reduce this systematic error by a factor of two.
[lr]{} Zero point & 0.037\
Vega & 0.042\
Galactic Extinction Normalization & 0.012\
Rest-Frame $U$-Band & 0.010\
Contamination & 0.021\
Malmquist Bias & 0.026\
Intergalactic Extinction & 0.012\
Light curve Shape & 0.009\
Color Correction & 0.026\
*Quadrature Sum (not used)*& *0.073*\
Summed in Covariance Matrix & 0.063\
Results and Discussion\[sec:resultsandiscussion\]
=================================================
In the cosmology analysis presented here, the statistical errors on ${\Omega_M}$ have decreased by a significant $24\%$ over the K08 Union analysis, while the estimated systematic errors have only improved by $13\%$. When combining the [SN]{}results with BAO and CMB constraints, statistical errors on $w$ have improved by $16\%$ over K08, though the quoted systematic errors have increased $7\%$. Figure \[fig:omw\_compare\] shows a comparison between the constraints from K08 and this compilation in the $({\Omega_M}-w)$ plane. Even with some improvement on the understanding of systematic errors, it is clear that the dataset is dominated by systematic error (at least at low to mid-$z$).
{width="45.00000%"}{width="45.00000%"}
The best fit cosmological parameters for the compilation are presented in Table \[tb:cosmoresults\] with constraints from CMB and BAO. The confidence regions in the $({\Omega_M},{\Omega_\Lambda})$ and $({\Omega_M},w)$ planes for the last fit in the table are shown in Figures \[fig:omol\] and \[fig:omw\] respectively.
{width="45.00000%"}{width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"}{width="45.00000%"}
[ccccccc]{}
For the CMB data we implement the constraints from the 7 year data release of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) as outlined in @2010arXiv1001.4538K. We take their results on ${z_{\star}}$ (the redshift of last scattering), $l_A({z_{\star}})$, and $R({z_{\star}})$, updating the central values for the cosmological model being considered. Here, $l_A({z_{\star}})$ is given by $$\l_A({z_{\star}}) \equiv (1+{z_{\star}})\frac{\pi D_A({z_{\star}})}{r_s({z_{\star}})}\,,$$ where $D_A$ is the angular distance to ${z_{\star}}$, while $$R({z_{\star}}) \equiv \frac{\sqrt{{\Omega_M}H_0^2}}{c} (1 + {z_{\star}})D_A({z_{\star}})\,.$$
@2010MNRAS.401.2148P measures the position of the BAO peak from the SDSS DR7 and 2dFGRS data, constraining $d_z\equiv r_s(z_d)/D_V(0.275)$ to $0.1390\pm0.0037$, where $r_z(z_d)$ is the comoving sound horizon and $D_V(z)\equiv\left[(1+z)^2D_A^2cz/H(z)\right]^{1/3}$.
For the [SNe]{}+ BAO fit in Table \[tb:cosmoresults\], we add an $H_0$ measurement of $74.2\pm3.6$ km/s/Mpc from @2009ApJ...699..539R, creating a constraint without the CMB that is therefore largely independent of the high-redshift behavior of dark energy (as long as the dark energy density contribution is negligible in the early universe). Note that the $H_0$ constraint relies on most of the nearby supernovae used in this compilation. However, the effect on $w$ through $H_0$ from these supernovae is several times smaller than the effect through the Hubble diagram. Alternatively, adding a CMB constraint on $\Omega_m h^2$ of $0.1338\pm0.0058$ from the WMAP7 webpage[^10] allows us to create a constraint that is independent of $H_0$. This final result for [SNe]{}+BAO+CMB does not improve significantly if the current $H_0$ constraint is added.
Time variation of the dark energy equation of state
---------------------------------------------------
The constraints shown in Figure \[fig:omw\] were obtained assuming that the dark energy equation of state (EOS) is redshift independent. [SNe Ia]{}are useful for constraining a redshift dependent $w(z)$ since, unlike [e.g.]{}CMB, their measured distances at a given redshift are independent of the behavior of dark energy at higher redshifts. A common method to parameterize $w(z)$ is $$w(z) = w_0 + w_a\frac{z}{1+z}$$ where a cosmological constant is described by $(w_0,w_a)=(-1,0)$. It can be shown [@2003PhRvL..90i1301L] that this parameterization provides an excellent approximation to a wide variety of dark energy models. The constraints from the current [SN]{}data together with the CMB and BAO data are presented in Figure \[fig:w0wa\]. The flattening of the contours in this diagram at $w_0 + w_a = 0$ comes from the implicit constraint of matter domination in the early Universe imposed by the CMB and BAO data. Only modest constraints can currently be placed on $w_a$.
![$68.3\%$, $95.4\%$, and $99.7\%$ confidence regions of the $(w_0,w_a)$ plane from [SNe]{}combined with the constraints from BAO and CMB both with (solid contours) and without (shaded contours) systematic errors. Zero curvature has been assumed. Points above the dotted line ($w_0 + w_a = 0$) violate early matter domination and are implicitly disfavored in this analysis by the CMB and BAO data. \[fig:w0wa\]](%
figures/current/colorw0-wa_interp.epsi){width="45.00000%"}
It can be illuminating to study $w(z)$ in redshift bins, where $w$ is assumed constant in each bin. This method has the advantage that $w(z)$ can be studied without assuming a specific form for the relation [@2003PhRvL..90c1301H]. We carry out the analysis following [@2008ApJ...686..749K] and fit a constant $w$ in each bin, while the remaining cosmological parameters are fit globally for the entire redshift range. Figure \[fig:wbins\] shows three such models for the combined constraints from [SNe]{}, BAO, CMB, and $H_0$ measurements where we assume a flat Universe. In these scenarios, the $H_0$ measurement does not contribute much, but due to its small improvement on the CMB constraints it gives a small ($\sim10\%$) improvement on the errorbar of the highest redshift bin.
{width="32.00000%"}{width="32.00000%"}{width="32.00000%"}
The left panel shows constraints on $w$ for three bins. The first bin ($0<z<0.5$) shows a well-constrained $w$. The middle bin ($0.5<z<1$) shows a poorly-constrained $w$, though one that is distinct from $-\infty$ (which would drive $\rho$ to $0$ above $z = 0.5$, resulting in a matter-only universe) at high confidence, indicating the detection of some kind of dark energy in this redshift range. For $z
> 1$, there is little constraint on $w$, and only a weak constraint on the existence of dark energy.
The middle panel shows the effect of dividing the highest redshift bin. The constraints on $w$ for $z > 1$ get much weaker, showing that most of the (weak) constraint on the highest bin in the left panel comes from a combination of the CMB with the well-constrained low-redshift supernova data. Current supernovae at $z > 1$ offer no real constraint on $w(z>1)$. Providing a significant constraint at these redshifts requires significantly better supernova measurements. As in the left panel, $w$ in the highest redshift bin is constrained to be less than zero by the requirement from BAO and CMB constraints that the early universe have a matter-dominated epoch.
The right panel shows the effect of dividing the lowest redshift bin. While no significant change in $w$ with redshift is detected, there is still considerable room for evolution in $w$, even at low redshift.
Figure \[fig:rhobins\] shows dark energy *density* constraints, assuming the same redshift binning as in Figure \[fig:wbins\]. Note that this is not equivalent to the left and center panels of Figure \[fig:wbins\]; only in the limit of an infinite number of bins do binned $\rho$ and binned $w$ give the same model. Dark energy can be detected at high significance in the middle bin (redshift $0.5$ to $1$), but there is only weak evidence for dark energy above redshift 1 (left panel). When the bin above redshift 1 is split at a redshift greater than the supernova sample (right panel), it can be seen that the current small sample of supernovae cannot constrain the existence of dark energy above redshift 1.
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}
SNe with ground-based near-IR data {#sec:zgt1}
----------------------------------
Obtaining near-IR data of $z \gtrsim 1$ SNe Ia, whether from space or from the ground, is critical for constraining the [SALT2]{}color parameter, $c$. Without the near-IR data, the uncertainty in this parameter for [2001hb]{}and [2001gn]{}, both beyond $z=1$, increases by a factor of two. Precise measurements of $c$ are important, since uncertainties in $c$ are inflated by $\beta\approx2.5$ and tend to dominate the error budget when the corrected peak $B$-brightness of [SNe Ia]{}are calculated.
Both [2001hb]{}and [2001gn]{}were observed with ground-based near-IR instruments. The operational challenges associated in obtaining these data are significant. Long exposure times (ten hours or more taken within a few days) in excellent observing conditions are necessary. Even with queue mode scheduling, these observations are just feasible. Despite the challenges, the uncertainty in the [SALT2]{}color of these two [SNe Ia]{}is comparable to the uncertainty in the color of the [*best*]{} space-based measured [SNe Ia]{}at $z \gtrsim 1$.
The ground based near-IR data also allow us to search for systematic offsets with near-IR data taken from space. For $z>1.1$ [SNe Ia]{}observed with NICMOS, the average [SALT2]{}$c$ value is $c={0.06\pm0.03}$ mag. By comparison, the weighted average color of the three [SNe Ia]{}at $z\sim1.1$ with ground-based near-IR data ([2001hb]{}and [2001gn]{}from this work, together with [1999fk]{}from @2003ApJ...594....1T) that pass the light curve cuts is, ${ 0.01\pm0.07}$. Neither the ground-based or space-based measurements show any Hubble diagram offset, ($\Delta\mu =
{ 0.03\pm0.10}$ and ${-0.01\pm0.06}$, respectively), from the best fit cosmology. These results include a $0.1$ magnitude dispersion in color, and the fitted systematic dispersions in magnitude. Additional [SNe Ia]{}at $z\sim1.1$ with ground based near-IR photometry will be published in Suzuki [et al.]{}(in preparation) and we will revisit this issue in that paper, where we will also incorporate the results from the NICMOS calibration program referenced in section \[sec:nicmosphot\].
Comparison of KeplerCam and SDSS Photometry
-------------------------------------------
H09 and KS09 share three normal supernovae in common: 2005hc, 2005hj, and 2005ir. In comparing the data for these [SNe]{}, we noticed that the H09 KeplerCam $r$-band photometry is generally $0.05\pm0.02$ magnitudes fainter than the KS09 SDSS $r$-band photometry based on [SALT2]{}fits including both data sets. The quoted uncertainty is completely dominated by the zero-point uncertainties, as both sets of data have high S/N. The offset is consistent for each supernova. This offset is the correct size and direction to explain the tension in Hubble residuals seen between these datasets in second panel of Figure \[fig:diagnostics\].
[SN]{}2005hc and [SN]{}2005ir were also observed by CSP using the Swope telescope. In these cases, the Swope photometry agrees with the SDSS $r$-band photometry.
[rrrrrrr]{}
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
We have presented the light curves of [SNe Ia]{}in the redshift range $0.511<z<1.12$. The [SNe]{}were discovered as part of a search conducted by the Supernova Cosmology Project using the Subaru, CFHT and CTIO Blanco telescopes in 2001. The fitted light curve shapes and colors at maximum light are all consistent with the corresponding distributions from previous [SN]{}surveys.
Following K08, we add these six [SNe]{}and other [SN Ia]{}data sets to the Union compilation. We have also improved the Union analysis in a number of respects, creating the new [Union2]{}compilation. The most important improvements are: (1) Systematic errors are directly computed using the effect they have on the distance modulus (2) All [SN]{}light curves are fitted with the [SALT2]{}light curve fitter.
We determine the best fit cosmology for the [Union2]{}compilation, and the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model remains an excellent fit. The new analysis results in a significant improvement over K08 in constraining $w$ over the redshift interval $0 < z < 1$. Above $z \gtrsim 1$, evidence for dark energy is weak. This will remain the case until there is much more high redshift data, with better signal-to-noise and wavelength coverage.
Based, in part, on observations obtained at the ESO La Silla Paranal Observatory (ESO programs 67.A-0361 and 169.A-0382). Based, in part, on observations obtained at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, under contract with the National Science Foundation. Based, in part, on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory (Gemini programs GN-2001A-SV-19 and GN-2002A-Q-31), which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina). Based, in part on observations obtained at the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Observatory of Japan. Some of imaging data taken with Suprime-Cam were obtained during the commissioning phase of the instrument, and we would like to thank all members of Suprime-Cam instrument team. Based, in part, on data that were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. Based on observations obtained at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.
Based, in part, on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with programs HST-GO-08585 and HST-GO-09075.
Support for programs HST-GO-08585.14-A and HST-GO-09075.01-A was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
This work is supported in part by a JSPS core-to-core program “International Research Network for Dark Energy” and by JSPS research grants (20040002).
This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE- AC02-05CH11231.
T.M. is financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through the JSPS Research Fellowship.
C.L. acknowledges the support provided by the Oskar Klein Centre at Stockholm University.
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for its helpful comments and suggestions.
[*Facilities:*]{} , , , , , , , ,
Spectra and notes on individual candidates {#sec:spectra}
==========================================
The spectra of the six [SNe]{}in this paper. Details of the spectra for [2001go]{}and [2001gy]{}can be found in , while the spectrum for [2001cw]{}is described in @2010PASJ...62...19M.
The spectrum of each candidate is plotted twice. In the upper panel, the spectrum of the candidate is plotted in the observer frame and is uncorrected for host galaxy light. Telluric absorption features are marked with the symbol $\oplus$. In the lower panel, contamination from the host (if any) is removed, and the resulting spectrum is rescaled and re-binned. This spectrum is plotted in black as a histogram and it is plotted in both the rest frame (lower axis) and the observer frame (upper axis). For comparison, low redshift [SNe]{}are plotted as a blue continuous line.
![[**Upper panel:**]{} The error weighted and rebinned ESI spectrum of [2001gn]{}, a probable SN Ia at $z=1.124$. The redshift is derived from the \[OII\] $\lambda\lambda 3727,3729$ doublet, which is clearly resolved in the ESI spectrum. [**Lower Panel:**]{} The rebinned host galaxy subtracted spectrum and SN 1990N at $-7$ days. \[fig:01gn\]](figures/SN01gn2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![[**Upper panel:**]{} The error weighted and rebinned ESI spectrum of [2001hb]{}, a probable [SN Ia]{}at $z=1.03$. [**Lower Panel:**]{} A rebinned version of the spectrum in the upper panel and SN 1989B at $-7$ days. The redshift of [2001hb]{}is derived by fitting the SN to local SN templates as no features from the host galaxy are detected. \[fig:01hb\]](figures/SN01hb.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}
Light curve data
================
Tabulated below are light curve data for the six [SNe]{}presented in this paper. The data are listed in chronological order for one [SN]{}at a time, and correspond to data points plotted in Figure \[fig:lightcurves\].
All photometry is given as the measured flux, $f$, in the instrumental system, [i.e.]{}no color correction ($S$-correction) to a standard system has been applied. The instrumental Vega magnitude may be calculated using the standard formula: $m=-2.5\log f + \mathrm{ZP}$, where $\mathrm{ZP}$ is the associated zeropoint. For the [HST]{}data these are the updated values from @2000PASP..112.1397D given on Andrew Dolphin’s webpage[^11]. The zeropoints have then been converted to $e/s$ by using a gain of $7.12$. The zeropoints for the ground-based data on the other hand are always given for the photometric reference image, and therefore include exposure time, gain, and for the [PSF]{}fitted data, the aperture correction. Note that there are correlated errors between the data points that come from the same light curve build, since the same host galaxy model and zeropoint has been used. This is also reflected by small offsets between different data sets in Figure \[fig:lightcurves\]. The covariances are taken into account for the light curve fitting and the full covariance matrices used will be available from the [SCP]{}Web site.
The instruments used are as given below. [MOSAIC II]{}is the multichip imager on the [CTIO]{}4 m telescope. [CFH12k]{}is the multichip imager on the 3.6 m [CFHT]{}telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. [SuprimeCam]{}is the wide-field imager on the 8.2 m [Subaru]{}telescope. [SuSI2]{}is the imager on the NTT 3.6 m telescope at ESO. [FORS1]{}is the imager on the 8 m UT2 (Kueyen) at [VLT]{}, ESO. [ISAAC]{}and [NIRI]{}are the near-infrared imagers on the 8 m UT1 (Antu) at [VLT]{}, ESO and Gemini North telescopes respectively. Finally, [WFPC2]{}indicates data obtained with the Planetary Camera CCD and and [ACS]{}is the Advanced Camera for Surveys, both on [HST]{}.
[l r c r c r@[ ]{}r r c]{}
[l l r r r r c c]{}
Nuisance Parameters as Covariances {#sec:statistics}
==================================
Suppose that observations ${\boldsymbol{y}}$ are modeled by ${\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$, where some of the parameters enter into the model linearly (${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L$) while some enter non-linearly (${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N$). The $\chi^2$ can be written as $$\chi^2({\boldsymbol{\theta}}) = ({\boldsymbol{y}}- ({\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N) + H{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L))^T V^{-1} ({\boldsymbol{y}}- ({\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N) + H{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L))$$ where $V$ is the covariance matrix of the observations, and $H$ is the Jacobian matrix of the model with respect to the ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L$. Taking the derivative of the $\chi^2$ and setting it to zero gives the analytic formula for the best-fit ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L$ $$\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L} = (H^T V^{-1} H)^{-1} H^T V^{-1} ({\boldsymbol{y}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N)) \equiv D({\boldsymbol{y}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N))\;.$$ The likelihoods for the ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N$ can be found from this restricted parameter space where ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L = \hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L}$. Thus, the restricted $\chi^2$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2 & = & ((I - HD)({\boldsymbol{y}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N)))^T V^{-1}(I - HD)({\boldsymbol{y}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N)) \\
& \equiv & \boxed{({\boldsymbol{y}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N))^T U^{-1}({\boldsymbol{y}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}_N({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N))} \label{eq:newchi2}\end{aligned}$$ with $U^{-1}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
U^{-1} & = & (I - HD)^T V^{-1} (I - HD)\\
& = & \boxed{V^{-1} - V^{-1} H (H^T V^{-1} H)^{-1} H^T V^{-1}}\;.\end{aligned}$$
In this way, all of the ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L$ do not have to be explicitly included in the $\chi^2$, as long as the weight matrix, $U^{-1}$, is updated appropriately. Note that $U^{-1}$ may depend on ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^N$.
Minimization over ${x_1^{\mathrm{true}}}$ and ${c^{\mathrm{true}}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------
When errors in the independent variable are present, the true values must be solved for as part of the fit (see discussion in K08). For one supernova, ${\boldsymbol{y}}= (m_B, x_1, c)$, while the model is given by $$(M_B + \mu(z, \mathrm{cosmology}) - (\alpha {x_1^{\mathrm{true}}}- \beta {c^{\mathrm{true}}}), {x_1^{\mathrm{true}}}, {c^{\mathrm{true}}})\;.$$ Using ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^L = ({x_1^{\mathrm{true}}}, {c^{\mathrm{true}}})$ ($M_B, \alpha$ and $\beta$ are global parameters and cannot be handled one supernova at a time), we have $$H = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
-\alpha & \beta \\
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array} \right)\;.$$ The new $\chi^2$ for this specific example (equation ) is given by equations and .
Minimization over Systematic Errors {#sec:minsyserr}
-----------------------------------
Suppose that we have two kinds of measurements: supernova distance measurements ($N$ supernovae), and zeropoint measurements ($M$ zeropoints). The true value of each zeropoint is given by $\mathrm{ZP_{true}} = \mathrm{ZP_{observed}} + {\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}$. Because the uncertainties on the supernova distances are unrelated to the uncertainties on the zeropoints, $$V = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
{V_{\mu}}&\\
& {V_{{\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}}}\end{array} \right)\,,$$ where ${V_{\mu}}$ is an $N\times N$ block and ${V_{{\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}}}$ is an $M\times M$ block. Similarly, ${\boldsymbol{y}}$ can be split into distances and zeropoints ${\boldsymbol{y}}= ({\boldsymbol{y}}_{\mu}, {\boldsymbol{y}}_{{\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}} = \boldsymbol{0})$. The model for each supernova distance is given by $$M_B + \mu(z, \mathrm{cosmology}) - \sum_{\lambda}
{\frac{\partial (m_B + \alpha x_1 - \beta c)}{\partial \mathrm{ZP}_{\lambda}}}{\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}_{\lambda}\;.$$ It is derived in the same way as in the previous section, with the substitutions $x_1 \rightarrow x_1 + \sum_{\lambda}
{\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial \mathrm{ZP}_{\lambda}}} {\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}_{\lambda}$ and $c \rightarrow c
+ \sum_{\lambda} {\frac{\partial c}{\partial \mathrm{ZP}_{\lambda}}} {\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}_{\lambda}$. The model for the true offset of each zeropoint is simply ${\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}$. Thus, $$H = \left( \begin{array}{c}
{H_{\mu}}\\
I
\end{array} \right)\,.$$ The upper block of $U^{-1}$ is given by $$U^{-1}_{\mathrm{upper\;block}} = {V_{\mu}}^{-1} - {V_{\mu}}^{-1}{H_{\mu}}({V_{{\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}}}^{-1}
+ {H_{\mu}}^{T}{V_{\mu}}^{-1} {H_{\mu}})^{-1} {H_{\mu}}^{T}{V_{\mu}}^{-1}\; ;$$ none of the other blocks enter into the $\chi^2$. Inverting this block (see [@Hager75570]) gives: $$U = {V_{\mu}}+ {H_{\mu}}{V_{{\Delta \mathrm{ZP}}}}{H_{\mu}}^{T}
\label{eq:simplecov}$$ Equation gives us the terms we must add to the supernova distance modulus errors to correctly take the zeropoints into account.
[^1]: Based in part on observations made with the NASA/ESA [ *Hubble Space Telescope*]{}, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555. The observations are associated with programs HST-GO-08585 and HST-GO-09075. Based, in part, on observations obtained at the ESO La Silla Paranal Observatory (ESO programs 67.A-0361 and 169.A-0382). Based, in part, on observations obtained at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO), National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO). Based on observations obtained at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT). Based, in part, on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory (Gemini programs GN-2001A-SV-19 and GN-2002A-Q-31). Based, in part on observations obtained at the Subaru Telescope. Based, in part, on data that were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory.
[^2]: [IRAF]{}is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under the cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: <http://www.eso.org/projects/aot/eclipse/>
[^4]: The Space Telescope Science Data Analysis System ([STSDAS]{}) is a software package for reducing and analyzing astronomical data. It provides general-purpose tools for astronomical data analysis as well as routines specifically designed for [HST]{}data.
[^5]: ` http://www.cadc.hia.nrc.gc.ca/community/STETSON/archive/`
[^6]: The fit results for these samples are presented along with the entire [Union2]{}compilation fits at `http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/`.
[^7]: `http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/`
[^8]: Note that adding a covariance is equivalent to minimizing over a nuisance parameter that has a Gaussian prior around zero; the discussion in K08 is in terms of these nuisance parameters. This is further discussed in Appendix \[sec:statistics\].
[^9]: Subdividing by $x_1$ or $c$ must be done carefully. When there are errors in both the dependent and independent variables (in this case, magnitude and $x_1$ or $c$), the true values of the independent variables must be explicitly solved for as part of the fit. Otherwise, the subdividing will be biased. For example, suppose that a supernova has a color that is poorly measured, and an uncorrected magnitude that is well-measured. If this supernova is faint and blue, then a fit for the true color will give a redder color. A color cut will place this supernova in the blue category, when the supernova is actually more likely to be red. As mentioned in K08, whenever one fits for $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the true values of $x_1$ and $c$ are only implicitly solved for; equation is derived by analytically minimizing over the true $x_1$ and $c$. K08 provides the equation with the true values made explicit, we also include a discussion in Appendix \[sec:statistics\].
[^10]: [\\texttt{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/params/wcdm\_sz\_lens\_wmap7.cfm}](\texttt{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/params/wcdm_sz_lens_wmap7.cfm})
[^11]: [\\texttt{http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/wfpc2\_calib/}](\texttt{http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/wfpc2_calib/})
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a full theory of quantum gravity, local physics is expected to be approximate rather than innate. It is therefore important to understand how approximate locality emerges in the semiclassical limit. Here we show that any notion of locality emergent from a holographic theory of quantum gravity is “all or nothing”: local data is not obtained gradually from subregions of the boundary, but is rather obtained all at once when enough of the boundary is accessed. Our assumptions are mild and thus this feature is quite general; in the special case of AdS/CFT, a slightly different manifestation follows from well-known and familiar properties.'
bibliography:
- 'all.bib'
---
[**Locality from Quantum Gravity: All or Nothing**]{}
Netta Engelhardt$^a$ and Sebastian Fischetti$^b$\
[^1]
[$^{a}$Department of Physics, Princeton University\
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA\
$^{b}$Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College\
London SW7 2AZ, UK]{}
[1.2]{}
Recent developments suggest that local – that is, semiclassical – gravitational physics is not fundamental, but rather emerges from an appropriate limit of a complete theory of quantum gravity. A mysterious aspect of this emergence is its rarity: generic states of quantum gravity are non-classical. As our own universe is one of the special semiclassical states, it is of vital importance to understand how a theory of quantum gravity gives rise to local physics.
What precisely do we mean by local physics? An ordinary quantum field theory is local if the commutator of any field $\phi$ at two spacelike-separated points $x$ and $y$ vanishes: $[\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0$. This concept is only well-defined in a system that has at least *(i)* an approximate notion of points and *(ii)* the information to determine the causal separation between the two points (whether they are spacelike-, timelike-, or null-separated). These two data constitute a semiclassical *conformal geometry*, a more primitive and coarser construct than a full semiclassical geometry: the latter contains the data required to measure distances between points, which is absent in the former. Understanding the emergence of locality is thus tantamount to understanding the emergence of a semiclassical conformal geometry.
Because we are ultimately interested in describing our own universe, we restrict our attention to semiclassical (conformal) spacetimes containing matter. Specifically, we make the following assumption:
: A semiclassical spacetime contains a weakly interacting quantum matter field $\phi(x)$.
While this assumption is a reasonable expectation of any putative theory of quantum gravity, little else is known explicitly about such theories. Fortunately, the holographic principle [@Tho93; @Sus95; @Bou02] provides valuable insights: any theory of quantum gravity in $(d+1)$ dimensions is believed to be expressible *indirectly* in terms of a non-gravitational theory in $d$ dimensions; typically these theories are termed the “bulk” and “boundary”, respectively. In this Essay, we draw from our earlier work in [@EngFis17] to show that the holographic principle implies that the emergence of semiclassical locality from a holographic theory of quantum gravity obeys a key property: it is “all or nothing”.
To facilitate our arguments, we first make our assumptions about holography explicit:
: The boundary theory lives on a geometry that can be embedded as a timelike or null hypersurface in the bulk;
: For each $n$, the boundary contains an object $O_n(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ which in the limit of a semiclassical bulk is related to the $n$-point correlator of $\phi(x)$ as \[eq:dict\] \_[x\_i X\_i]{} = O\_n(X\_1,…,X\_n), where $x_i$ and $X_i$ label points in the bulk and boundary, respectively.
While the reader may protest that \[A3\] seems draconianly restrictive, it is in fact rather mild: for timelike separated $X_{i}$, the left hand side of is morally the S-matrix of the bulk theory. Any boundary theory should contain an object that encodes bulk scattering data if it is to describe the bulk.
The three ingredients \[A1\]-\[A3\] can now be combined. First, an immediate consequence of \[A1\]: if the bulk is semiclassical, the correlator $\ev{\phi(x_1) \cdots \phi(x_n)}$ (taking $n \geq 4$) is singular when the $x_i$ are null-separated from a common vertex $y$, as long as the corresponding position-space Feynman diagram (shown in Figure \[fig:Landau\]) conserves energy-momentum at $y$ [@MalSim15] (see also earlier work by [@PolSus99; @GarGid09; @HeePen09; @Pen10; @OkuPen11]). These so-called lightcone singularities – in which the $x_i$ are distinct and some are timelike separated – are therefore sensitive to the causal structure of the bulk. It then follows from \[A2\] and \[A3\] that whenever the bulk is well-approximated by a semiclassical conformal geometry, the *boundary* object $O_n(X_i)$ is singular when the boundary points $X_i$ are null-separated from a *bulk* point $y$ (at which energy-momentum is conserved)[^2]; see Figure \[fig:cut\]. Thus we immediately obtain a necessary condition for the emergence of a semiclassical conformal geometry: the $O_n(X_i)$ must exhibit singularities when the $X_i$ are distinct and at least some are timelike separated.
![When the points $x_i$ are null-separated from a vertex $y$ at which energy-momentum is conserved, the correlator $\ev{\phi(x_1) \cdots \phi(x_n)}$ is singular.[]{data-label="fig:Landau"}](Figures-pics){width="30.00000%"}
Bulk locality plays an essential role in the above observation, as these singularities in $O_n(X_i)$ may be traced to the shared vertex $y$, which uniquely identifies a bulk point. It is therefore instructive to ask whether this argument can be reversed: that is, is a semiclassical bulk causal structure encoded in the singularities of $O_n(X_i)$? As shown in [@EngHor16a; @EngHor16c], the answer is yes. Because the singularities of $O_n(X_i)$ correspond to null-separation from a bulk point $y$, they can be used to construct spacelike slices of the boundary corresponding to the intersection of lightcones of bulk points with the boundary; these so-called “lightcone cuts” are shown in Figure \[fig:cut\]. Two such cuts are tangent if and only if the corresponding bulk points are null-separated; this feature implies that *the geometric structure of the cuts represents the bulk conformal geometry*.
![The singularities of the boundary object $O_n(X_i)$ can be used to pick out a bulk point $y$ when all the $X_i$ are null-separated from $y$; this allows the construction of the lightcone cuts of $y$ as the intersection of the lightcone of $y$ with the boundary.[]{data-label="fig:cut"}](Figures-pics){width="25.00000%"}
The upshot is that if the singularity structure of $O_n(X_i)$ defines cuts that give rise to a consistent conformal geometry via the procedure of [@EngHor16a; @EngHor16c], then that *is* the emergent bulk dual. Manifest in this construction is the emergence of locality: the very notion of a bulk point $y$ is contained in the singularity structure of $O_n(X_i)$ for some boundary points $X^{(y)}_i$ null-separated from $y$, and the conformal geometry in a neighborhood of $y$ is contained in the singularity structure of $O_n(X_i)$ in a neighborhood of $X^{(y)}_i$. We have thus arrived at a sufficient and necessary condition for the emergence of locality from a state of holographic quantum gravity: the object $O_n(X_i)$ must feature singularities on boundary spatial slices, and the geometry of those spatial slices must give rise via the procedure of [@EngHor16a; @EngHor16c] to a consistent semiclassical conformal geometry.
### All or Nothing {#all-or-nothing .unnumbered}
Can we use this precise correspondence to understand properties of emergent bulk locality?
The above construction of a bulk point $y$ (and the conformal geometry at $y$) from singularities of the object $O_n(X_i)$ relies on lightcone singularities; these exist only if *(i)* the $X_i$ are all null-separated from a common vertex $y$, and *(ii)* energy-momentum is conserved at $y$. This latter condition implies that the construction of $y$ requires access to a “sufficiently spread-out” set of boundary points $X_i$, as shown in Figure \[fig:spreadout\]. A dramatic consequence is immediate: if the $X_i$ are restricted to lie in too small a region $\Rcal$, then $O_n(X_i)$ may not be singular even if the $X_i$ are null separated from $y$; thus it is impossible to identify $y$ from data in $\Rcal$. As $\Rcal$ is enlarged, however, the point $y$ and the conformal geometry at $y$ can be fully constructed as soon as $\Rcal$ reaches the critical size necessary for points in $\Rcal$ to conserve momentum at $y$.
The essential feature here is that the point $y$ is not obtained gradually and little-by-little as $\Rcal$ is enlarged; rather, it is obtained completely and suddenly as soon as $\Rcal$ becomes sufficiently large. This feature follows very generally in any holographic framework obeying properties \[A1\]-\[A3\]; this demonstrates our advertised claim that the reconstruction of (approximate) locality in holographic quantum gravity is “all-or-nothing”. A holographic description of the theory of quantum gravity in the bulk cannot partially describe local data: it must describe it fully or not at all.
### An Illustrative Example: AdS/CFT {#an-illustrative-example-adscft .unnumbered}
This “all-or-nothing” emergence is a general feature of holographic frameworks of quantum gravity. We now consider a concrete example of such a framework: the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence [@Mal97; @GubKle98; @Wit98a]. This correspondence, which provides the most explicit formulation of holography, relates string (or M) theory with asymptotically AdS boundary conditions to a CFT on the asymptotic boundary of AdS.
Since the asymptotic boundary is timelike, property \[A2\] holds. Moreover, there exists a limit in which the bulk is well-described by semiclassical gravity; in this limit, bulk matter fields are weakly coupled, so property \[A1\] holds as well. Finally, the AdS/CFT dictionary implies that each CFT operator $\Ocal(X)$ has a dual bulk quantum field $\phi(x)$ and vice versa, and that the correlators $\ev{\Ocal(X_1) \cdots \Ocal(X_n)}$ are obtained from the correlators $\ev{\phi(x_1) \cdots \phi(x_n)}$ as the $x_i$ are taken to the asymptotic boundary. Thus property \[A3\] holds, with $O_n(X_1,\ldots,X_n) = \ev{\Ocal(X_1) \cdots \Ocal(X_n)}$. AdS/CFT is therefore a particular manifestation of the more general holographic framework \[A1\]-\[A3\].
In fact, access to the full AdS/CFT dictionary, rather than just the limited holographic dictionary of properties \[A2\] and \[A3\], shows that the “all-or-nothing” property of local bulk data is quite robust. To see this, recall that a bulk operator $\phi(y)$ at the point $y$ can be reconstructed from boundary data in a spatial region $\Rcal$ if $y$ lies between the so-called Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) surface of $\Rcal$ and the boundary [@RyuTak06; @DonHar16], as shown in Figure \[fig:entanglement\]. Thus if $\Rcal$ is sufficiently small, $\phi(y)$ cannot be reconstructed from any data in $\Rcal$; as $\Rcal$ is enlarged, $\phi(y)$ (and any other fields at $y$) can be reconstructed as soon as the RT surface of $\Rcal$ encloses $y$. This feature was interpreted in terms of quantum error correction in [@AlmDon15], where it was noted that the underlying mechanism is Page’s theorem [@Pag93][^3].
Our arguments indicate that the above feature of the AdS/CFT correspondence is a manifestation of the more general principle identified in this Essay: that quantum gravity in general describes locality in an abrupt, global manner, giving access to full data or none, with no continuum in between. In retrospect, this should perhaps have been anticipated: quantization typically induces discretization. There is no reason to expect that a quantum theory of spacetime should produce spacetime in an altogether continuous way; indeed, it does not.
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
We thank Daniel Harlow for comments on an earlier version of this essay. The work of NE was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-1620059. SF was supported by STFC grant ST/L00044X/1.
[^1]: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: In the context of AdS/CFT, these were termed “bulk-point singularities” in [@MalSim15].
[^3]: We thank Daniel Harlow for calling our attention to this.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform a calculation of the Sivers function in a spectator model of the nucleon, with scalar and axial-vector diquarks. We make use of gluon rescattering to produce the nontrivial phases necessary to generate the Sivers function. The inclusion of axial-vector diquarks enables us to obtain a nonzero Sivers function for down quarks. Using the results of our model, we discuss the phenomenology of transvere single spin asymmetries in $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$, and $\pi^0$ production, which are currently analysed by the HERMES and COMPASS collaborations. We find that the inclusion of axial-vector diquarks substantially reduces the asymmetries.'
author:
- Alessandro Bacchetta
- Andreas Schäfer
- 'Jian-Jun Yang'
bibliography:
- 'mybiblio.bib'
title: ' Sivers function in a spectator model with axial-vector diquarks'
---
Introduction
============
The Sivers function was introduced for the first time in Ref. [@Sivers:1990cc], in an attempt to explain the observation of single-spin asymmetries in hard hadronic reactions. Since then, some phenomenological extractions of the Sivers function have been performed [@Anselmino:1998yz; @Anselmino:1999pw; @Anselmino:2002pd], from data on pion production in proton-proton collisions [@Adams:1991cs; @Bravar:1996ki]. The Sivers function gives a contribution also to the single-spin asymmetry observed by the HERMES collaboration in pion production via deep inelastic scattering off polarized targets [@Airapetian:1999tv; @Airapetian:2001eg; @Airapetian:2002mf]. In all the above cases, however, the presence of competing effects (in particular the Collins effect) did not allow clear conclusions up to now [@Anselmino:1999pw; @Efremov:2003tf].
Despite the phenomenological indications, for several years the Sivers function was believed to vanish due to time-reversal invariance [@Collins:1993kk]. However, this statement was contradicted by an explicit calculation by Brodsky, Hwang and Schmidt, using a spectator model [@Brodsky:2002cx]. As the Sivers function is an example of T-odd entity, it requires the interference between two amplitudes with different imaginary parts [@Collins:1993kk; @Bacchetta:2001di]. Spectator models at tree level cannot provide these nontrivial phases, but they can arise as soon as a gluon is exchanged between the struck quark and the target spectator [@Brodsky:2002cx]. More generally, the presence of the gauge link, which insures the color gauge invariance of parton distributions, can provide nontrivial phases and thus generate T-odd functions [@Collins:2002kn; @Ji:2002aa; @Belitsky:2002sm; @Boer:2003cm]. The main ingredient of the model calculation of [@Brodsky:2002cx] is nothing else than the one-gluon approximation to the gauge link. It is also interesting to note that T-odd distribution functions vanish in a large class of chiral soliton models, where gluonic degrees of freedom are absent [@Pobylitsa:2002fr].
The work of Brodsky, Hwang and Schmidt was not aimed at producing a phenomenological estimate. A step forward in this direction has been accomplished in Refs. [@Boer:2002ju; @Gamberg:2003ey]. In our article, we present an alternative calculation, using the version of the spectator model presented by Jakob, Mulders and Rodrigues in Ref. [@Jakob:1997wg]. In particular, we include in the model a dynamical axial-vector diquark as a possible spectator, and we explore the Sivers function for down quarks. The necessity to include axial-vector diquarks is also discussed, e. g., in Refs. [@Close:1988br; @Meyer:1991fr; @Oettel:2000jj]. Finally, we point out that a calculation of the Sivers function in the MIT bag model has been recently presented in Ref. [@Yuan:2003wk].
Unpolarized distribution function $f_1$
=======================================
The unpolarized distribution function $f_1$ can be defined as $$f_1 (x,\vec{k}_T^2) =\frac{1}{4}\, {\mbox{Tr}\,}\bigl[\bigl(\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T; S)+\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T; -S)\bigr)\,{\gamma}^+\bigr]\,,$$ where $S$ is the spin of the target. The correlator $\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T)$ can be written as [@Boer:2003cm] $$\Phi(x,\vec{k}_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}; S)=\int
\frac{{{\rm\,d}}\xi^- {{\rm\,d}}^2\xi_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\;
{{\rm e}}^{+{{\rm i}}k \cdot \xi}
\langle P, S|\bar{\psi}(0)\,{\cal L}_{[0^-, \infty^-]}
{\cal L}_{[0_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}, \infty_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}]}{\cal L}_{[\infty_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}, \xi_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}]}{\cal
L}_{[\infty^-, \xi^-]}\psi(\xi)|P, S \rangle \bigg|_{\xi^+=0}\,,
\label{e:phi}$$ where the notation ${\cal L}_{[a,b]}$ indicates a straight gauge link running from $a$ to $b$. In Drell-Yan processes the link runs in the opposite direction, to $-\infty$ [@Boer:2003cm]. For the calculation of the unpolarized function $f_1$ the transverse part of the gauge link does not play a role and the entire gauge link can be reduced to unity. Therefore, for this first part of the calculation it is sufficient to consider only the handbag diagram.
At tree level, we follow almost exactly the spectator model of Jakob, Mulders and Rodrigues [@Jakob:1997wg]. In this model, the proton (with mass $M$) can couple to a constituent quark of mass $m$ and a diquark. The diquark can be both a scalar particle, with mass $M_{{s}}$, or an axial-vector particle, with mass $M_{{v}}$. The relevant diagram at tree level (identical for the scalar and axial-vector case) is depicted in Fig. \[f:diagsivers\] (a). In our model, the nucleon-quark-diquark vertices are $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon_{{s}}& = g_{{s}}(k^2), & \Upsilon_{{{v}}}^{\mu} & = \frac{g_{{v}}(k^2)}{\sqrt{2}}\,{\gamma}_5 {\gamma}^{\mu}.\end{aligned}$$ We make use of the dipole form factor $$g_{{{s}}/{{v}}}(k^2) = N_{{{s}}/{{v}}} \frac{(k^2 -
m^2)\,(1-x)^2}{\bigl(\vec{k}_T^2 + L_{{{s}}/{{v}}}^2\bigr)^2},
\label{e:formfac}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{k}_T^2&=- (1-x)\, k^2 -x\, M_{{{s}}/{{v}}}^2 +x \,(1-x)\, M^2, \\
L_{{{s}}/{{v}}}^2&= (1-x)\,\Lambda^2 + x\, M_{{{s}}/{{v}}}^2 -x\, (1-x)\, M^2. \end{aligned}$$ The only difference with respect to Ref. [@Jakob:1997wg] is the form of $\Upsilon_{{{v}}}$ – the vertex involving nucleon, quark, and axial-vector diquark. This change modifies the original results only slightly. Note that our choice of the form factor, defined in Eq. (\[e:formfac\]), is very different from the Gaussian form factor employed in Ref. [@Gamberg:2003ey]. Both choices have the effect of eliminating the logarithmic divergences arising from $k_T$ integration and suppress the influence of the high $k_T$ region, where anyway perturbative corrections should be taken into account [@Boer:2002ju].
![Tree-level and one-loop diagrams for the specator-model calculation of the Sivers function. The dashed line indicates both the scalar and axial-vector diquarks.[]{data-label="f:diagsivers"}](diagsivers.eps "fig:"){width="10"}\
(a)(b)
The final results for the unpolarized distribution function $f_1$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
f_1^{{s}}(x, \vec{k}_T^2)&= \frac{g_{{s}}^2 \,\bigl[(x M +m)^2 + \vec{k}_T^2
\bigr]}{2\, (2 \pi)^3\,(1-x)\, (k^2-m^2)^2}
\;
= \frac{N_{{s}}^2\, (1-x)^3\,\bigl[(x M +m)^2 + \vec{k}_T^2\bigr]}{16 \pi^3\,\bigl(\vec{k}_T^2 + L_{{s}}^2\bigr)^4}\,,
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
f_1^{{v}}(x, \vec{k}_T^2)&= \frac{g_{{v}}^2\,\bigl[(x M +m)^2 + \vec{k}_T^2 + 2xmM
\bigr] }{2\, (2 \pi)^3\, (1-x)\,(k^2-m^2)^2 }
\;
= \frac{N_{{v}}^2\, (1-x)^3\,\bigl[(x M +m)^2 + \vec{k}_T^2+ 2xmM\bigr]}{16 \pi^3\,\bigl(\vec{k}_T^2 + L_{{v}}^2\bigr)^4}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Both functions can be integrated over the transverse momentum to give $$\begin{aligned}
f_1^{{s}}(x) & = \frac{N_{{s}}^2\, (1-x)^3}{96\,
\pi^2\, L_{{s}}^6} \,\bigl[2(x M +m)^2 + L_{{s}}^2\bigr], \\
f_1^{{v}}(x) & = \frac{N_{{v}}^2\, (1-x)^3}{96\,
\pi^2\, L_{{v}}^6} \,\bigl[2(x M +m)^2 + L_{{s}}^2 + 4xmM \bigr].\end{aligned}$$
In order to obtain the distribution functions for $u$ and $d$ quarks, we use the following relation, coming from the analysis of the proton wave function, $$\begin{aligned}
f_1^u & = \frac{3}{2}\, f_1^{{s}}+ \frac{1}{2}\, f_1^{{v}}, &
f_1^d & = f_1^{{v}}.
\label{e:ud}\end{aligned}$$
Here we refrain from discussing the choice of parameters of the model and its quality, for which we refer to the original work [@Jakob:1997wg]. We choose the following values for the parameters of the model: $$\begin{aligned}
m&= 0.36\; {\rm GeV},& M_{{s}}&=0.6\; {\rm GeV}, & M_{{v}}&=0.8\; {\rm GeV}, \\
\Lambda&=0.5\; {\rm GeV}, & N_{{s}}^2&= 6.525, & N_{{v}}^2&= 28.716\, .\end{aligned}$$ The factors $N_{{s}}$ and $N_{{v}}$ are chosen in order to normalize the functions $f_1^{{s}}$ and $f_1^{{v}}$ to 1 and consequently to normalize $f_1^u$ to 2 and $f_1^d$ to 1. The results of the model are shown in Fig. \[f:f1\]. The dashed line represents the result of the spectator model with scalar diquarks only (with $f_1^u = 2 f_1^{{s}}$). As can be seen, the difference for the $u$ distribution is not big, but it is particularly relevant at small $x$. The $d$ quark distribution is zero when only scalar diquarks are used, which is clearly unrealistic.
![Model calculation of $x f_1 (x)$: with scalar diquarks only (dashed line), with scalar and axial-vector diquarks (solid line). The $d$ quark distribution is zero when only scalar diquarks are used.[]{data-label="f:f1"}](asy1f1.eps){width="10"}
One of the problems when trying to match the model and the phenomenology is that it is not clear at which energy scale the model should be applied. A way to estimate this energy scale is to compare the total momentum carried by the valence quarks in the model and in some parametrization [@Meyer:1991fr; @Bacchetta:2000dc]. Taking, for instance, the CTEQ5L parametrization [@Lai:1999wy][^1] it turns out that this scale is about 0.078 GeV$^2$. Then, by applying standard DGLAP equations, we can evolve our model results to 1 GeV$^2$ and compare it with the CTEQ5L parametrization at that scale. The result is shown in Fig. \[f:f1p\]. Admittedly, the model reproduces the parametrization of the valence quark distribution only qualitatively. In any case, in this work we mainly aim at giving rough estimates of the relative magnitude of the $u$ and $d$ Sivers function and of the related single-spin asymmetries, as well as studying the changes induced in the model results when an axial-vector diquark is introduced. Therefore, we refrain from improving and tuning the model.
![Model calculation of $x f_1 (x)$ (solid line) compared to the CTEQ5L parametrization [@Lai:1999wy] (dashed line) at 1 GeV$^2$.[]{data-label="f:f1p"}](asy1f1p.eps){width="10"}
Sivers function and its moments
===============================
We use the following definition of the Sivers function $$\frac{\epsilon^{ij}_T k_{Ti} S_{Tj}}{M}\, f_{1T}^{\perp} (x,\vec{k}_T^2) = - \frac{1}{4}\,
{\mbox{Tr}\,}\bigl[\bigl(\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T; S)-\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T; -S)\bigr)\,{\gamma}^+\bigr]\,,$$ where $ 4 {{\rm i}}\, \epsilon^{ij}_T k_{Ti} S_{Tj} = {\mbox{Tr}\,}[{\gamma}_5 {\gamma}^+ {\gamma}^- {\rlap{/} k}\,
{\rlap{/} S}]$. At tree level the Sivers function turns out to vanish. This is due to the lack of any final state interaction that can provide the imaginary parts necessary to generate T-odd functions. We need to introduce the one-loop amplitude described in Fig. \[f:diagsivers\] (b). This is nothing else than the one-gluon approximation to the gauge link included in Eq. (\[e:phi\]). The Sivers function receives a contribution from the interference between amplitude (a) and the imaginary part of amplitude (b). The imaginary part of amplitude (b) can be computed by applying Cutkosky rules or, equivalently, by taking the imaginary part of the propagator $1/(l^+ + {{\rm i}}\epsilon)$ [@Ji:2002aa]. Note that in Drell-Yan processes the different topology of the one-gluon diagram implies that the imaginary part of the propagator $1/(l^+ - {{\rm i}}\epsilon)$ has to be taken, with the effect of changing the overall sign of the Sivers function [@Collins:2002kn; @Brodsky:2002rv]. This is consistent with the change in direction of the gauge link mentioned before [@Boer:2003cm].
Following Ref. [@Brodsky:2002cx] we perform the calculations initially with Abelian gluons and generalize the result to QCD at the end. We use Feynman gauge. In order to compute the one-loop diagram, we have to make the appropriate choice for the vertex between the gluon and the scalar or axial-vector diquark. We choose the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{{s}}^{\mu} &= -{{\rm i}}e_2 \bigl(2p -2k -l\bigr)^{\mu}, \\
\Gamma_{{v}}^{\mu, \alpha \beta} &={{\rm i}}e_2 \bigl[\bigl(2p -2k -l\bigr)^{\nu} g^{\alpha \beta} -
\bigl(p-k-vl\bigr)^{\beta} g^{\nu \alpha}- \bigl(p-k-(1-v)l\bigr)^{\alpha} g^{\nu \beta}\bigr],\end{aligned}$$ where $e_2$ denotes the color charge of the diquark, which we assume to be the same for both kinds of diquark. The gluon-axial-vector diquark coupling is identical to the photon-axial-vector diquark coupling suggested in Ref. [@Oettel:2000jj]. The parameter $v$ is the anomalous magnetic moment of the axial-vector diquark; for $v=1$ the vertex is analogous, for instance, to the standard photon-$W$ vertex. In any case, our results at leading order do not depend on the anomalous magnetic moment of the diquark.
The final results for the Sivers function are $$\begin{aligned}
f_{1T}^{\perp {{s}}}(x,\vec{k}^2_T)&= \frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{s}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,M\,(xM+m)}
{4\, (2 \pi)^4\,L_{{s}}^2\,\bigl[\vec{k}_T^2+ L_{{s}}^2 \bigr]^3},\\
f_{1T}^{\perp {{v}}}(x,\vec{k}^2_T)&= -\frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{v}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,xM^2}
{8\, (2 \pi)^4\,L_{{v}}^2\,\bigl[\vec{k}_T^2+ L_{{v}}^2 \bigr]^3}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that our result for the scalar diquark has the opposite sign compared to similar computations [@Brodsky:2002cx; @Boer:2002ju]. However, a sign error in those computations has been recently identified [@Burkardt:2003je]. The other differences between our results and those in Refs. [@Brodsky:2002cx; @Boer:2002ju; @Gamberg:2003ey] are due to the different choice of form factors in the nucleon-quark-diquark vertex. Unfortunately, we cannot evolve our results to a higher energy scale, as we have done for the unpolarized distribution function, since the evolution equations for the Sivers function have not been established yet [@Henneman:2001ev; @Kundu:2001pk]. We hope, however, that the $Q^2$ dependence of our results is not very strong.
We introduce the ${k}_T$ moments $$\begin{aligned}
f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2)}(x) &\equiv \int {{\rm\,d}}^2 \vec{k}_T\; \frac{\bigl\lvert\vec{k}_T\bigr\rvert}{2M}\;f_{1T}^{\perp}(x,\vec{k}^2_T),&
f_{1T}^{\perp (1)}(x) &\equiv \int {{\rm\,d}}^2 \vec{k}_T \;\frac{\vec{k}_T^2}{2M^2}\;
f_{1T}^{\perp}(x,\vec{k}^2_T),\end{aligned}$$ for which we get the following results $$\begin{aligned}
f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2) {{s}}}(x) &= \frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{s}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,(xM+m)}
{1024 \,\pi^2\,L_{{s}}^5} ,
&
f_{1T}^{\perp (1) {{s}}}(x) &= \frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{s}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,(xM+m)}
{256 \,\pi^3\,M\,L_{{s}}^4} ,
\\
f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2) {{v}}}(x) &= -\frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{v}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,xM}
{2048 \,\pi^2\,L_{{v}}^5} ,
&
f_{1T}^{\perp (1) {{v}}}(x) &= -\frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{v}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,x}
{512 \,\pi^3\,L_{{v}}^4} .\end{aligned}$$ The only parameter to be fixed is the product of the quark and diquark charges. Following Ref. [@Brodsky:2002cx] we fix $e_1 e_2 = 4 \pi\, C_F\,
\alpha_s$ and we choose $C_F = 4/3$ and $\alpha_S \approx 0.3$.
Relations equivalent to those of Eq. (\[e:ud\]) hold for the Sivers function and its moments. In Fig. \[f:f1tperp\] we show the model results for the first moment of the Sivers function. The inclusion of the axial-vector diquark results in some change to the $u$ Sivers function and allows us to produce a nonzero $d$ quark Sivers function. It turns out in particular that the $d$ Sivers function is much smaller than the $u$ one and has the opposite sign. This result is in qualitative agreement with the bag-model calculation of Ref. [@Yuan:2003wk]. The opposite sign of the two functions is also in agreement with the only phenomenological extractions available at present [@Anselmino:1998yz; @Anselmino:1999pw; @Boglione:1999pz]. However, there is a sharp difference in the relative magnitude of the two contributions, since in the phenomenological extractions the absolute value of the $d$ contribution is about half of the $u$ contribution, while in our model calculation the $d$ contribution is only about $1/10$ of the $u$ contribution. We point out that this difference could be due to a sizeable contribution of sea quarks (in particular $\bar{u}$) to the asymmetry studied in Refs. [@Anselmino:1998yz; @Anselmino:1999pw].
![Model calculation of $x f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2)}(x)$: with scalar diquarks only (dashed line), with scalar and axial-vector diquarks (solid line). The $d$ quark distribution is zero when only scalar diquarks are used.[]{data-label="f:f1tperp"}](asy1f2.eps){width="10"}
Note that our model calculation complies with the positivity bound [@Bacchetta:2000kz] $$f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2)}(x)\leq \frac{1}{2} f_1 (x)\, .
\label{e:boundint}$$
We performed also the calculation of the function $h_1^{\perp}$, introduced by Boer and Mulders in Ref. [@Boer:1998nt] and defined as $$\frac{\epsilon^{ij}_T k_{Tj}}{M}\,
h_1^{\perp} (x,\vec{k}_T^2) =\frac{1}{4}\, {\mbox{Tr}\,}\bigl[\bigl(\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T;
S)+\Phi(x,\vec{k}_T; -S)\bigr)\,{{\rm i}}\, \sigma^{i +} {\gamma}_5 \bigr]\,.$$ For the scalar diquark, we found that $h_1^{\perp {{s}}}=f_{1T}^{\perp {{s}}}$, confirming the results already obtained in Refs. [@Gamberg:2003ey; @Boer:2002ju]. For the axial-vector diquark, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
h_1^{\perp {{v}}}(x,\vec{k}^2_T)&= - \frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{v}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,M\,(2 xM+m)}
{4\, (2 \pi)^4\,L_{{v}}^2\,\bigl[\vec{k}_T^2+ L_{{v}}^2 \bigr]^3},
&
h_1^{\perp (1) {{v}}}(x) &= -\frac{e_1 e_2\,N_{{v}}^2\,(1-x)^3 \,(2 xM+m)}
{256 \,\pi^3\,M\,L_{{v}}^4}.\end{aligned}$$
Single spin asymmetries
=======================
We consider the weighted transverse spin asymmetries $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)} \right\rangle_{UT} (x,z)
&= \frac{\int {{\rm\,d}}y\, {{\rm\,d}}\phi_S\, {{\rm\,d}}^2 \vec{P}_{h\perp}\,
\sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)}\; ({{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\uparrow} - {{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\downarrow})}
{\int {{\rm\,d}}y\, {{\rm\,d}}\phi_S\, {{\rm\,d}}^2 \vec{P}_{h\perp}
({{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\uparrow} + {{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\downarrow})}\, ,
\\
\Big\langle \frac{|\vec{P}_{h\perp}|}{z M}\, \sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)}
\Big\rangle_{UT} (x,z)
&= \frac{\int {{\rm\,d}}y\, {{\rm\,d}}\phi_S {{\rm\,d}}^2 \vec{P}_{h\perp}
\,|\vec{P}_{h\perp}|/(z M)\,\sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)}\;
({{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\uparrow} - {{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\downarrow})}
{\int {{\rm\,d}}y\, {{\rm\,d}}\phi_S {{\rm\,d}}^2 \vec{P}_{h\perp}
({{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\uparrow} + {{\rm\,d}}^6\sigma_{U\downarrow})},
\label{e:wasymm}\end{aligned}$$ where the notation ${{\rm\,d}}\sigma_{U\uparrow}$ indicates the cross section with an unpolarized lepton beam off a transversely polarized target. The angles involved in the definition of the asymmetry are depicted in Fig. \[f:angles\]. These asymmetries are currently measured by the HERMES and COMPASS collaborations [@Schnell:2003; @Pagano:2003].
![Description of the vectors and angles involved in the Sivers asymmetry measurement.[]{data-label="f:angles"}](angles2.eps){width="9cm"}
Under the assumption that the pion transverse momentum with respect to the virtual photon is entirely due to the intrinsic transverse momentum of partons, i.e., $\vec{P}_{h\perp}= z \vec{k}_T$, the first asymmetry can be written as $$\left\langle \sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)} \right\rangle_{UT} (x,z) \approx
\frac{1/x \,\sum_a e_a^2\, f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2)a}(x)\,D_1^a(z)}
{1/x \,\sum_a e_a^2\, f_1^a
(x)\,D_1^a(z)}\,,$$ with $a$ indicating the quark flavor. Our model results are displayed in Fig. \[f:asymm\]. We took the unpolarized fragmentation functions from Ref. [@Kretzer:2001pz] at a scale $Q^2=1 \,
\rm{GeV}^2$. In order to make predictions useful for the HERMES experiment, to produce Fig. \[f:asymm\] (a) and (b) we integrated the asymmetries over $z$ from 0.2 to 0.7. To produce Fig. \[f:asymm\] (c) and (d) we integrated the asymmetries over $x$ from 0.023 to 0.4.
![Model estimate of the single-spin asymmetry $\langle\sin{(\phi_h-\phi_S)}\rangle_{UT}$: with scalar diquarks only (dashed line), with scalar and axial-vector diquarks (solid line). The $x$ and $z$ dependence is shown for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$. []{data-label="f:asymm"}](asy1f3.eps){width="10"}
Evidently, there is not a big difference between $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ asymmetries. We do not plot the results for $\pi^0$ production, since they lie between the previous two. We point out that assuming $$f_1^d D_1^{d(\pi^{\pm,0})} \ll 4 \,f_1^u D_1^{u(\pi^{\pm,0})},
\label{e:approx}$$ the above asymmetry can be written as $$\left\langle \sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)} \right\rangle_{UT}^{\pi^{\pm,0}} (x,z) \approx
\frac{3}{2}\,\frac{f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2){{s}}}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}
+ \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{f_{1T}^{\perp (1/2){{v}}}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}\,
\biggl(1 +
\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{D_1^{d(\pi^{\pm,0})}(z)}{D_1^{u(\pi^{\pm,0})}(z)}\biggr).
\label{e:asysimple}$$ The first term in this equation is the dominant one. This explains why there are only small differences between the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ asymmetry. However, the axial-vector contribution to $f_1^u$ cannot be neglected. From Eq. (\[e:asysimple\]) it is also evident that the dependence of the asymmetries on $z$ is due to the influence of the unfavoured fragmentation functions. In the case of $\pi^-$ the last term in Eq. (\[e:asysimple\]) is bigger and therefore the $z$ dependence is stronger. In the case of $\pi^0$ – not shown in our pictures – the term in parentheses would be exactly $3/2$ and the $z$-dependent asymmetry would be a flat line at about $5\%$.
The asymmetry in Eq. (\[e:wasymm\]) can be written in an assumption-free way as $$\Bigl\langle \frac{|\vec{P}_{h\perp}|}{M}\, \sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)}
\Bigr\rangle_{UT} (x,z)
=
\frac{1/x \,\sum_a e_a^2\, f_{1T}^{\perp (1) a}(x)\,z\,D_1^a(z)}
{1/x \,\sum_a e_a^2\, f_1^a
(x)\,D_1^a(z)}\,.$$ The calculated asymmetries are shown in Fig. \[f:wasymm\], where we performed the integrations over $x$ or $z$ as in the previous case. As before, assuming Eq. (\[e:approx\]) the asymmetry can be simplified to $$\Bigl\langle \frac{|\vec{P}_{h\perp}|}{M}\, \sin{(\phi_h - \phi_S)} \Bigr\rangle_{UT}^{\pi^{\pm,0}} (x,z) \approx
\frac{3}{2}\,z\,\frac{f_{1T}^{\perp (1){{s}}}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}
+ \frac{1}{2}\,z\,\frac{f_{1T}^{\perp (1){{v}}}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}\,
\biggl(1 +
\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{D_1^{d(\pi^{\pm,0})}(z)}{D_1^{u(\pi^{\pm,0})}(z)}\biggr).$$
![Model estimate of the single-spin asymmetry $\langle \frac{|P_{h \perp}|}{M}
\,\sin{(\phi_h-\phi_S)}\rangle_{UT}$: with scalar diquarks only (dashed line), with scalar and axial-vector diquarks (solid line). The $x$ and $z$ dependence is shown for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$. []{data-label="f:wasymm"}](asy1f4p.eps){width="10"}
Conclusions
===========
We calculated the Sivers function in a spectator model of the nucleon with scalar and axial-vector diquarks. The final state interaction necessary to generate T-odd distribution functions was provided by gluon rescattering between the struck quark and the diquark.
The inclusion of axial-vector diquarks allowed us to calculate the Sivers function for the $d$ quarks. The function turns out to have the opposite sign compared to the $u$ quarks and to be much smaller in size. The $u$ quark Sivers function is substantially reduced by the axial-vector contribution. Although the reliability of the model is very limited, we think that our results on the relative behavior of $u$ and $d$ quarks could be qualitatively relevant.
Using the results of our model, we estimated some single spin asymmetries containing the Sivers function. These asymmetries are at present being measured by the HERMES and COMPASS collaborations. We noticed that the inclusion of axial-vector diquarks can make drastic changes in the asymmetries as compared to the spectator model with scalar diquarks only, particularly at low $x$. We were able for the first time to estimate the Sivers single spin asymmetry in $\pi^-$ and $\pi^0$ production. We observed that the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ asymmetries are not very different, due to the dominance of the $u$ quark contribution in both cases. The $\pi^0$ asymmetries (which we did not show) lie between the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ estimates.
The present approach does not take into account sea quarks. Unfortunately, at the moment we have no indication about the size and sign of the sea-quark Sivers function.
Discussion with A. Metz, D. S. Hwang and M. Oettel, M. Stratmann are gratefully aknowledged. The work of A. B. has been supported by the TMR network HPRN-CT-2000-00130 and the BMBF, the work of J. Y. by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by the Foundation for University Key Teacher of the Ministry of Education (China).
[^1]: We use leading order evolution with three flavors and $\Lambda_{LO}^{(3)} = 0.222$, in order to match the CTEQ5 results.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We report a study of the stellar content of the Near-infrared cluster \[DBS2003\]157 embedded in the extended H[ii]{} region GAL331.31-00.34, which is associated with the IRAS source 16085-5138. $JHK$ photometry was carried out in order to identify potential ionizing candidates, and the follow-up NIR spectroscopy allowed the spectral classification of some sources, including two O-type stars. A combination of NIR photometry and spectroscopy data was used to obtain the distance of these two stars, with the method of spectroscopic parallax: IRS298 (O6[V]{}, $3.35 \pm 0.61$kpc) and IRS339 (O9[V]{}, $3.24 \pm 0.56$kpc). Adopting the average distance of $3.29 \pm 0.58$kpc and comparing the Lyman continuum luminosity of these stars with that required to account for the radio continuum flux of the H[ii]{} region, we conclude that these two stars are the ionizing sources of GAL331.31-00.34. Young stellar objects (YSOs) were searched by using our NIR photometry and MIR data from the GLIMPSE survey. The analysis of NIR and MIR colour-colour diagrams resulted in 47 YSO candidates.
The GLIMPSE counterpart of IRAS16085-5138, which presents IRAS colour indices compatible with an ultra-compact H[ii]{} region, has been identified. The analysis of its spectral energy distribution between $2$ and $100\,\mu$m revealed that this source shows a spectral index $\alpha = 3.6$ between $2$ and $25\,\mu$m, which is typical of a YSO immersed in a protostellar envelope. Lower limits to the bolometric luminosity and the mass of the embedded protostar have been estimated as $L=7.7\times10^3L_{\sun}$ and $M = 10\,M_{\sun}$, respectively, which corresponds to a B0–B1[V]{} ZAMS star.
author:
- |
M. C. Pinheiro$^{1,2}$[^1], Z. Abraham$^{3}$, M. V. F. Copetti$^{1}$, R. Ortiz$^{4}$, D. A. Falceta-Gonçalves$^{4}$, and A. Roman-Lopes$^{5}$\
$^{1}$Laboratório de Análise Numérica e Astrofísica, Departamento de Matemática, UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, 97119-900, Brazil\
$^{2}$Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, Campus Cerro Largo, RS, 97900-000, Brazil\
$^{3}$Instituto de Astronomia, Geofísica e Ciências Atmosféricas, Universidade de São Paulo, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP, Brazil\
$^{4}$Escola de Artes Ciências e Humanidades, USP, Av. Arlindo Bettio, 1000, São Paulo, SP, 03828-000, Brazil\
$^{5}$Department of Physics, Universidad de La Serena, Benavente 980, La Serena, Chile
date: 'Accepted 2012 April 3. Received 2012 April 2; in original form 2012 January 17'
title: 'The young stellar cluster \[DBS2003\]157 associated with the H[ii]{} region GAL331.31-00.34[^2]'
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: early-type – H[ii]{} regions – stars: pre-main-sequence.
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The study of the stellar content and the determination of the distances of H[ii]{} regions and star-forming complexes associated with massive molecular clouds are fundamental for the determination of the spiral structure and the rotation curve of the Galaxy. Also, the assessment of Galactic gradients of chemical abundances and electron temperatures have strong dependence on the accuracy of the distance estimates. The Norma region is a very interesting sector of the Galaxy for this investigation, since the line of sight intersects three spiral arms (Sagittarius-Carina, Scutum-Crux, and Norma). In addition to the tens of optical H[ii]{} regions identified by [@Rodgers; @et; @al; @1960], radio observations have revealed many other H[ii]{} regions heavily obscured by interstellar dust. The ionizing stellar clusters of some of these objects have been studied in detail in the last decade . However, the ionizing stars of many of the H[ii]{} regions in the area have not been identified yet, and therefore their distances remain unknown.
The 25 $\times$ 25 radio H[ii]{} region GAL331.31-00.34 is one of the interesting and unexplored objects located in Norma. It is associated with the IRAS source 16085-5138 and with the $2\farcm1\times1\farcm5$ infrared cluster \[DBS2003\]157 centred at $\rmn{RA}({\rm J2000.0})=16^{\rmn{h}} 12^{\rmn{m}} 20^{\rmn{s}}$, $\rmn{Dec.}({\rm J2000.0})=-51\degr 46\arcmin 14\arcsec$, which was identified by [@Dutra; @et; @al; @2003] using data from the 2MASS survey. Methanol and hydroxyl [@Caswell; @et; @al; @1980] maser emission indicates the existence of a massive star-forming region [@Walsh; @et; @al; @1997]. This is corroborated by the detection of CS(2-1) and SiO molecular lines [@Bronfman; @et; @al; @1996; @Harju; @et; @al; @1998 respectively] which require H$_2$ densities higher than $10^{4}$cm$^{-3}$.
GAL331.31-00.34 is located at the east part of a large ($1^\circ$) complex of H[ii]{} regions, which includes eight bright extended radio sources . A high-energy gamma-ray source, HESSJ1614-518, was discovered at the edge of this complex [@Aharonian; @et; @al; @2006]. No counterpart has been found for this source among the most plausible classes of objects, like pulsar wind nebulae, supernova remnants, X-ray binaries, or active galactic nuclei. The superbubbles produced by the strong wind activity of OB associations could power high-energy gamma-ray sources [@Parizot; @et; @al; @2004]. Some other extended high-energy sources have also been found associated with young stellar clusters [@Aharonian; @et; @al; @2007]. To figure out the energetics of these phenomena, it is essential to obtain the physical characteristics of the associated stellar population as well as an accurate estimate of its distance.
In this work, we present $JHK$ photometry of the stellar cluster \[DBS2003\]157 and near-infrared (NIR) spectrophotometry of nine selected candidate stellar members. We aim to identify the ionizing sources of the associated H[ii]{} region GAL331.31-00.34 and to estimate its distance using the spectroscopic parallax method. In addition to that, $JHK$ photometry and mid-infrared (MIR) data from the GLIMPSE survey carried out with the Spitzer Space Telescope [@Benjamin; @et; @al; @2003] are used to identify young stellar objects in the area.
Observations and data reduction {#Observations}
===============================
Imaging photometry {#Photometric data}
------------------
$JHK$ photometric observations were performed at the Observatório Pico dos Dias (OPD), Brazil, in April 2010. We used the NIR Camera CamIV attached to the 0.6-m Boller & Chivens telescope to obtain frames with a field of view of $8\arcmin\times8\arcmin$ and spatial scale of $0\farcs48$pixel$^{-1}$. A Hawaii CCD detector of $1024\times1024$pixels and a set of $J$, $H$, $K_{\rm s}$ filters were used. The $K_{\rm s}$ narrow band filter [*C1*]{} (${\rm FWHM}\sim0.023$$\mu$m), centred at 2.138$\mu$m, was chosen to avoid the contamination by Brackett-$\gamma$ nebular emission . To prevent saturation of the brightest stars in the $J$ and $H$ bands and to minimize the high thermal noise in the $K_{\rm s}$-band, multiple short exposures were taken in each filter. The total integration times were 1260s, 1575s and 5250s in the $J$-, $H$-, and [*C1*]{}-bands, respectively. In order to subtract the background emission, images were obtained at five different positions: the centre and its four adjacent positions, displaced between $90\arcsec$ to $120\arcsec$. These large displacements were necessary to build a sky image uncontaminated by nebular emission. For each band, the final sky image represents the median value of each pixel taken over the five dithering positions. This technique allows the subtraction of the background and at the same time preserves the nebular emission in the final images. The typical seeing ranged from $1\farcs1$ to $1\farcs5$. Dark exposures and dome flat-fields were also taken both at the beginning and at the end of each night.
![Top: Propagated photometric errors versus the $J$, $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ magnitudes. Bottom: 2MASS versus CamIV magnitudes.[]{data-label="fig-magXerr"}](2MASSxCamIV.ps){width="48.00000%"}
Standard procedures for NIR stellar CCD photometry in relatively crowded fields were performed with the IRAF[^3] software. All frames were individually dark-subtracted and flattened, and the background contribution subtracted. Eventually, they were aligned and trimmed, to finally generate J-, H- and K-band images by median-combining all frames of each filter. By choosing the median-filter, we diminished the influence of bad pixels and cosmic rays on the final image. This procedure resulted in $J$, $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ “final” frames centred at $\rmn{RA}({\rm J2000})=16^{\rmn{h}} 12^{\rmn{m}} 24^{\rmn{s}}$, $\rmn{Dec.}({\rm J2000})=-51\degr 47\arcmin 27\arcsec$, covering an area in the sky of $\sim\!5\arcmin\times4\arcmin$. Figure \[fig-cluster157Hdaofind\] shows one of these frames ($H$-band). The [*daofind*]{} IRAF routine was used in the determination of the physical coordinates of the stars in each frame, adopting an object detection threshold (in counts) of $4\sigma$ above the local background.
The instrumental magnitudes were computed using the [*daophot*]{} IRAF routines. Since some parts of the cluster are too crowded for aperture photometry, the point spread functions (PSFs) were obtained using the [*psf*]{} routine. Simultaneous PSF-fits for all the stars listed by [*daofind*]{} were performed with the [*allstar*]{} routine. A fitting radius of about $1\times\langle FWHM \rangle$ and a PSF radius of $\sim 3.5$ times this value was assumed for all stars.
The photometric calibration was performed using data from the 2MASS survey. For this task, seventy-three no-blended stars in both 2MASS and CamIV frames were chosen outside the $\sim\!2\arcmin\times2\arcmin$ rectangular region (see Fig. \[fig-cluster157Hdaofind\]) centred at the coordinates of \[DBS2003\]157. Using the least squares method, we adjusted linear transformation equations for converting the instrumental magnitudes to the 2MASS system. The standard deviations of these transformations, defined as $$\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{n-2}\,\sum_{i}{ \left[m_{\rm 2MASS}^{(i)} - \beta_0 - \beta_1\,m_{\rm CamIV}^{(i)} \right]^2}\,,$$ were 0.034, 0.026, and 0.036 for the $J$, $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ (C1) filters, respectively. The final photometric errors were obtained as the quadratic sum of the transformation errors and of the individual error in the instrumental magnitudes given by the [*allstar*]{} task. No significant $(J-H)$ and $(H-K)$ colour-dependence between 2MASS and CamIV photometric systems has been found . Figure \[fig-magXerr\] shows the linear relation observed between the 2MASS and CamIV magnitudes and the dependence of the errors on the photometric magnitude for all stars detected. By analysing the magnitude histograms, $\log(N)$ vs. $m$, we estimate the completeness limits of the photometry as $J=15.5$mag, $H=15.2$mag, and $K_{\rm s}=13.5$mag, defined as the point where the $\log(N)$ vs. $m$ plot deviates from a straight line. These values are similar to the 2MASS limits on the $J$ and $H$ bands ($15.8$ and $15.1$mag, respectively), but the $K_{\rm s}$ completeness limit of the CamIV data is $0.8$mag lower.
Table \[tab-photometry\] presents the results of the photometry. Columns 1 lists our identification of the star; columns 2 and 3 provide the equatorial coordinates obtained with the [*ccmap*]{} IRAF routine applied to pixel-coordinates listed by the [*daofind*]{}; columns 4, 5 and 6 list the $J$, $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ photometric magnitudes and errors.
At a spatial resolution twice as better as the 2MASS survey, we to identified many sources that were previously unresolved in the 2MASS data, which in turn improves significantly the photometric accuracy, especially for stars situated in the crowded areas.
Spectroscopy {#spec-data}
------------
NIR spectroscopic data of nine stars in the GAL331.31-00.34 region were acquired with the Ohio State Infrared Imager/Spectrometer (OSIRIS[^4]) coupled to the 4.1-m telescope of the Southern Observatory for Astrophysical Research (SOAR), located at Cerro Pachon, Chilean Andes. Spectra in $J$-, $H$-, and $K_{\rm s}$-band were taken with OSIRIS in the low-resolution (R $\simeq$ 1200) multi-order cross-dispersed (XD) mode. In this mode, the instrument operates with a f/2.8 camera and a short (27$\times$ 1) slit, covering the three bands simultaneously, in adjacent orders. The raw spectra were acquired using the standard AB nodding technique. Multiple short exposures were taken at each nod position, totalling 8-to-20 individual frames, giving a “final” exposure time of 8-to-40 minutes. Table \[List of spectroscopic targets\] presents a journal of the spectroscopic observations. It lists our identification of the star, as defined in Table \[tab-photometry\], the identification in the 2MASS catalogue, the number and the duration of the individual exposures, and the observation dates. All the target stars were OB candidates selected from our photometry, with one exception: IRS339, observed in 2008 and selected from an initial analysis based on the 2MASS data.
----------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------- ------ ------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
Indiv. exp. N$^{\rm o}$ of
This work time (s) exp.
IRS339 J16122002-5146262 120 16 2008/07/10
IRS298 J16122053-5146460 75 12 2011/05/08
IRS287 J16122911-5146503 75 12 2011/05/08
IRS497 J16122925-5147004 120 12 2011/06/02
IRS355 J16123324-5146173 100 08 2011/06/02
IRS176 J16122445-5147492 120 12 2011/06/03
IRS444 J16122071-5147075 90 08 2011/06/03
IRS289 J16121561-5146504 75 20 2011/06/12
IRS452 J16122326-5146188 120 20 2011/06/12
\[List of spectroscopic targets\]
----------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------- ------ ------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
: Journal of spectroscopic observations
A- and G-type spectroscopic standard stars were observed immediately before and after the “science” targets at similar air masses in order to remove telluric atmospheric absorption effects from the “science” spectra. These raw spectra were reduced using the CIRRED package and usual IRAF tasks. Two-dimensional frames were sky-subtracted for each pair of images taken at the two nod positions A and B, followed by dividing of the resultant image by a master flat. Thereafter, wavelength calibration was applied using sky lines; the typical error (1$\sigma$) for this calibration is estimate as $\sim$12Å. The multiple exposures were combined and one-dimensional spectra were generated.
Telluric atmospheric correction using the spectroscopic standard stars completed the reduction process. In this last step, we divided each “science” spectrum by the spectrum of the A0[V]{} spectroscopic standard star free of photospheric features, carefully removed by interpolating across their wings using the continuum points on both sides of the line. In the case of the $H$-band, the subtraction of the hydrogen absorption lines could not be successfully done by this method because of the small separation between the multiple lines of the Brackett series and some strong telluric features. Therefore we proceeded to remove the hydrogen lines from the A0[V]{} $H$-band spectrum using the technique used by [@Blum; @et; @al; @1997]. Basically, one obtains a spectrum composed of only the profiles of hydrogen lines dividing the spectrum of a A-type standard star by a spectrum of a G-type star, whose H[i]{} intrinsic lines (fairly weaker than in A0[V]{} line spectra) and other features of G-type spectra were previously removed by hand, using as template the NOAO solar atlas of . After that, these profiles are used to correct the A0[V]{} spectrum, generating an $H$-band spectrum free of the hydrogen Brackett lines. Finally, telluric bands were removed using the IRAF task [*telluric*]{}. This algorithm interactively minimizes the RMS in specific regions of the sample by adjusting the wavelength shifts and intensity scales between the standard and “science” spectrum before performing the division. The wavelenght shifting corrects possible errors in the dispersion zero-points, whereas the intensity scaling equalizes airmass differences and variations in the abundance of the telluric species. Typical values of the shifts varied around $\sim$2Å, while the scaling factors were smaller than 10%.
Results {#Results}
=======
Spectral classification {#Spectral classification}
-----------------------
[He[i]{}]{} optical absorption lines are well-known spectral features of OB stars . If He[ii]{} absorption lines are also present, there is a substantial indicative of an O-type star. Since such features are also found in NIR spectra [@Hanson; @et; @al; @1996], the presence of these lines must still be the primary criterion to be observed when classifying hot star spectra in this band. H[i]{} Brackett series could also be used. However, it would require special attention since these lines are highly contaminated by nebular emission [@Bik; @et; @al; @2005].
The spectra of six of the stars listed in Table \[List of spectroscopic targets\] were found to correspond to late-type objects. They were classified visually by comparison with the 0.8-5 $\micron$ spectral library of cool stars by [@Rayner; @et; @al; @2009] and are displayed in Fig. \[fig-spec-cold-stars\] (Appendix). They are probably field stars and will not be included in our discussion on the region. The other three spectra correspond to early-type stars (Figure \[fig-spec-classif\]).
The detection of He[ii]{} lines at 1.692$\mu$m and 2.188$\mu$m in the spectra of IRS298 and IRS339 restricts the spectral types of both of these stars to O9 or earlier. On the other hand, the relative strength of these lines compared with the He[i]{} features at 1.279$\mu$m, 1.700$\mu$m and 2.112$\mu$m indicates that IRS339 is a late-O, whereas IRS298 is an early-O star. The detection of the N[iii]{} line at 2.115$\mu$m in emission, together with the broad profile of the H[i]{} lines, indicates that these two objects are dwarf stars, even though we do not discard that IRS339 may be a supergiant. The distinction between the various luminosity classes can be doubtful in the NIR because of the paucity of lines suitable for this purpose and the large uncertainties of their equivalent widths [@Hanson; @et; @al; @1996; @Hanson; @et; @al; @2005].
Figure \[ew-classif\] presents a comparison between the equivalent widths ($W_{\lambda}$) of four selected He lines of dwarf stars, ranging from O6 to O9.5 spectral types, along with the values measured for IRS339 and IRS298. In this comparison, we included only lines with equivalent widths reasonably well determined and discarded H[i]{} lines, whose profiles are highly dependent on the reduction process (see Sec. \[spec-data\]). Based on this scheme, the arguments presented above, and a visual comparison with other dwarf O-star spectra obtained with the same instrumental configuration and the spectra of the atlases by [@Hanson; @et; @al; @1996; @Hanson; @et; @al; @2005] and [@Bik; @et; @al; @2005], we classified IRS298 as O6[V]{} and IRS339 as O9[V]{}.
The third stellar spectrum displayed in Fig. \[fig-spec-classif\] is too noisy to be accurately classified. However, the strength of its He[i]{} lines and the tentative detection of Si, C, N, O suggest that IRS335 is an O9-to-B1 type star.
Spectroscopic parallax distance {#parallax distance}
-------------------------------
The distances of the classified stars IRS298 and IRS339 have been calculated from their apparent $J$ and $H$ magnitudes listed in Table \[tab-photometry\] using the method of spectroscopic parallax. The IR extinction curve by , which results in $E_{J-H}/E_{H-K} = 1.91$, was adopted for the reddening corrections. As intrinsic stellar parameters, we used the absolute magnitudes for the various spectral types compilated by [@Vacca; @et; @al; @1996] and the non-reddened colour indices by [@Koornneef; @1983], both transformed into the 2MASS photometric system using the relations given by [@Carpenter; @2001]. According to this method, we obtained a heliocentric distance of $d = 3.24\pm0.56$kpc ($A_J=3.03, A_V=10.44$) for IRS339 and $d = 3.35\pm0.61$kpc for IRS298 ($A_J=3.51, A_V=12.10$). Based on the average distance of these two stars, we estimate the heliocentric distance for the H[ii]{} region GAL331.31-00.34 of $d=3.29\pm0.58$kpc and a visual extinction of $\langle A_V \rangle \sim 11$mag.
obtained the radial velocity of $V_\mathrm{LSR} = -64$kms$^{-1}$ for GAL331.31-00.34, based on radio recombination lines. According to the model of for the rotation curve of the Galaxy, this figure corresponds to the near and far kinematic distances of $4.2$kpc and $10.7$kpc, respectively. Thus this H[ii]{} region is definitely at the near kinematic distance.
![Top: $JHK$ colour-colour diagram. The solid red line depicts the main and the giant sequences (only from G3[III]{}-type on), the dashed red line represents a classical T-Tauri star, and the dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed black lines show the reddening lines for M-type, O-type dwarf stars, and classical T-Tauri, respectively (References in section \[ionizing stars\]). Bottom: colour-magnitude diagram. The black line represents the main sequence for the distance of 3.29kpc. In both diagrams, the filled circles refer to the stars in the black square shown in Fig. \[fig-cluster157Hdaofind\], whereas the open circles refer to the other stars on the frame. The spectroscopically classified stars are indicated by blue (early-type) or red circles (late-type). Reddening lines for the 5 potential ionizing stars are also indicated.[]{data-label="CC and CM diagrams"}](diagrams.ps){width="46.00000%"}
Inventory of the ionizing stars and the Lyman continuum luminosity {#ionizing stars}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to search other potential ionizing stars besides those confirmed spectroscopically, we reanalysed the NIR colour-colour (CC) and colour-magnitude (CM) diagrams (Figs. \[CC and CM diagrams\]), assuming the distance of 3.29kpc obtained in section \[parallax distance\]. The intrinsic colours assumed are given by [@Koornneef; @1983], while the absolute magnitudes in $J$-band are from [@Vacca; @et; @al; @1996] for O-stars and from [@Wegner; @2007] for the other spectral types, all of them transformed into the 2MASS photometric system by the relations given by [@Carpenter; @2001]. The classical T-Tauri star locus shown in the CC diagram is taken from [@Meyer; @et; @al; @1997], while the locus of the Herbig Ae/Be candidates is indicated in accordance with . According to the CC diagram, we suspect that IRS114 and IRS446 are stars with spectral types between B0[V]{} and B1[V]{}. However, they are heavily obscured by dust ($A_V > 18$mag) and, in this region of the diagram, the classification is highly dependent on the slope adopted for the reddening vector. [@Nishiyama; @et; @al; @2006] and showed that this slope depends on the direction of observation and, for large reddening, the scattering around the reddening vector might be very high. In these cases, a purely-photometric classification may not be very accurate. Thus, it could not be discarded that IRS114 and IRS446 actually are pre-main sequence stars.
An inventory of our search for hot stars in the field is presented in Table 2, which lists the five stars identified as potential ionizing sources of GAL331.31-00.34 along with their photometric and spectroscopic spectral classifications.
---------------------- ------------------- -- --------------- ---------- -- -- -- -- -- --
This work Photometrical Spectral
IRS298 J16122053-5146460 mid-O O6V
IRS339 J16122002-5146262 late-O O9V
IRS355 J16123324-5146173 B0: B0:
IRS114 J16123539-5148304 B1: $\cdots$
IRS446 J16120863-5146482 B0: $\cdots$
\[ionizing sources\]
---------------------- ------------------- -- --------------- ---------- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Ionizing stars identified in GAL331.31-00.34
To test the completeness of the set of ionizing stars found associated with this H[ii]{} region, we compare the Lyman continuum photon luminosity $N_{\rm Ly}$ (photon s$^{-1}$) emitted by these stars with that needed to supply the radio continuum flux. Adopting the Lyman luminosity by [@Hanson; @et; @al; @1997], these five stars would amount to a total of $N_{\rm Ly} = 10^{49.07}$photonss$^{-1}$. In fact, this total is strongly dominated by the contribution of the two O-type stars. On the other hand, a Lyman continuum luminosity of $N_{\rm Ly} = 10^{48.74}$ photonss$^{-1}$ is inferred from the radio continuum flux density $S_{\!\nu}$ at $22$GHz measured by , using the expression: [see @Rubin; @1968] $$N_{\rm Ly} = \frac{5.59\times10^{48}}{1+f_i\langle {\rm He^+ / (H^+ + He^+)} \rangle}\left( \frac{\nu}{5\,{\rm GHz}} \right)^{0.1} T_\mathrm{e}^{-0.45} S_{\!\nu} d^2,$$ where we assume the abundance ratio of ${\rm He}^+/{\rm H}^+=0.5$, a typical electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e} = 8000$K, and $f_i = 0.65$ for the fraction of He-recombination photons energetic enough to ionize the H. Using the flux densities at 5GHz measured by and almost identical results are found. Thus, we conclude that the O-type stars IRS298 and IRS339 can cope with the ionization of this nebula. The three stars photometrically classified as B0-to-B1V type and other cooler stars would not contribute significantly to the ionization of the nebula.
YSO candidates {#YSO candidate}
--------------
The intrinsic IR excess found in some stellar objects is an evidence of accreting disks or infalling envelopes. The identification of a group of objects with these properties indicates the existence of intense and recent star formation, which makes these regions interesting places to search for pre-main-sequence stellar objects (PMS), for example. The analysis of NIR and MIR colour-colour diagrams allows us to identify PMS stars and infer their nature based on their photometric properties. For example, according to [@Allen; @et; @al; @2004], objects with accreting disks, named Class II YSO, occupy the locus of reddened classical T-Tauri in NIR colour-colour diagrams, whereas objects whose emission is dominated by infalling envelopes, named Class I, have more reddened colours. YSOs with weak or no IR-excess are named Class III, and are not discriminated in CC diagrams, since they are found along with ZAMS stars.
-------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
Class.
This work 2MASS GLIMPSE
IRS42 J16123385-5149269 G331.3195-00.3979 HAeBe
IRS94 J16122500-5148459 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS114 J16123539-5148304 G331.3330-00.3892 TTau$^\dagger$
IRS133 J16121385-5148204 G331.2944-00.3491 HAeBe
IRS138 J16122037-5148157 G331.3076-00.3597 HAeBe
IRS150 J16123309-5148076 G331.3331-00.3806 TTau
IRS172 J16120964-5147550 $\cdots$ TTau
IRS178 J16123437-5147487 G331.3391-00.3790 HAeBe
IRS184 J16121891-5147434 G331.3110-00.3506 HAeBe
IRS197 J16121395-5147382 G331.3025-00.3409 HAeBe
IRS224 J16121561-5147255 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS246 J16121386-5147139 G331.3071-00.3357 HAeBe
IRS256 J16122966-5147088 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS283 J16123053-5146525 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS330 J16122692-5146314 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS337 $\cdots$ $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS344 J16122121-5146255 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS362 J16122064-5146136 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS376 J16121207-5146026 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS383 J16121868-5145597 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS390 J16123848-5145538 G331.3687-00.3630 TTau
IRS402 J16123964-5145474 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS445 J16122483-5146507 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS446 J16120863-5146482 G331.3022-00.3213 TTau$^\dagger$
IRS454 J16122704-5146168 G331.3427-00.3474 TTau
IRS478 J16122996-5148154 G331.3258-00.3766 HAeBe
IRS481 J16122752-5148042 G331.3232-00.3700 TTau
IRS483 J16121153-5147565 G331.2947-00.3402 HAeBe
IRS484 J16122607-5147546 G331.3223-00.3655 HAeBe
IRS487 J16122611-5147500 G331.3232-00.3646 TTau
IRS488 J16120772-5147483 G331.2891-00.3319 HAeBe
IRS510 J16122112-5146395 G331.3274-00.3416 TTau
IRS511 J16120732-5146382 $\cdots$ HAeBe
IRS524 J16123883-5148207 G331.3413-00.3932 HAeBe
IRS531 J16120752-5146336 G331.3028-00.3164 HAeBe
IRS533 $\cdots$ $\cdots$ HAeBe
\[NIR YSOs\]
-------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Young Stellar Objects candidates from the NIR photometry
---------------- ---------- -- ------------------- ------------------- -- -- -- --
MIR NIR GLIMPSE 2MASS
CE1 $\cdots$ G331.2999-00.3784 J16122314-5149240
CE2 $\cdots$ G331.3093-00.3762 J16122521-5148551
CE3 $\cdots$ G331.3205-00.3817 $\cdots$
CE4 IRS552 G331.3131-00.3653 J16122341-5148167
CE5 IRS168 G331.3298-00.3735 J16123029-5147575
CE6 IRS176 G331.3203-00.3615 J16122445-5147492
CE7 $\cdots$ G331.3341-00.3619 J16122844-5147163
CE8 IRS645 G331.3541-00.3664 J16123527-5146387
CE9 IRS355 G331.3543-00.3585 J16123324-5146173
CE10 $\cdots$ G331.3416-00.3464 J16122648-5146177
CE11 $\cdots$ G331.3497-00.3497 $\cdots$
\[MidIR YSOs\]
---------------- ---------- -- ------------------- ------------------- -- -- -- --
: Identifiers of the YSOs candidates from the MIR GLIMPSE photometry
The analysis of the NIR colour-colour diagram presented in Fig. \[CC and CM diagrams\] indicates a total of 36 YSO candidates, which are listed in Table \[NIR YSOs\] together with their tentative classification between T-Tauri (TTau) or Herbig Ae/Be (HAeBe) stars. In this list, IRS446 and IRS114 could also be main sequence stars very obscured by dust. IRS150 is the most reddened object detected in this work, with $A_V \ga 20$mag. Considering the error bars of the photometry and extinction laws, IRS150 has colours of a very reddened T-Tauri star. Redwards in the CC NIR diagram, IRS478 presents typical colours of a very embedded YSO in an early stage of formation. A third group of stars appears below the T-Tauri locus, showing $(H-K_s) \ga 0.4$mag. In this region, Herbig Ae/Be stars, which are PMS stars more massive than T-Tauri, can be confused with Class I sources , galaxies or other background objects, making a classification based only on photometric data unreliable.
Figure \[CC IRAC diagram\] presents a MIR colour-colour diagram made with data from the GLIMPSE survey. This diagram is used to identify and classify objects with MIR colour excess (hereafter denoted as CE). Within a region of $2\farcm5$ radius centred at the NIR $H$-frame (see Fig. \[fig-cluster157Hdaofind\]), a total of 58 sources were simultaneously detected in the four GLIMPSE/IRAC-bands. We identify 11 MIR sources with colour excesses, which are listed in Table \[MidIR YSOs\]. Some of them are so obscured by dust that they have not been detected in the NIR bands.
Low-mass objects with MIR colour excess can be classified according to scheme by [@Allen; @et; @al; @2004]. Class III objects, along with back/foreground objects, have the MIR colours $[3.6] - [4.5] \approx 0$ and $[5.8] - [8.0] \approx 0$, Class II have colours within $0 \la [3.6] - [4.5] \la 0.8$ and $0.4 \la [5.8] - [8.0] \la 1.1$, whereas Class I objects are expected to present colours $[3.6] - [4.5] \ga 0.7$ and $[5.8] - [8.0] \ga 1.0$. However, from the MIR photometry alone, we are not able to decide whether or not these objects are low-mass YSOs.
Figure \[YSO SEDs\] presents the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the MIR sources classified as YSOs, obtained by combining their NIR and MIR magnitudes. Sources CE1 and CE10 present a high spectral index $\alpha \equiv d\log{(\lambda F_{\lambda})}/d\log{\lambda}$ near $\lambda \sim 2\,\mu$m, which is characteristic of protostars in an early stage of evolution [@Lada; @1987].
The nature of IRAS16085-5138 {#The IRAS source}
----------------------------
IRAS16085-5138 is the only IRAS source in the field. According to the classification scheme of , its IRAS colours are compatible with an ultra-compact H[ii]{} region. Methanol and hydroxyl masers have been detected at its vicinity [e.g. @Caswell; @et; @al; @1980; @Caswell; @et; @al; @2000]. We identify this source with CE10, which presents the highest spectral index among all the CE-objects identified in this work, and is the only one detected inside the IRAS position error ellipse. Using photometric data from the 2MASS, GLIMPSE, and IRAS surveys, we obtained the 2–100$\mu$m SED of this source (Fig. \[IRAS SED\]). According to [@Lada; @1987], a spectral energy distribution rising longward of $\lambda = 2\,\mu$m, such as that shown by this object, is characteristic of Class I objects. We evaluated the spectral index between $2$ and $25\,\mu$m (the dotted line in Fig. \[IRAS SED\]), and found $\alpha \approx 3.6$, typical of YSO immersed in a dense protostellar envelope, which is also in accordance with the classification drawn from the MIR colour-colour diagram.
Since most of the energy of this object is emitted in the infrared, the bolometric luminosity of the embedded protostar can be approximated by integrating the SED between $2$ and $100\,\mu$m. Adopting the distance of 3.29kpc and $A_V = 10$mag, we obtain a luminosity of $L=7.7\times10^3L_{\sun}$. Since pre-main-sequence models [e.g. @Iben; @1965] indicate that early-type stars evolve at constant luminosity from the Hayashi track up to the main sequence, this result implies that the lower limit for this stellar mass is $M \ga 10\,M_{\sun}$. This mass value corresponds to a B0–B1 ZAMS star [cf. @Hanson; @et; @al; @1997].
MIR shell structure {#MIR shell}
-------------------
Figure \[RGB combination\] presents a RGB combination of $8.0\,\mu$m (R), $5.8\,\mu$m (G), and $3.6\,\mu$m (B) GLIMPSE images that show a broken shell-like structure with a diameter of $\approx\!4\arcmin$ associated with GAL331.31-00.34. At the distance of 3.29kpc, this shell would have a diameter of $\approx\!3.8$parsec. This shell, identified as \[CPA2006\] S62 in the SIMBAD database, is named S62 in the catalogue by [@Churchwell; @et; @al; @2006], which contains over 300 MIR arcs. The authors interpreted the arcs as the projection on the sky of three-dimensional bubbles, and found that only one quarter of them would be associated with H[ii]{} regions. In these cases, the bubbles would be expanding driven by the stellar wind and the radiation pressure from young massive stars. These stars would also power the bubbles, which are traced by the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emission produced in the photodissociation regions located at the edge of the H[ii]{} regions. According to [@Deharveng; @et; @al; @2010], most of the bubbles are in fact associated with H[ii]{} regions, and more than a quarter of them could be triggering the formation of a new generation of stars, as seems to be the case of RCW120 [@Deharveng; @et; @al; @2009].
![RGB combination of $8.0\,\mu$m (R), $5.8\,\mu$m (G), and $3.6\,\mu$m (B) GLIMPSE images. The red circles indicate the objects showing MIR colour excess listed in Table \[MidIR YSOs\]. In these three MIR bands, the peak emission coincides with the source CE10, which we identified as the GLIMPSE counterpart of IRAS16085-5138.[]{data-label="RGB combination"}](RGB_ID_low_res2.ps){width="48.00000%"}
In the case of GAL331.31-00.34, the IRAS source 16085-5138 and the methanol and hydroxyl masers , typical tracers of ongoing massive star formation, are located at the bright northern border of the shell. At these positions, CS(2-1) and SiO molecular emission, which require densities higher than $10^{4}$cm$^{-3}$, were detected by [@Bronfman; @et; @al; @1996] and [@Harju; @et; @al; @1998], respectively, who carried out radio surveys towards IRAS sources with colours of UC-HII regions. This possibly indicates that the expansion of the northern part of the bubble has been hampered by a dense molecular environment. The same phenomenon may also occur in other parts of the bubble, but additional observations of CS and NH$_3$, which are good tracers of dense molecular regions, are still lacking.
We also find that the T Tauri and the Herbig Ae/Be candidates found from the NIR photometry are found preferentially towards the bubble, while the YSO candidates found from the MIR data are located in a limited north-south band crossing the openings of the broken shell.
Summary
=======
We carried out $JHK$ photometry in the direction of the Galactic H[ii]{} region GAL331.31-00.34. We classified spectroscopically the main ionizing sources and estimated their distance. As a result, we identified other potential ionizing stars and performed their respective photometric classifications. Data from the 2MASS, GLIMPSE, and IRAS surveys were also explored. Our main findings are:
![Contour levels of the IRAC $8.0\,\mu$m image superimposed on $H$-band image. The yellow triangles show the positions of the methanol and hydroxyl maser sources. The cyan and orange triangles locate the low-mass and high-mass YSO candidates (possible reddened T-Tauri and the Herbig Ae/Be stars, respectively) classified according to the NIR photometry and listed in Table \[NIR YSOs\]. The green circles indicate the objects showing MIR colour excess listed in Table \[MidIR YSOs\]. The blue dots point to the hot stars spectroscopically identified.[]{data-label="8mu contours and star IDs"}](cluster157H.ps){width="48.00000%"}
1. We identified, classified spectroscopically, and estimated the spectroscopic parallax distances of two O-type stars associated with this H[ii]{} region: IRS298 (O6[V]{}, $d = 3.35\pm0.61$kpc) and IRS339 (O9[V]{}, $d = 3.24\pm0.56$kpc). Adopting the average distance of $3.29\pm0.58$kpc and comparing the Lyman continuum luminosity of these stars with that required to ionize the nebula, obtained from radio continuum observations, we concluded that these two stars are the ionizing sources of GAL331.31-00.34.
2. By analysing the NIR colour-colour diagram, 36 pre-main sequence (PMS) objects could be identified and classified: 9 T-Tauri and 27 Herbig Ae/Be candidates. From the GLIMPSE data, 11 objects with MIR colour excesses have been found.
3. The MIR counterpart of the IRAS source 16085-5138 was identified and its spectral energy distribution between $2$ and $100\,\mu$m was analysed. We concluded that IRAS16085-5138 is a massive YSO in an early stage of formation, with luminosity $L \ge 7.7\times10^3L_{\sun}$ and mass $M > 10\,M_{\sun}$.
High spatial resolution observations in radio frequency of the ionized and molecular gas are necessary for deeper studies of the dynamics and evolution of star formation in the field of GAL331.31-00.34. Likewise, the possible connection between the diffuse high energy gamma-ray emission HESS J1614-518 and powerful winds and radiation fields of OB stars in the region should be subject of future hydrodynamic studies.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Brazilian agencies CAPES, CNPq and FAPESP. We wish to thank the staff of the Laboratório Nacional de Astrofísica for their assistance during the observations. ARL thanks the partial support by the ALMA-CONICYT Fund, under the project number 31060004, “A New Astronomer for the Astrophysics Group – Universidad de La Serena”, by the Physics Department, and by the Dirección de Investigación Universidad de La Serena (DIULS), under program “Proyecto Convenio de Desempeõ CD11103”.
[99]{} Allen, L. E., et al., 2004, [ApJS]{}, 154, 363
Aharonian, F., et al., 2006, [ApJ]{}, 636, 777
Aharonian F., et al., 2007, A&A, 467, 1075
Amaral, L. H., Abraham, Z., 1991, [A&A]{}, 251, 259
Benjamin R. A., et al., 2003, PASP, 115, 953
Bik, A., Kaper, L., Hanson, M. M., Smits, M., 2005, [A&A]{}, 440, 121
Blum, R. D., Ramond, T. M., Conti, P. S., Figer, D. F., Sellgren, K., 1997, [AJ]{}, 113, 1855
Brand, J., Blitz, L., 1993, [A&A]{}, 275, 67
Bronfman, L., Nyman, L. A., May, J., 1996, [A&AS]{}, 115, 81
Carpenter, J. M., 2001, [AJ]{}, 121, 2851
Caswell, J. L., Haynes, R. F., Goss, W. M., 1980, Australian Journal of Physics, 33, 639
Caswell, J. L., Haynes, R. F., 1987, [A&A]{}, 171, 261
Caswell, J. L., Yi, J., Booth, R. S., Cragg, D. M., 2000, [MNRAS]{}, 313, 599
Chavarr[í]{}a, L., Mardones, D., Garay, G., Escala, A., Bronfman, L., Lizano, S., 2010, [ApJ]{}, 710, 583
Churchwell E., et al., 2006, ApJ, 649, 759
Deharveng L., Zavagno A., Schuller F., Caplan J., Pomar[è]{}s M., De Breuck C., 2009, A&A, 496, 177
Deharveng L., et al., 2010, A&A, 523, A6
Dutra, C. M., Bica, E., Soares, J., Barbuy, B., 2003, [A&A]{}, 400, 533
Ellingsen, S. P., von Bibra, M. L., McCulloch, P. M., Norris, R. P., Deshpande, A. A., Phillips, C. J., 1996, [MNRAS]{}, 280, 378
Hanson, M. M., Conti, P. S., Rieke, M. J., 1996, [ApJS]{}, 107, 281
Hanson, M. M., Howarth, I. D., Conti, P. S., 1997, [ApJ]{}, 489, 698
Hanson, M. M., Kudritzki, R. P., Kenworthy, M. A., Puls, J., Tokunaga, A. T., 2005, [ApJS]{}, 161, 154
Harju, J., Lehtinen, K., Booth, R. S., Zinchenko, I., 1998, [A&AS]{}, 132, 211
Iben, I., Jr., 1965, [ApJ]{}, 142, 421
Koornneef, J., 1983, [A&A]{}, 128, 84
Kuchar, T. A., Clark, F. O., 1997, [ApJ]{}, 488, 224
Lada, C. J., 1987, Star Forming Regions, 115, 1
Lada, C. J., Adams, F. C., 1992, [ApJ]{}, 393, 278
Livingston W., Wallace L., 1991, An atlas of the solar spectrum in the infrared from 1850 to 9000 cm-1 (1.1 to 5.4 micrometer). NSO Technical Report, Tucson: National Solar Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, 1991
Meyer, M. R., Calvet, N., Hillenbrand, L. A., 1997, [AJ]{}, 114, 288
Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Kusakabe, N., et al., 2006, [ApJ]{}, 638, 839
Parizot, E., Marcowith, A., van der Swaluw, E., Bykov, A. M., Tatischeff, V., 2004, [A&A]{}, 424, 747
Rayner, J. T., Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., 2009, [ApJS]{}, 185, 289
Rodgers, A. W., Campbell, C. T., Whiteoak, J. B., 1960, [MNRAS]{}, 121, 103
Roman-Lopes, A., Abraham, Z., L[é]{}pine, J. R. D., 2003, [AJ]{}, 126, 1896
Roman-Lopes, A., Abraham, Z., 2004, [AJ]{}, 127, 2817
Roman-Lopes, A., Abraham, Z., 2006, [AJ]{}, 131, 951
Roman-Lopes, A., Abraham, Z., 2006, [AJ]{}, 131, 2223
Rubin, R. H., 1968, [ApJ]{}, 154, 391
Russeil, D., Adami, C., Amram, P., Le Coarer, E., Georgelin, Y. M., Marcelin, M., Parker, Q., 2005, [A&A]{}, 429, 497
Skinner, S. L., Sokal, K. R., Megeath, S. T., G[ü]{}del, M., Audard, M., Flaherty, K. M., Meyer, M. R., Damineli, A., 2009, [ApJ]{}, 701, 710
Stead, J. J., Hoare, M. G., 2009, [MNRAS]{}, 400, 731
Vacca, W. D., Garmany, C. D., Shull, J. M., 1996, [ApJ]{}, 460, 914
Walborn, N. R., Fitzpatrick, E. L., 1990, [PASP]{}, 102, 379
Walsh, A. J., Hyland, A. R., Robinson, G., Burton, M. G., 1997, [MNRAS]{}, 291, 261
Walsh, A. J., Burton, M. G., Hyland, A. R., Robinson, G., 1998, [MNRAS]{}, 301, 640
Wegner, W., 2007, [MNRAS]{}, 374, 1549
Wood, D. O. S., Churchwell, E., 1989, [ApJ]{}, 340, 265
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Based on observations carried at the SOAR observatory, a joint project of the Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) of the República Federativa do Brasil, the U.S. National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), and the Michigan State University (MSU).
[^3]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract to the National Science Foundation.
[^4]: OSIRIS is a collaborative project between the Ohio State University and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) is in the midst of an upgrade to reduce its system noise temperature. ADMX-HF (High Frequency) is a second platform specifically designed for higher mass axions and will serve as an innovation test-bed. Both will be commissioning in 2013 and taking data shortly thereafter. The principle of the experiment, current experimental limits and the status of the ADMX/ADMX-HF program will be described. R&D on hybrid superconducting cavities will be discussed as one example of an innovation to greatly enhance sensitivity.'
author:
- |
[*Karl van Bibber$^1$ and Gianpaolo Carosi$^{2}$*]{}\
$^1$University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA\
$^2$Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
title: 'Status of the ADMX and ADMX-HF experiments'
---
Introduction
============
A light axion represents a compelling dark-matter candidate, and as demonstrated by Sikivie thirty years ago, such axions could be detected by their conversion to photons in a microwave cavity permeated by magnetic field [@Sikivie:1983], with the signal power given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{Sig} = g^2_{a\gamma\gamma}\left(\frac{\rho_a}{m_a}\right) B^2_0 V C Q.\end{aligned}$$
![(a) Schematic of the microwave cavity technique. (b) Exclusion region to date by ADMX [@Asztalos:2010][]{data-label="Figure: 1"}](Patras12_Fig_1b.eps){width="95.00000%"}
\[fig:1\]
The signal is expected to be exceedingly weak, $< 10^{-21}$ W. Pioneering experiments at Brookhaven [@DePanfilis:1987] and Florida [@Hagmann:1990] established the basic design concept (Figure \[fig:1\]a) based on a superconducting solenoidal magnet, a tunable high-Q copper cavity, and state-of-the art cryogenic amplifiers as the front end of a heterodyne receiver. The experiment is step-tuned, and after an integration period of $\sim$ 100 sec., the FFT spectrum within the cavity bandpass is calculated. The Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) represented a large scale up from the first generation experiments (the 8T solenoid is 1.1m long and 60cm in diameter), and marked the beginning of a long campaign to reduce the system noise temperature. ADMX has published an exclusion region over roughly an octave in mass (460-860 MHz, or 1.9-3.6 $\mu$eV) for KSVZ axions saturating the galactic halo (Figure \[fig:1\]b) [@Asztalos:2010]. ADMX has developed and deployed Microstrip-coupled SQUID Amplifiers (MSA) [@Muck:1998] which have demonstrated near quantum-limited performance in the laboratory.
ADMX upgrade
============
The ADMX experiment ran with a MSA from 2008-2010 at pumped LHe temperatures ($\sim$1.2 K). The experiment was then moved in the summer of 2010 from LLNL to the University of Washington (UW) where it is currently being rebuilt to include a dilution refrigerator. This will allow for operations at a physical temperature of $\sim$100 mK, a regime in which the MSA is expected to be quantum limited. An initial data-run with a pumped $^3$He refrigerator ($T_{phys} \approx 400\;mK$) will begin at the end of the summer of 2013 and run until it can be replaced with the colder dilution refrigerator (spring 2014). In addition to the lowered system noise temperature a second antenna and receiver system is being added in order to take data with higher order TM modes (such as the TM$_{020}$). These modes move in parallel to the fundemental TM$_{010}$ mode and have lower, but non-negligible, coupling to axions. This will allow the ADMX experiment to search for axions in two frequencies at the same time, greatly increasing the detection potential. Additional improvements include revamped microwave cavities, motion control systems and an updated receiver chain that takes advantage of new digital electronics. The primary participants in the ADMX Generation 2 experiment are UW, LLNL, UC Berkeley, Univ. Florida, NRAO, and Sheffield University.
ADMX-HF
=======
To focus on specific challenges of the axion search at high masses, and thus high frequency (the resonant condition being $h\nu = m_{a}c^2$), and significantly improving the scan rate, we are building a second smaller platform, called ADMX-HF (High Frequency) designed for the 4 - 40 GHz range. This experiment is being built up by a collaboration of Yale (the host), JILA/Colorado, UC Berkeley and LLNL. Supported by NSF, this platform will both produce data of intermediate sensitivity (KSVZ model), and serve as an innovation platform, to allow rapid testing of new receiver and cavity concepts, etc.
Tailored to higher frequencies, ADMX-HF is physically smaller than its lower frequency counterpart. The superconducting magnet is a solenoid of only 15 cm x 40 cm; it has a 9T central field and was designed to have a radial component limited to $B_{r} < 50 G$, permitting operation with microwave cavities with Type II superconducting thin films as the barrel section (see next section). The entire experiment is cooled by a dilution refrigerator to 25 mK.
Figures \[fig:2\]a,b demonstrate the tuning of the TM$_{010}$ mode between 4.6 - 5.9 GHz by rotation of three axial rods with respect to three fixed rods. The microwave cavity is OFHC copper electrodeposited on stainless steel and annealed (Figures \[fig:2\]c,d); at 4K a quality factor Q $\sim$ 40,000 is expected, for the complete cavity, critically coupled.
![(a) Stator-rotor tuning scheme of the microwave cavity. The false-color indicates the magnitude of the axial electric field of the TM$_{010}$ mode. (b) The frequency of the TM$_{010}$ mode as a function of tuning angle. Photographs of the cavity (c) with, and (d) without the cavity barrel and top end-cap removed.[]{data-label="Figure: 2"}](Patras12_Fig_2b.eps){width="90.00000%"}
\[fig:2\]
One of the innovations that has been incorporated is the use of Josephson Parametric Amplifiers (JPA). The initial run will use a JPA developed by K. Lehnert of JILA \[6,7\] and which has already seen use in studies of quantum nanomechanical oscillators, and quantum information (Figure \[fig:3\]a). This device is continuously tunable from 4-8 GHz, achieving quantum-limited performance (Figure \[fig:3\]b), even after the HEMT post-amplifier, owing to its very high gain ($>$30 dB). The JPA can also be operated in a squeezed-state mode to achieve sub-quantum limited noise, not an objective for the first data run.
![(a) Microphotograph of the Josephson Parametric Amplifier. (b) Demonstration of quantum-limited performance at temperatures below 100 mK. []{data-label="Figure: 3"}](Patras12_Fig_3b.eps){width="90.00000%"}
\[fig:3\]
Hybrid superconducting cavity R&D
=================================
One of the current R&D efforts underway in the ADMX collaboration is to improve the Q factor of the microwave cavities used. The linewidth of gravitationally virialized axions is expected to be $\sim\beta^2 \sim(10^{-3}c)^2 \sim10^{-6}$, which is equivelant to a $Q_a = E/\Delta{E} \sim 10^6$, which is approximately an order of magnitude larger than the $Q_{cavity} \sim 10^5$ of standard copper plated cavities. Superconducting cavities, however, can achieve $Q>10^{10}$ but are driven normal in the presence of a strong magnetic field. One possible solution is to replace the parallel walls of the cavity with a thin film superconductor that can maintain its superconducting properties in the presence of a strong parallel magnetic field. Evidence for this has been seen in NbTiN films up to 10 Tesla [@Xiaoxiang]. The Q would then be dominated by the contribution from the regular copper endcaps to the cavity which should give an enhancement of $Q_{hybrid} = (1 + L/R)Q_{Cu}$, where $L$ and $R$ is the length and radius of the cavity and $Q_{Cu}$ is for an all-copper cavity. Currently these R&D efforts are taking place at LLNL, Yale and Univ. Florida.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
The microwave cavity dark matter axion experiment now has a clear path both in achieving the requisite sensitivity (DFSZ models and below), and mass reach, initially up to 100 $\mu$eV. Extending the search to much higher masses will require the introduction of hybrid superconducting cavities, and different receiver technologies, possibly bolometers. However, the ADMX and AMDX-HF platforms will already be in prime discovery territory this year.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344 and under NSF grants PHY-1067242, and PHY-1306729. LLNL-PROC-635756.
Bibliography
============
[99]{} P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett, **51** (1983); Phys. Rev. D **32** (1985) 2988. S. DePanfilis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett, **59** (1987) 839; W. Wuensch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D **40** (1989) 3153. C. Hagmann [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D **42** (1990) 1297. S.J. Asztalos [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104** (2010); M. Mück [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. **72** (1998) 2885; M. Mück [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. **75** (1999) 3545; M. Mück and J. Clarke, J. Appl. Phys. **88** (2000) 6910. M.A. Castellanos-Beltran and K.W. Lehnert, Appl. Phys. Lett. **91** (2007) 083509. M.A. Castellanos-Beltran, K.D. Irwin, G.C. Hilton, L.R. Vale and K.W. Lehnert, Nature Phys. **4** (2008) 929. Xiaoxiang Xi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett, **105** (2010) 257006.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $G$ be a connected, reductive group over an algebraically closed field of good characteristic. For $u \in G$ unipotent, we describe the conjugacy classes in the component group $A(u)$ of the centralizer of $u$. Our results extend work of the second author done for simple, adjoint $G$ over the complex numbers.
When $G$ is simple and adjoint, the previous work of the second author makes our description combinatorial and explicit; moreover, it turns out that knowledge of the conjugacy classes suffices to determine the group structure of $A(u)$. Thus we obtain the result, previously known through case-checking, that the structure of the component group $A(u)$ is independent of good characteristic.
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Room 255 Hurley Building\
University of Notre Dame\
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-5683\
USA
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
University of Massachusetts at Amherst\
Amherst, MA 01003\
USA
author:
- 'George J. McNinch'
- Eric Sommers
date: 'August 5, 2002'
title: Component groups of unipotent centralizers in good characteristic
---
[^1]
Throughout this note, $G$ will denote a connected and reductive algebraic group $G$ over the algebraically closed field $k$. For the most part, the characteristic $p \ge 0$ of $k$ is assumed to be *good* for $G$ (see §\[section:simple\] for the definition).
The main objective of our note is to extend the work of the second author [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter] describing the component groups of unipotent (or nilpotent) centralizers. We recall a few definitions before stating the main result.
A *pseudo-Levi* subgroup $L$ of $G$ is the connected centralizer $C_G^o(s)$ of a semisimple element $s \in G$. The reductive group $L$ contains a maximal torus $T$ of $G$, and so $L$ is generated by $T$ together with the 1 dimensional unipotent subgroups corresponding to a subsystem $R_L$ of the root system $R$ of $G$; in §\[sec:semisimple-centralizers\] we make explicit which subsystems $R_L$ arise in this way when $G$ is quasisimple.
Let $u \in G$ be a unipotent element, and let $A(u) = C_G(u)/C_G^o(u)$ be the group of components (“component group”) of the centralizer of $u$. We are concerned with the structure of the group $A(u)$ (more precisely: with its conjugacy classes).
Consider the set of all triples $$\label{eq:triples}
(L,tZ^o,u)$$ where $L$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup with center $Z = Z(L)$, the coset $tZ^o \in Z/Z^o$ has the property that $L = C_G^o(tZ^o)$, and $u \in
L$ is a distinguished unipotent element.
\[theorem:main-theorem\] Let $G$ be connected and reductive in good characteristic. The map $$(L,sZ^o,u) \mapsto (u,sC^o_G(u))$$ yields a bijection between: $G$-conjugacy classes of triples as in , and $G$-conjugacy classes of pairs $(u,x)$ where $u \in G$ is unipotent and $x$ is an element in $A(u)$.
The theorem is proved, after some preliminaries, in §\[sec:main-proof\].
The $G$-conjugacy classes of pairs $(u,x)$ as in the statement of the theorem are in obvious bijection with $G$-conjugacy classes of pairs $(u,C)$ where $u \in G$ is unipotent and $C \subset A(u)$ is a conjugacy class.
Assume that $G$ is simple and adjoint. We show in § \[sec:explicit\] that our work indeed extends the results of the second author. If $u \in G$ is unipotent, we find as a consequence of Theorem \[theorem:main-theorem\] that the conjugacy classes in $A(u)$ are in bijection with $C_G(u)$-conjugacy classes of pseudo-Levi subgroups $L$ containing $u$ as a distinguished unipotent element; this was proved for $k={\mathbf{C}}$ in [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter]. It follows that $A(u) {\simeq}A(\hat u)$ where $\hat u$ is a unipotent element in the corresponding group over ${\mathbf{C}}$ with the same labeled diagram as $u$. This isomorphism was known previously by case-checking in the exceptional groups; see especially [@mizuno]. The structure of $A(u)$ for the exceptional groups when $k={\mathbf{C}}$ is originally due to Alekseevski [@alekseevski].
Our proof of Theorem \[theorem:main-theorem\] is free of case-checking, with the following caveats. We use Pommerening’s proof of the Bala-Carter theorem (specifically, we use the construction of “associated co-characters” for unipotent elements) in the proof of Proposition \[prop:connected-unipotent\]. Moreover, we use work of Premet to find Levi factors in the centralizer of a unipotent element; see Proposition \[prop:levi-decomposition\].
The authors would like to thank the referee for pointing out an oversight and suggesting the use of Jantzen’s result (Proposition \[prop:weak-mostow\]) to prove Proposition \[prop:assoc-in-PL\]. Upon completion of this paper, we learned that Premet has also given a case-free proof of Theorem \[theorem:adjoint\].
Reductive algebraic groups {#section:simple}
==========================
Fix $T \subset B \subset G$, where $T$ is a maximal torus and $B$ a Borel subgroup. Let $(X,R,Y,R^\vee)$ denote the root datum of the reductive group $G$ with respect to $T$; thus $X = X^*(T)$ is the character group, and $R \subset X$ is the set of weights of $T$ on ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Fix $S \subset R$ a system of simple roots.
When $R$ is irreducible, the root with maximal height (with respect to $S$) will be denoted $\tilde \alpha$. Write $$\label{eq:high-root}
\tilde \alpha = \sum_{\beta \in S} a_\beta \beta$$ for positive integers $a_\beta$. The characteristic $p$ of $k$ is said to be good for $G$ (or for $R$) if $p$ does not divide any $a_\beta$. So $p=0$ is good, and we may simply list the bad (i.e. not good) primes: $p=2$ is bad unless $R =
A_r$, $p=3$ is bad if $R = G_2,F_4,E_r$, and $p=5$ is bad if $R=E_8$.
The prime $p$ is good for a general $R$ just in case it is good for each irreducible component of $R$.
For a root $\alpha \in R$, let ${\mathbf{G}}_a {\simeq}{\mathscr{X}}_\alpha \subset G$ be the corresponding root subgroup.
Springer’s isomorphism
======================
Let ${\mathcal{U}}\subset G$ and ${\mathcal{N}}\subset {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ denote respectively the unipotent and nilpotent varieties. In characteristic 0, the exponential is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism ${\mathcal{N}}\to {\mathcal{U}}$; in good characteristic, one has the following substitute for the exponential:
\[prop:springer-iso\] There is a $G$-equivariant homeomorphism ${\varepsilon}:{\mathcal{N}}\to {\mathcal{U}}$. Moreover, if $R$ has no component of type $A_r$ for which $r \equiv
-1 \pmod p$, there is such an ${\varepsilon}$ which is an isomorphism of varieties.
There is an isogeny $\pi:\tilde G \to G$ where $\tilde G = \prod_i
G_i \times T$ with $T$ a torus and each $G_i$ a simply connected, quasisimple group; see e.g. [@springer-LAG Theorem 9.6.5]. Let $\tilde {\mathcal{N}}$ and $\tilde {\mathcal{U}}$ denote the corresponding varieties for $\tilde G$. Since the characteristic is good, it has been proved by Springer [@springer-unipotent-iso] that there is a $\tilde G$-equivariant isomorphism of varieties $\tilde {\varepsilon}:\tilde {\mathcal{N}}\to \tilde {\mathcal{U}}$; for another proof, see [@Bard-Rich-LunaSlice].
It follows from [@Mc:sub-principal Lemma 24] that $\pi$ restricts to a homeomorphism $\pi_{\mid \tilde {\mathcal{U}}}:\tilde {\mathcal{U}}\to
{\mathcal{U}}$, and that $d\pi$ restricts to a homeomorphism $d\pi_{\mid
\tilde {\mathcal{N}}}:\tilde {\mathcal{N}}\to {\mathcal{N}}$. Since the characteristic is good, $d\pi$ is bijective provided that $R \not = A_r$ when $r
\equiv -1 \pmod p$; see the summary in [@hum-conjugacy 0.13]. It follows from the remaining assertion in [@Mc:sub-principal Lemma 24] that $\pi_{\mid \tilde {\mathcal{U}}}$ and $d\pi_{\mid
\tilde {\mathcal{N}}}$ are isomorphisms of varieties when $d\pi$ is bijective, whence the proposition.
In what follows, *we fix an equivariant homeomorphism ${\varepsilon}:{\mathcal{N}}\to {\mathcal{U}}$, to which we will refer without further comment.*
Associated co-characters
========================
Recall that a unipotent $u \in G$ is said to be *distinguished* if the connected center $Z^o(G)$ of $G$ is a maximal torus of $C_G(u)$. A nilpotent element $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is then distinguished if ${\varepsilon}(X)$ has that property.
Let $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ be nilpotent. If $X$ is not distinguished, there is a Levi subgroup $L$ of $G$ for which $X \in {\operatorname{Lie}}(L)$ is distinguished.
A co-character $\phi:k^\times \to G$ is said to be associated to $X$ if $${\operatorname{Ad}}\phi(t) X = t^2 X \quad \text{for each} \quad t \in k^\times,$$ and if the image of $\phi$ lies in the derived group of some Levi subgroup $L$ for which $X \in {\operatorname{Lie}}(L)$ is distinguished.
A co-character $\phi$ is associated to a unipotent $u \in G$ if it is associated to $X={\varepsilon}^{-1}(u)$.
\[prop:co-characters\] Let $u \in G$ be unipotent. Then there exist co-characters associated to $u$, and any two such are conjugate by an element of $C_G^o(u)$.
This is proved in [@jantzen:Nilpotent Lemma 5.3].
The existence of associated co-characters asserted in the the previous proposition relies in an essential way on Pommerening’s proof [@Pommerening] of the Bala-Carter theorem in good characteristic.
Let $\phi$ be a co-character associated to the unipotent $u\in G$, and let ${{\mathfrak{g}}}(i)$ be the $i$-weight space for ${\operatorname{Ad}}\circ \phi(k^\times)$, $i \in
{\mathbf{Z}}$. Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}= \bigoplus_{i \ge 0} {{\mathfrak{g}}}(i)$. Then ${{\mathfrak{p}}}=
{\operatorname{Lie}}(P)$ for a parabolic subgroup $P$ of $G$; $P$ is known as the canonical parabolic associated with $u$.
\[prop:canonical-parabolic\] Let $u \in G$ be unipotent. The parabolic subgroup $P$ is independent of the choice of associated co-character $\phi$ for $u$. Moreover, $C_G(u) \le P$.
[@jantzen:Nilpotent Prop. 5.9]
The proof that $C_G(u) \subset P$ is somewhat subtle in positive characteristic. Let $X = {\varepsilon}^{-1}(u)$. In characteristic 0, the assertion $C_G^o(u) \subset P$ is a consequence of the Lie algebra analogue ${\mathfrak{c}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}(X) \subset {\mathfrak{p}}$ which follows from the Jacobson-Morozov theorem. (The fact that the full centralizer lies in $P$ is then a consequence of the unicity of the canonical parabolic $P$). In good characteristic, the required assertion for the Lie algebra was proved by Spaltenstein, and independently by Premet; see the references in [@jantzen:Nilpotent §5]. In the positive characteristic case, the transition to the group is more subtle; again see *loc. cit.*
The Levi decomposition of a unipotent centralizer
=================================================
In characteristic $p>0$, a linear algebraic group can fail to have a Levi decomposition. Moreover, even when they exist, two Levi factors need not in general be conjugate. If $u \in G$ is unipotent and the characteristic is good for $G$, the connected centralizer $C_G^o(u)$ does have a Levi decomposition, thanks to work of Premet. More precisely:
\[prop:levi-decomposition\] Let $u \in G$ be unipotent, let $P$ be the canonical parabolic associated with $u$ (see Proposition \[prop:canonical-parabolic\]), and let $U_P$ be the unipotent radical of $P$.
1. $R(u) = C_G(u) \cap U_P$ is the unipotent radical of $C_G(u)$.
2. For any co-character $\phi$ associated with $u$, the centralizer $C_\phi$ of $\phi$ in $C_G(u)$ is a Levi factor of $C_G(u)$; i.e. $C_\phi$ is reductive and $C_G(u) = C_\phi \cdot
R(u)$.
3. If $\phi,\phi'$ are two co-characters associated to $u$, then $C_\phi$ and $C_{\phi'}$ are conjugate by an element in $C_G^o(u)$.
[@jantzen:Nilpotent §5.10, 5.11].
The proof that $R(u)$ is a connected (normal, unipotent) group is elementary, as is the fact that $C_G(u) = C_\phi \cdot R(u)$. The proof that $C_\phi$ is reductive depends on work of Premet, and ultimately involves case-checking in small characteristics for exceptional groups.
Semisimple representatives
==========================
If $H$ is a linear algebraic group, in characteristic 0 one may always represent a coset $tH^o \in H/H^o$ by a semisimple element $t \in H$. In characteristic $p>0$ this is no longer true in general (e.g. if $[H:H^o] {\equiv}0 \pmod{p}$).
Let now $G$ be connected, reductive in good characteristic and suppose $u \in G$ is unipotent. Despite the above difficulty, we may always choose semisimple representatives for the elements in the component group $A(u)$.
\[prop:connected-unipotent\] Let $u \in G$ be unipotent, and suppose $v \in C_G(u)$ is also unipotent. Then $v \in C_G^o(u)$.
The proposition follows from [@springer-steinberg III.3.15]. Note that in *loc. cit.* $G$ is assumed semisimple, but the argument works for all reductive $G$ in view of Proposition \[prop:springer-iso\].
\[cor:semisimple-representative\] Let $u \in G$ be unipotent. Then each element of the component group $A(u)$ may be represented by a semisimple element $s \in
C_G(u)$.
Let $g \in C_G(u)$, and let $g=g_s g_u$ be its Jordan decomposition where $g_s$ is semisimple and $g_u$ is unipotent. Proposition \[prop:connected-unipotent\] implies that $g_u \in C_G^o(u)$, whence the corollary.
Pseudo-Levi subgroups
=====================
We collect here a few results on pseudo-Levi subgroups which will be needed in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main-theorem\]. Recall that by a pseudo-Levi subgroup, we mean the connected centralizer of a semisimple element of $G$.
\[lem:ss-centralizer\] Let $S \subset T$ be a subset. Then $C_G^o(S)$ is a reductive subgroup of $G$, and is generated by $T$ together with the root subgroups ${\mathscr{X}}_\alpha$ for which $\alpha(S) =
1$.
[@springer-steinberg II §4.1].
\[prop:misc-plevi\] Let $L=C_G^o(t)$ with $t \in G$ semisimple. Write $Z$ for the center of $L$.
1. $L = C_G^o(tZ^o)$.
2. Let $S$ be a torus in $C_G^o(t)$, and let $M=C_G^o(tS)$. There is a non-empty open subset $U \subseteq tS$ such that $M = C_G^o(x)$ for each $x \in U$. In particular, $M$ is again a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$. If $Z_1$ denotes the center of $M$, then $M = C_G^o(tZ_1^o)$.
3. There is a non-empty open subset $U
\subseteq tZ^o$ such that $L = C_G^o(x)$ for each $x \in U$.
\(1) is straightforward to verify.
For (2), we may suppose that $t$ and $S$ are in $T$. Let $R' =\{\alpha \in R \mid \alpha(tS) = 1\}$. Then $R' \subseteq R_x =
\{\alpha \in R \mid \alpha(x) = 1\}$ for any $x \in tS$. Since $tS$ is an irreducible variety, the intersection of non-empty open subsets $$U=\bigcap_{\alpha \in R \setminus R'} \{x \in tS \mid \alpha(x) \not = 1\}$$ is itself open and non-empty; moreover, it is clear that $R_x = R'$ whenever $x \in U$, so the first assertion of (2) follows from Lemma \[lem:ss-centralizer\].
For the final assertion of (2), first note that $M = C_G^o(t,S) =
C_L^o(S)$ is a Levi subgroup of $L$. By [@DigneMichel Prop. 1.21] we have $M = C_L^o(Z_1^o)$; since $t$ is central in $M$, we have also $M = C_L^o(tZ_1^o)$. Since certainly $C_G^o(tZ_1^o) \subseteq C_G^o(t) = L$, we deduce that $M =
C_G^o(tZ_1^o)$ as desired.
\(3) follows from (1) and (2) with $S = Z^o$.
\[prop:pl-good-char\] Let $G$ be connected and reductive. If the characteristic $p$ of $k$ is good for $G$, and if $L$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$, then $p$ is good for $L$ as well.
As in the proof of Proposition \[prop:springer-iso\], let $\pi:\tilde G \to G$ be an isogeny where $\tilde G = \prod_i G_i
\times S$ with $S$ a torus and each $G_i$ a simply connected quasisimple group. Let $L = C_G^o(t)$. If $\pi(\tilde t) = t$ and $\tilde L = C^o_{\tilde G}(\tilde t)$, then Lemma \[lem:ss-centralizer\] shows that $\pi(\tilde L) = L$. Since $p$ is good for $L$ if and only if it is good for $\tilde L$, we may replace $G$ by $\tilde G$. Since $L = \prod_i (L \cap G_i) \times
S$, it suffices to suppose that $G$ is quasisimple.
According to [@springer-steinberg §4.1,4.3] $p$ is good for $G$ if and only if ${\mathbf{Z}}R/ {\mathbf{Z}}R_1$ has no $p$-torsion for any (integrally) closed subsystem $R_1$ of $R$. Since the root system $R_L$ of $L$ is one such subsystem, it readily follows that $p$ is good for any irreducible component of $R_L$.
\[lem:finite-rep\] Let $L$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$. Then $L=C_G^o(s)$ for a semisimple element $s \in G$ of finite order.
Let $Z$ denote the (full) center of $L$. By [@springer-LAG Exerc. 3.2.10 5(b)], the elements of $Z$ which have finite order are dense in the diagonalizable group $Z$. Now choose $t \in Z$ such that $L=C_G^o(t)$, and let $U \subset tZ^o$ be an open set as in Proposition \[prop:misc-plevi\](3). Then $U$ is also open in $Z$ and hence contains an element $s$ of finite order.
Semisimple automorphisms of reductive groups
============================================
If $H$ is any linear algebraic group, an automorphism $\sigma$ of $H$ is semisimple if there is a linear algebraic group $H'$ with $H \lhd H'$ such that $\sigma = {\operatorname{Int}}(x)_{\mid H}$ for some semisimple $x \in H'$ (where ${\operatorname{Int}}(x)$ denotes the inner automorphism determined by $x$).
\[prop:Steinberg-ss\] Let $H$ be a connected linear algebraic group, and let $\sigma$ be a semisimple automorphism of $H$. Then $\sigma$ fixes a Borel subgroup $B$ of $H$, and a maximal torus $T \subset B$.
[@steinberg-endomorphisms Theorem 7.5].
\[lem:product-decomposition\] Let $A$ be a connected commutative linear algebraic group, let $\sigma$ be a semisimple automorphism of $A$, and let $A^\sigma$ be the fixed points of $\sigma$ on $A$. Then each element $a \in A$ can be written $$a=x \cdot \sigma(y)y^{-1}$$ for $x \in A^\sigma$ and $y \in A$.
The homomorphism $\phi:A^\sigma \times A \to A$ given by $\phi(x,y)
= x \cdot \sigma(y)y^{-1}$ has surjective differential by [@springer-LAG Corollary 5.4.5(ii)], so $\phi$ is surjective.
\[prop:key-conjugacy-result\] Let $H$ be a reductive algebraic group, and suppose the images of the semisimple elements $t,t' \in H$ lie in the same conjugacy class in $H/H^o$. Then there is $g \in H$ and a semisimple $s \in C_H^o(t)$ such that $gt'g^{-1} = ts.$
Replacing $t'$ by $ht'h^{-1}$ for suitable $h \in H$, we can suppose that $t$ and $t'$ have the same image in $H/H^o$.
Applying Proposition \[prop:Steinberg-ss\] we can find $T \subset
B$ where $T$ and $B$ are respectively an ${\operatorname{Int}}(t)$-stable maximal torus and Borel group. Similarly, we can find an ${\operatorname{Int}}(t')$ stable $T' \subset B'$.
Choose $g \in H$ with $B = g^{-1}B'g$. Then $g^{-1}T'g$ is a sub-torus of $B$. Replacing $g$ by $bg$ for some $b \in B$, we can arrange that $g^{-1}T'g = T$; replacing $t'$ by $gt'g^{-1}$, we see that $T \subset B$ is both ${\operatorname{Int}}(t)$-stable and ${\operatorname{Int}}(t')$-stable.
Thus $n=t^{-1}t'$ is in the normalizer of $T$ in $H^o$. Since ${\operatorname{Int}}(n)$ fixes $B$, and since the Weyl group $N_{H^o}(T)/T$ acts simply transitively on the set of Borel subgroups containing $T$, we deduce that $n \in T$. We can therefore write $t' = ta$ for $a \in
T$. By Lemma \[lem:product-decomposition\] we can write $a = x
t^{-1}yty^{-1}$ for some $x \in C_T(t)$ and $y \in T$. Let $g = ty^{-1}$. Then one readily checks that $$gt'g^{-1} = tx$$ and the proof is complete.
\[cor:conjugacy-result\] Let $H$ be a linear algebraic group. Suppose that $\mathcal{M}$ is a collection of Levi factors of $H$ which are all conjugate under $H$. If the semisimple elements $t,t' \in H$ lie in the same conjugacy class in $H/H^o$, and if $t,t' \in \cup_{M \in \mathcal{M}} M$, then there is $g \in H$ and a semisimple element $s \in C_H^o(t)$ such that $gt'g^{-1} = ts$.
Choose $M,M' \in \mathcal{M}$ with $t \in M$ and $t' \in M'$. Since $M$ and $M'$ are $H$-conjugate, replacing $t'$ by an $H$-conjugate permits us to suppose that $t,t' \in M$. Since $M$ is reductive, we deduce the result from Proposition \[prop:key-conjugacy-result\].
We require one further property of pseudo-Levi subgroups, whose proof depends on Proposition \[prop:Steinberg-ss\] and on the following version of a result of Mostow recently obtained by Jantzen [@jantzen:Nilpotent 11.24]:
\[prop:weak-mostow\] Let $\Gamma$ be an algebraic group which is a semidirect product of a (not necessarily connected) reductive group $M$ and a normal unipotent group $R$. Let $H \le \Gamma$ be a linearly reductive closed subgroup of $\Gamma$. Then there exists $r \in R$ with $rHr^{-1} \subset M$.
\[prop:assoc-in-PL\] Let $L$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$ and $u \in L$ a distinguished unipotent element. If a cocharacter of L is associated to $u$ in $L$, then that cocharacter is associated to $u$ in $G$ as well.
Since all cocharacters associated to $u$ in $L$ are conjugate by $C_L^o(u)$ (Proposition \[prop:co-characters\]), it suffices to find some cocharacter of $L$ which is associated to $u$ in both $L$ and $G$.
According to Lemma \[lem:finite-rep\], $L = C_G^o(s)$ for some semisimple element $s$ of finite order. The order of $s$ is then invertible in $k$, so the cyclic subgroup $H$ generated by $s$ is linearly reductive (all of its linear $k$-representations are completely reducible).
Let $\phi$ be any cocharacter of $G$ associated to $u$, and consider the subgroup $N = \phi(k^\times) C_G(u)$ (i.e. the group generated by the centralizer, and by the image of $\phi$; this is the group $N({\varepsilon}^{-1}(u))$ defined in [@jantzen:Nilpotent 2.10(2)]).
According to Proposition \[prop:levi-decomposition\], the centralizer $C_\phi$ of $\phi$ in $C_G(u)$ is a Levi factor of $C_G(u)$. Now $C_\phi'=\phi(k^\times)\cdot C_\phi$ is a Levi factor of $N$. Moreover, the image of $\phi$ is central in $C_\phi'$.
Now take $\Gamma = N$ in Proposition \[prop:weak-mostow\]. Then $H
= \langle s \rangle$ is a linearly reductive subgroup of $\Gamma$. So there is an element $r$ in the unipotent radical of $C_G(u)$ such that $rsr^{-1}$ is in $C_\phi'$. But then $rsr^{-1}$ centralizes the image of $\phi$, so that $s$ centralizes the image of $\phi'={\operatorname{Int}}(r^{-1}) \circ \phi$. Thus, $\phi'$ is a cocharacter of $L$.
We claim that $\phi'$ is associated to $u$ in $L$. Since the map ${\varepsilon}:{\mathcal{N}}\to {\mathcal{U}}$ is $G$-equivariant and thus restricts to a homeomorphism ${\mathcal{N}}(L) \to {\mathcal{U}}(L)$, we must see that $\phi'$ is associated to ${\varepsilon}^{-1}(u)$. Thus, we only must verify that $\phi'$ takes values in the derived group of $L$.
For each maximal torus $S$ of $C_{\phi'}$, $u$ is distinguished in $M = C_G(S)$ and the image of $\phi'$ lies in the derived group $(M,M)$ (to see this last assertion, note that it holds for *some* such $S$ since $\phi'$ is associated to $u$ in $G$, and hence for all such $S$ by conjugacy of maximal tori in $C_{\phi'}$).
We may choose a maximal torus $S \le C_{\phi'}$ containing the connected center of $L$. Since $C_{\phi'}$ is normalized by $s$, we may also suppose by Proposition \[prop:Steinberg-ss\] that $S$ is normalized by $s$. Then $C_S^o(s)$ is a torus in $C_L(u)$; since $u$ is distinguished in $L$, we see that $C_S^o(s)$ is contained in (and hence coincides with) the connected center of $L$.
The subgroup $M$ is normalized by $s$, and the proposition will follow if we can show that $\phi'$ takes values in the derived group of $C_M^o(s)$ (since $C_M^o(s) \subset L$).
We first claim that $C_S^o(s)$ is the maximal central torus of $C^o_M(s)$. Indeed, if $C_S^o(s) \subset S'$ with $S'$ a central torus of $C^o_M(s)$, then $S'$ centralizes $s$ and $u$ so that $S'
\subset C_L(u)$; since $C_S^o(s)$ is the unique maximal torus of $C_L(u)$, $S' = C_S^o(s)$ as claimed.
The proposition is now a consequence of the lemma which follows.
Let $M$ be a connected, reductive group, and suppose that $\sigma$ is a semisimple automorphism of $M$. If $S$ is a $\sigma$-stable central torus in $M$ and $C_S^o(\sigma)$ is the maximal central torus of $C^o_M(\sigma)$, then $$\label{eq:derived-=}
(C_M^o(\sigma),C_M^o(\sigma)) = C_{(M,M)}^o(\sigma).$$
The inclusion $$(C_M^o(\sigma),C_M^o(\sigma)) \subseteq C_{(M,M)}^o(\sigma)$$ is immediate (by [@springer-LAG 2.2.8] the group on the left is connected; it is also evidently a $\sigma$-stable subgroup generated by commutators in $M$).
On the other hand, according to [@steinberg-endomorphisms 9.4], $N=C_{(M,M)}^o(\sigma)$ is reductive. We claim that $N$ is semisimple; if that is so then $N=(N,N)$; since $N \subseteq
C_M^o(\sigma)$, equality in will follow.
Write $Z$ for the connected center of $M$. Then $Z \cap (M,M)$ is finite; see e.g. [@springer-LAG 8.1.6]. Since $S \subseteq Z$, we see that $C_S^o(\sigma) \cap N$ is finite as well.
Now let $T$ be any $\sigma$-stable maximal torus of $M$. We know that ${\operatorname{Lie}}(M)$ is the sum of ${\operatorname{Lie}}((M,M))$ and ${\operatorname{Lie}}(T)$, since ${\operatorname{Lie}}((M,M))$ contains each non-zero $T$-weight space of ${\operatorname{Lie}}(M)$. It follows from [@springer-LAG Lemma 4.4.12] that the differential at $(1,1)$ of the product map $\mu:T \times (M,M) \to
M$ is surjective. Since $d\sigma$ is diagonalizable, $d\mu_{(1,1)}$ restricts to a surjective map on $d\sigma$-eigenspaces (for each eigenvalue); especially, it restricts to a surjective map on the fixed points of $d\sigma$. Reinterpreting the $d\sigma$-fixed points via [@springer-LAG 5.4.4], we see that the restriction of $d\mu_{(1,1)}$ to ${\operatorname{Lie}}(C_T(\sigma)) \oplus
{\operatorname{Lie}}(C_{(M,M)}(\sigma))$ surjects onto ${\operatorname{Lie}}(C_M(\sigma))$. It follows that $\mu$ restricts to a dominant morphism $\tilde
\mu:C^o_T(\sigma) \times N \to C^o_M(\sigma)$; cf. [@springer-LAG 4.3.6]. Since $C^o_T(\sigma)$ normalizes $N$, the image is a subgroup. As $C^o_M(\sigma)$ is connected, $\tilde
\mu$ is surjective.
Let $R$ denote the radical of $N$ ($R$ is the maximal central torus of $N$). By Proposition \[prop:Steinberg-ss\], $R$ is contained in $C_T(\sigma)$ for some $\sigma$-stable maximal torus $T$ of $M$. Applying the considerations of the previous paragraph to this $T$, we get that $C^o_M(\sigma) = C^o_T(\sigma) \cdot N$. It follows that $R$ is a central torus in $C^o_M(\sigma)$. Since $C_S^o(\sigma)$ is by assumption the maximal central torus of $C^o_M(\sigma)$, we have that $R \subseteq C_S^o(\sigma) \cap N$ is finite, so $R=1$ and $N$ is indeed semisimple.
Though we shall not have occasion to use it here, the conclusion of Proposition \[prop:assoc-in-PL\] is true more generally: $(*)$ if $L$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup, and if $\phi$ is a cocharacter of $L$ associated to a unipotent $u \in L$, then $\phi$ is associated to $u$ in $G$. This follows from Proposition \[prop:assoc-in-PL\] together with the observation that a Levi subgroup of $L$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$ (Proposition \[prop:misc-plevi\](2)), and that $(*)$ holds when $L$ is a Levi subgroup.
Establishing the main result {#sec:main-proof}
============================
Let ${\mathscr{A}}$ be the set of triples ${\mathbf{a}}=(L,tZ^o,u)$ where $L$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$ with center $Z$, $tZ^o \in Z/Z^o$ satisfies $C_G^o(tZ^o) = L$, and $u \in L$ is a distinguished unipotent element. The action of $G$ on itself by inner automorphisms determines an action of $G$ on ${\mathscr{A}}$.
For ${\mathbf{a}}= (L,tZ^o,u) \in {\mathscr{A}}$, we set $u({\mathbf{a}}) = u$, and we write $c({\mathbf{a}}) \subset A(u)$ for the element $c({\mathbf{a}}) = tC_G^o(u)$.
Let ${\mathscr{B}}$ be the set of all pairs $(u,x)$ where $u \in G$ is unipotent and $x \in A(u)$. The action of $G$ on itself by inner automorphisms yields an action of $G$ on ${\mathscr{B}}$.
To ${\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathscr{A}}$ we associate the pair $\Phi({\mathbf{a}}) =
(u({\mathbf{a}}),c({\mathbf{a}})) \in {\mathscr{B}}$.
\[lem:surjective\] Let $(u,c) \in {\mathscr{B}}$. Then there is ${\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathscr{A}}$ with $\Phi({\mathbf{a}}) = (u,c)$.
Choose a semisimple $t \in C_G(u)$ whose image in $A(u)$ represents $c$ (Corollary \[cor:semisimple-representative\]). Let $S$ be a maximal torus of $C_G^o(u,t)$. Then $L = C_G^o(t,S) = C_G^o(tS)$ is a pseudo-Levi subgroup of $G$ containing $u$, and $L = C_G^o(tZ^o)$ where $Z$ denotes the center of $L$ (Proposition \[prop:misc-plevi\](2)).
It remains to show that ${\mathbf{a}}= (L,tZ^o,u)$ is in ${\mathscr{A}}$, i.e. that $u$ is distinguished in $L$. Let $A$ be a maximal torus of $C_L(u)$; we must show that $A$ is in the center of $L$. Note that $A$ is a subtorus of $B=C_G^o(u,t)$ and that $A$ centralizes $S$. In particular, $A$ is contained in the Cartan subgroup $H=C_B(S)$; by [@springer-LAG Prop 6.4.2] $H$ is nilpotent and $S$ is its unique maximal torus. Thus $A$ is contained in $S$, hence $A$ is central in $L$.
It is clear that $\Phi({\mathbf{a}}) = (u,c)$; this completes the proof.
\[lem:injective\] Let ${\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{b}}\in {\mathscr{A}}$, and suppose that $u = u({\mathbf{a}}) = u({\mathbf{b}})$. If $c({\mathbf{a}})$ and $c({\mathbf{b}})$ are conjugate in $A(u)$, then there is $g \in C_G(u)$ with ${\mathbf{a}}= g{\mathbf{b}}$.
Write ${\mathbf{a}}= (L,tZ^o,u)$ and ${\mathbf{b}}= (L',t'{Z'}^o,u)$. By Proposition \[prop:misc-plevi\](3), we may choose the representatives $t,t'$ such that $L = C_G^o(t)$ and $L'=C_G^o(t')$.
Let $\phi:k^\times \to L$ be a co-character associated to $u$ for the pseudo-Levi subgroup $L$; see Propositions \[prop:pl-good-char\] and \[prop:co-characters\]. Then $\phi$ is associated to $u$ in $G$ as well; see Proposition \[prop:assoc-in-PL\]. Evidently, $t \in C_\phi$, where $C_\phi$ is the Levi factor of $C_G(u)$ of Proposition \[prop:levi-decomposition\]. Similarly, $t'$ lies in a Levi factor $C_{\phi'}$ of $C_G(u)$.
Consider the collection $\mathcal{M} = \{C_\phi \mid \phi$ is associated to $u\}$ of Levi factors of $C_G(u)$. Then any two Levi factors in $\mathcal{M}$ are conjugate under $C_G^o(u)$ by Proposition \[prop:levi-decomposition\]. The previous paragraph shows that $t,t' \in \cup_{M \in \mathcal{M}} M$, hence we may apply Corollary \[cor:conjugacy-result\]. That corollary yields $g\in
C_G(u)$ and a semisimple $s \in C_G^o(u,t)$, such that $gt'g^{-1} =
ts$.
Choose a maximal torus $S$ of $C_G^o(u,t)$ containing $s$. Then $S \subset L$ and $S$ centralizes $u$; since $u$ is distinguished in $L$, it follows that $s \in S \subset Z^o$. We have $$gL'g^{-1} = C_G^o(gt'g^{-1}) = C_G^o(ts).$$ Since $s \in Z^o$, we find that $L \subseteq C_G^o(ts)$. Thus $\dim
L' \ge \dim L$. A symmetric argument shows that $\dim L' \le \dim
L$, hence equality holds. We deduce that $gL'g^{-1} = C_G^o(ts) = L$, and so $g{\mathbf{b}}= {\mathbf{a}}$ as desired.
In the notation introduced in this section, Theorem \[theorem:main-theorem\] is equivalent to: $\Phi$ induces a bijection from the set ${\mathscr{A}}/G$ of $G$-orbits on ${\mathscr{A}}$ to the set ${\mathscr{B}}/G$ of $G$-orbits on ${\mathscr{B}}$.
First note that $\Phi(g{\mathbf{a}}) = g\Phi({\mathbf{a}})$ for each ${\mathbf{a}}\in
{\mathscr{A}}$, so that indeed $\Phi$ induces a well-defined map $\overline{\Phi}:{\mathscr{A}}/G \to {\mathscr{B}}/G$. Lemma \[lem:surjective\] implies that $\Phi$ itself is surjective, hence also $\overline{\Phi}$ is surjective. Finally, Lemma \[lem:injective\] shows that that $\overline{\Phi}$ is injective; this proves the theorem.
Centralizers of semisimple elements in quasisimple groups {#sec:semisimple-centralizers}
=========================================================
In this section, we characterize the pseudo-Levi subgroups of $G$ when the root system is irreducible (i.e. when $G$ is quasisimple); the results are applied in the next section. The characterization we give is well-known (certainly in characteristic 0), but as we have not located an adequate reference (see Remark \[rem:deriziotis\] below), and since the arguments are not too lengthy, we include most details.
Let $T$ be any torus over $k$ with co-character group $Y$ (in the application, we take $T$ to be a maximal torus of $G$). We denote by $V = Y {\otimes}{\mathbf{R}}$ the extension of $Y$ to a real vector space, and by ${\mathbf{T}}= V/Y$ the resulting compact (topological) torus. If $X$ is the character group of $T$, then $X$ identifies naturally with the Pontrjagin dual $\hat {\mathbf{T}}= {\operatorname{Hom}}({\mathbf{T}},{\mathbf{R}}/{\mathbf{Z}})$ of ${\mathbf{T}}$ \[note that we regard ${\mathbf{R}}/{\mathbf{Z}}$ as a *multiplicative* group\]. The following lemma due to T. A. Springer may be found in [@steinberg-endomorphisms §5.1]
\[lem:springer-dual-lemma\]
1. For each $t \in T$, there is $t' \in {\mathbf{T}}$ with the following property: $$(*) \quad \text{for each $\lambda \in X$, $\lambda(t) = 1$ if
and only if $\lambda(t') = 1$.}$$
2. Conversely, if $t' \in {\mathbf{T}}$ has finite order, relatively prime to $p$ if $p>0$, there is $t \in T$ for which $(*)$ holds.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, *we suppose in this section that $R$ is irreducible, so that $G$ is quasisimple.*
Let $\tilde S = S \cup \{\alpha_0\}$ where $\alpha_0 = -\tilde
\alpha$; thus $\tilde S$ labels the vertices of the extended Dynkin diagram of the root system $R$. For any subset $J \subsetneq \tilde
S$, let $R_J = {\mathbf{Z}}J \cap R$. Note that we do not require the characteristic to be good for $G$ in this section.
\[lem:R\_t=R\_J\] Let $T$ be our fixed maximal torus of $G$, and let ${\mathbf{T}}$ be the corresponding compact topological torus. For $t \in {\mathbf{T}}$, put $R_t
= \{\alpha \in R \mid \alpha(t) = 1\}$. Then there is $J \subsetneq
\tilde S$ such that $R_t$ is conjugate to $R_J$ by an element of $W$, the Weyl group of $R$.
Let $\tilde t \in V$ represent $t \in {\mathbf{T}}$. For some element $\tilde w$ of the affine Weyl group $W_a = W \cdot {\mathbf{Z}}Y$, $\tilde
w\tilde t$ lies in the fundamental alcove $A_o$ in $V$ (whose walls are labeled by $\tilde S$). The image of $\tilde w \tilde t$ in $V$ is then $wt$, where $w$ is the image of $\tilde w$ in the finite Weyl group $W$, and $R_{wt} = w^{-1}R_t$. Thus, we suppose that $t$ can be represented by a vector in $A_o$. In that case, let $J =
\{\alpha \in \tilde S \mid \alpha(t) = 1\}$. Then the equality of $R_t$ and $R_J$ is proved in [@lusztig-unipotent-p-adic Lemma 5.4] (in *loc. cit.*, Lusztig works instead with the complex torus $Y {\otimes}{\mathbf{C}}/ Y$, but his argument is readily adapted to the current situation).
For a subset $J \subsetneq \tilde S$, we consider the subgroup $$L_J = \langle T, {\mathscr{X}}_\alpha \mid \alpha \in R_J \rangle.$$
\[prop:semisimple-centralizer\] Let $t \in G$ be semisimple. Then $C_G^o(t)$ is conjugate to a subgroup $L_J$ for some $J \subsetneq \tilde S$.
We may suppose that $t \in T$. Set $R_t = \{\alpha \in R \mid
\alpha(t) = 1\}$. According to Lemma \[lem:ss-centralizer\], $C_G^o(t)$ is generated by $T$ and the ${\mathscr{X}}_\alpha$ with $\alpha \in
R_t$. With notations as before, choose $t' \in {\mathbf{T}}$ with the property $(*)$ of Lemma \[lem:springer-dual-lemma\] for $t$. Thus $R_t = R_{t'}$. Lemma \[lem:R\_t=R\_J\] implies that $R_t$ and $R_J$ are $W$-conjugate for some $J \subsetneq \tilde S$; thus $C_G^o(t)$ is conjugate in $G$ to $L_J$ as desired.
\[rem:deriziotis\] When $k$ is an algebraic closure of a finite field, Proposition \[prop:semisimple-centralizer\] was proved by D. I. Deriziotis, and is stated in [@hum-conjugacy 2.15]. See the last paragraph of *loc. cit.* §2.15 for a discussion.
In good characteristic, the converse of the previous proposition is true as well:
\[prop:simple-pseudo-levi\] Suppose that the characteristic of $k$ is good for $G$. Let $J \subsetneq \tilde S$, and let $Z$ be the center of $L_J$. There is $t \in Z$ with $L_J = C_G^o(t)$.
It suffices to suppose that $G$ is adjoint. In that case, there are vectors $\varpi_\alpha^\vee \in Y$, $\alpha \in S$, dual to the basis $S$ of $X$. We suppose that $\alpha_0 \in J$, since otherwise $L_J$ is a Levi subgroup and the result holds (in all characteristics) e.g. by [@springer-LAG 6.4.3].
Denote by $\{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_r\} \subset S$ the simple roots which are not in $J$. Since $J \not = \tilde S$, we have $r \ge
1$. Write $\varpi_i^\vee = \varpi_{\alpha_i}^\vee$. Choose $\ell$ a prime number different from $p$, and let $s \in {\mathbf{T}}$ be the image of $$\tilde s = \dfrac{\ell - (a_2 + \cdots + a_r)}{a_1\ell} \varpi_1^\vee +
\dfrac{1}{\ell} \sum_{i=2}^r \varpi_i^\vee \in V.$$ We have written $a_i$ for the coefficient $a_{\alpha_i}$; see eq. . If $r>1$, the order of $s$ is divisible by $\ell$ and divides $a_1 \ell$; if $J = \tilde S \setminus
\{\alpha_1\}$, $s$ has order $a_1$. Since $p$ is good, the order of $s$ is thus relatively prime to $p$. If $\ell$ is chosen sufficiently large, we have $J = \{\beta \in \tilde S \mid \langle
\beta,\tilde s \rangle \in {\mathbf{Z}}\}.$ Since $\tilde s$ lies in the fundamental alcove $A_o$, (the proof of) Lemma \[lem:R\_t=R\_J\] implies that $R_s = R_J$. Choose an element $t \in T$ corresponding to $s \in {\mathbf{T}}$ as in Lemma \[lem:springer-dual-lemma\](b). By Lemma \[lem:ss-centralizer\], $C_G^o(t)$ is generated by $T$ and the ${\mathscr{X}}_\alpha$ with $\alpha \in
R_s$; thus $C_G^o(t) = L_J$ as desired.
Explicit descriptions for simple and adjoint $G$ {#sec:explicit}
================================================
In this section, we consider $G$ simple of adjoint type. Thus the roots $R$ span the weight lattice $X$ over ${\mathbf{Z}}$ and the root system is irreducible. The characteristic of $k$ is assumed to be good for $G$ throughout.
The results of the previous section show that in good characteristic, a pseudo-Levi subgroup in the sense of this paper (connected centralizer of a semisimple element) is the same as a pseudo-Levi subgroup in the sense of [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter] (subgroup conjugate to some $L_J$).
\[lem:adjoint-lem-1\] Let $L_J$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup with center $Z$.
1. Put $d_J = \gcd(a_\alpha \mid \alpha \in \tilde S \setminus
J)$. Then $Z/Z^o$ is cyclic of order $d_J$.
2. Every element of the character group of $Z/Z^o$ can be represented by a root in $R$.
Since $p$ is good, ${\mathbf{Z}}R/ {\mathbf{Z}}J$ has no $p$-torsion. Thus the character group $X(Z/Z^o)$ is isomorphic to the torsion subgroup of ${\mathbf{Z}}R / {\mathbf{Z}}J$ as in [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter §2], so the proof of (1) in *loc. cit.* remains valid over $k$.
It is also true that $X(Z/Z^o)$ is naturally isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}\bar{R}_J / {\mathbf{Z}}J$ where $\bar{R}_J$ denotes the rational closure of $R_J$ in $R$. We will show that the set $\bar{R}_J$ surjects onto the latter cyclic group. Now $\bar{R}_J$ is the root system of a Levi subgroup of $G$, and so it contains at most one irreducible component of type different than type $A$. Since the rank of ${\mathbf{Z}}R_J$ equals the rank of ${\mathbf{Z}}\bar{R}_J$, the type $A$ components of $\bar{R}_J$ play no role (every root sub-system is rationally closed in type $A$), and so we may assume that $\bar{R}_J$ is irreducible. Then $R_J$ is a root system with Dynkin diagram obtained by removing one simple root $\alpha$ from the extended Dynkin diagram of $\bar{R}_J$. Since there exists a positive root in $\bar{R}_J$ whose coefficient on $\alpha$ is any number between $1$ and $d_J$ (note that $d_J$ is necessarily the coefficient of the highest root of $\bar{R}_J$ on $\alpha$), (2) follows.
\[lem:adjoint-lem-2\] Let $L$ be a pseudo-Levi subgroup with center $Z$.
1. For $t \in Z$, we have $L = C^o_G(tZ^o)$ if and only if $tZ^o$ generates $Z/Z^o$.
2. If $u \in L$ is a distinguished unipotent element, then the group $N_G(L) \cap C_G(u)$ acts transitively on the generators of the cyclic group $Z/Z^o$.
We always have $L=C^o_G(Z) \subset C^o_G(tZ^o) \subset C^o_G(Z^o)$. Hence if $tZ^o$ generates $Z/Z^o$, then clearly $L=C^o_G(tZ^o)$. For the converse, we may assume that $L=C^o_G(t)$ by Proposition \[prop:misc-plevi\]. If $tZ^o$ fails to generate $Z/Z^o$, then by the previous lemma there exists a root $\beta \in R$ such that $\beta(t)=1$, but $\beta$ is non-trivial on $Z$. By Lemma \[lem:ss-centralizer\] this contradicts the fact that $C^o_G(Z)=C^o_G(t)$, and (1) follows.
Assertion (2) follows from [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter Prop. 8].
\[prop:main-adjoint-result\] [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter] To a pair $(L,u)$ of a pseudo-Levi subgroup $L$ with center $Z$ and distinguished unipotent element $u \in L$, assign the pair $(u,c)$ where $c \in A(u)$ is the image of any generator of $Z/Z^o$. Then this map defines a bijection between the $G$-orbits on the pairs $(L,u)$ and the $G$-orbits on the pairs $(u,c)$.
In view of Lemma \[lem:adjoint-lem-2\], this follows from Theorem \[theorem:main-theorem\].
To determine the isomorphism type of the groups $A(u)$ we need to argue that the calculations in [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter] remain valid over $k$.
Let $\hat G$ be the group over ${\mathbf{C}}$ with the same root datum as $G$. Since the characteristic is good, the Bala-Carter-Pommerening theorem shows that unipotent classes of $G$ and of $\hat G$ are parametrized by their labeled diagram; cf. [@jantzen:Nilpotent 4.7 and 4.13]. It follows immediately that the $G$-orbits of pairs $(L,u)$ as in the previous proposition are parametrized by the same combinatorial data as for $\hat G$; namely, $(L,u)$ corresponds to the pair $(J,D_J)$ where $J$ is a proper subset of $\tilde S$ and $L$ is conjugate to $L_J$ (see Proposition \[prop:semisimple-centralizer\]), and where $D_J$ is the labeled Dynkin diagram of the class of $u$ in $L$. As in the remarks preceding [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter Remark 6], the $G$-orbit of $(L,u)$ identifies with the $W$-orbit of $(J,D_J)$.
Now given a unipotent class in $G$ with labeled diagram $D$, we are left with the task of determining which pairs $(L,u)$ (up to $G$-conjugacy) as in the previous proposition are such that $u$ has diagram $D$ in $G$. Since an associated cocharacter of $u$ in $L$ is associated to $u$ in $G$ by Proposition \[prop:assoc-in-PL\], we may begin with the labeled diagram of $u$ for $L$ and produce by $W$-conjugation the labeled diagram of $u$ for $G$; see [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter §3.3]. It is now clear that our task is combinatorial: for a fixed $J \subsetneq \tilde S$, we must find all “distinguished” labeled diagrams for $L_J$ which have $D$ as a $W$-conjugate. The calculations are carried out in [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter §3.3, 3.4, 3.5], and they remain valid for $k$. Thanks to Proposition \[prop:main-adjoint-result\], this gives a bijection between the conjugacy classes of $A(u)$ and those of $A(\hat u)$.
According to Lemma \[lem:adjoint-lem-1\](1), the order of a representative element in $A(u)$ for the class determined by the pair $(L,u)$ is independent of the ground field. According to [@sommers-generalized-bala-carter §3.4,§3.5], knowledge of the conjugacy classes and the orders of representing elements in $A(\hat
u)$ are sufficient to determine the group structure. The same then holds for $A(u)$, and we have proved:
\[theorem:adjoint\] For each unipotent element $u \in G$, let $\hat u \in \hat G$ be a unipotent element with the same labeled diagram as $u$. Then $A(u) {\simeq}A(\hat u)$.
[Hum95]{}
A. V. Alekseevski[ĭ]{}, *Component groups of centralizers of unipotent elements in semisimple algebraic groups*, Akad. Nauk Gruzin. SSR Trudy Tbiliss. Mat. Inst. Razmadze **62** (1979), 5–27, Collection of articles on algebra, 2.
Peter Bardsley and R. W. Richardson, *Étale slices for algebraic transformation groups in characteristic $p$*, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **51** (1985), no. 2, 295–317.
F. Digne and J. Michel, *Representations of finite groups of [L]{}ie type*, London Math. Soc. Student Texts, vol. 21, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
James E. Humphreys, *Conjugacy classes in semisimple algebraic groups*, Math. Surveys and Monographs, vol. 43, Amer. Math. Soc., 1995.
Jens Carsten Jantzen, *Nilpotent orbits in representation theory*, Notes from Odense summer school, August 2000.
George Lusztig, *Classification of unipotent representations of simple $p$-adic groups*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (1995), no. 11, 517–589.
George J. McNinch, *Sub-principal homomorphisms in positive characteristic*, Math. Zeitschrift, to appear. arXiv: math.RT/0108140.
Kenzo Mizuno, *The conjugate classes of unipotent elements of the [C]{}hevalley groups ${E}\sb{7}$ and ${E}\sb{8}$*, Tokyo J. Math. **3** (1980), no. 2, 391–461.
Klaus Pommerening, *Über die unipotenten [K]{}lassen reduktiver [G]{}ruppen, [I]{}, [II]{}*, J. Algebra (1977), **49**, 525–536. J. Algebra **65** (1980), 373–398.
Eric Sommers, *A generalization of the [B]{}ala-[C]{}arter theorem for nilpotent orbits*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (1998), no. 11, 539–562.
Tonny A. Springer, *The unipotent variety of a semi-simple group*, Algebraic Geometry (Internat. Colloq., Tata Inst. Fund. Res., Bombay, 1968), Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1969, pp. 373–391.
[to3em]{}, *Linear algebraic groups*, 2nd ed., Progr. in Math., vol. 9, Birkh[ä]{}user, Boston, 1998.
Tonny A. Springer and Robert Steinberg, *Conjugacy classes*, Seminar on Algebraic Groups and Related Finite Groups (The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., 1968/69), Springer, Berlin, 1970, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 131, pp. 167–266.
Robert Steinberg, *Endomorphisms of linear algebraic groups*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1968.
[^1]: Both authors were supported in part by the National Science Foundation; the first author, by DMS-9970301 and the second author, by DMS-0070674.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent progress in the calculation of the two-loop on-shell mass counterterms within the electroweak Standard Model (SM) for the massive particles are discussed. We are in progress of developing a package for full two-loop SM calculations of 2 $\to$ 2 fermion processes, with emphasis on the analytical approach where feasible. The complete two-loop on-shell renormalization is implemented. Substantial progress has been made in calculating the master integrals. We are able to compute in an efficient and stable manner up to a few thousands of diagrams of very complex mass structure.'
address: 'DESY, Platanenallee 6, D-15738, Zeuthen, Germany'
author:
- 'F. Jegerlehner [^1] and M.Yu Kalmykov[^2] [^3]'
title: 'Steps towards full two-loop calculations for 2 fermion to 2 fermion processes: running versus pole masses schemes'
---
Introduction
============
Even for the simplest physical processes like $e^+e^- \to f\bar{f}$ complete two-loop electroweak SM calculations still are not available, maninly because of the enourmous complexity of such calculations. An exception is the $\mu$–decay rate [@Awramik:2002wn], which is simpler due to the fact that it is a static quantity. Besides the large number of diagrams encountered, the difficulties start at the level of individual Feymnan integrals and increase substantially when going from propagators to vertices or box contributions. One key problem at the beginning is the renormalization and the calculation of the necessary counterterms. In the QED like on-shell renormalization scheme the basic input parameters for electroweak higher order calculations are the fine structure constant $\alpha=\frac{e^2}{4\pi}$ and all the physical particle masses. In this scheme the whole renormalization program only requires the calculation of selfenergy diagrams and tadpoles. While the calculation of the counterterm for the fine structure constant is relatively easy (at zero momentum) [@Degrassi:2003rw], the on-shell mass counterterms are much more involved. In this note we therefore focus on aspects of calculating the latter, which yields the relation between bare, $\overline{\rm MS}$ and on-shell (pole) masses (two-loop renormalization constant in on-shell scheme). Many details on this program may be found in the original publications [@poleI; @pole-top] and will not be repeated here. We rather concentrate on some controversal points concerning the definition of $\overline{\rm MS}$ masses in electroweak theory (Sec. 2). We also give some more specific information concerning our numerical approach to the calculation of huge sets of diagrams (Sec. 3).
$\overline{\rm MS}$-masses of particles in SM and renormalization group equations
===================================================================================
The two-loop calculation of pole masses of the gauge bosons in the SM has been discussed in [@poleI; @pole-top]. In terms of the transversal self-energy function $\Pi(p^2,m^2,\cdots)$, by expansion about $p^2=-m^2$, will get the two loop solution $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
s_P = m^2 - \Pi^{(1)} - \Pi^{(2)}
- \Pi^{(1)} \Pi^{(1)}{}' \;,
\label{polemass}\end{aligned}$$ for the location of the pole $s_P$. $\Pi^{(L)}$ is the bare or $\overline{\rm MS}$-renormalized $L$-loop contribution to $\Pi$, the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $p^2$. One of the remarkable properties of (\[polemass\]) is that the complex pole is represented by the self-energy and its derivative at momentum equal to the bare or $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass which, by definition, are real parameters. The standard parametrization of the pole is $s_{P,a} =
M^2_a - i M_a \Gamma_a$, where $M_a$ is the pole mass and $\Gamma_a$ is the width of particle $a$.
For calculations of electroweak corrections in the SM two renormalization schemes are commonly accepted: the on-shell and the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme. It is well understood, that in the on-shell scheme all momentum independent diagrams, in particular the tadpoles, can be omitted (the on-shell scheme is a particular case of a momentum subtraction scheme: finite parts are fixed by subtraction of the propagators at $p^2=-s_P$). The set of diagrams contributing to the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass are not unambiguously defined. Let us first express the pole (\[polemass\]) in terms of the bare amplitude in a manifestly gauge invariant manner. This requires to include the Higgs tadpole contribution [@FJ]. Only this complete gauge invariant bare amplitude should be utilized as a starting point to set up $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization. At the two-loop level $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization can be written as\
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
s_{P} = m_{0}^2 \!-\! \Pi^{(1)}_{0}
\!-\! \Pi_{0}^{(2)} \!-\! \Pi^{(1)}_{0} \Pi_{0}^{(1)}{}'
\nonumber\\ && \hspace{-5mm}
\!-\! \Biggl[ \sum\limits_j (\delta m^2_{j,0})^{(1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial m_{j,0}^2}
\!+\! \sum\limits_j (\delta g_{j,0})^{(1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial g_{j,0}}
\Biggr] \Pi_{0}^{(1)}
\nonumber\\ && \hspace{-5mm}
= m^2_a
\!-\! \left \{ \! \Pi_a^{(1)} \! \right\}_{\overline{\rm MS}}
\!-\! \left \{ \! \Pi_a^{(2)} \!+\! \Pi_a^{(1)} \Pi_a^{(1)}{}' \! \right\}_{\overline{\rm MS}}
\label{mct}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum runs over all species of particles, $g_j = \alpha$, $g_s$, $(\delta g_{j,0})^{(1)}$ and $(\delta m^2_{j,0})^{(1)}$ are the one-loop counterterms for the charges and physical masses in the [[$\overline{\rm MS}$ ]{}]{}-scheme and after differentiation we put all parameters equal to their on-shell values. The derivatives in Eq. (\[mct\]) correspond to the subtraction of sub-divergencies. The genuine two-loop mass counterterm comes from the shift of the $m_{0}^2$ term. The relation between bare- and [$\overline{\rm MS}$ ]{}-masses has the form\
$$m_{a,0}^2 = m_a^2(\mu)\:
( 1 + \sum_{k=1} Z_a^{(k)} {\varepsilon}^{-k} )\;.
\label{singular}$$ To renormalize the pole mass at the two-loop level requires to calculate the one-loop renormalization constants for all physical parameters (charge and masses), and the two-loop renormalization constant only for the mass itself. Not needed are the wave-function renormalization or ghost (unphysical) sector renormalizations. After UV-renormalization the pole is represented in terms of finite amplitudes. Now, expression (\[mct\]) connects the pole $s_P$ with the $\overline{\rm MS}$ parameters: masses and charges. This expression can be inverted and solved iteratively. The solution to two-loop reads\
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-7mm}
m_a^2 \!=\! M_a^2
\!+\! {\rm Re} \left \{ \! \Pi_a^{(1)} \! \right\}_{\overline{\rm MS}}
\!+\! {\rm Re} \left \{ \! \Pi_a^{(2)} \!+\! \Pi_a^{(1)} \Pi_a^{(1)}{}' \! \right\}_{\overline{\rm MS}}
\nonumber\\ && \hspace{-7mm}
\!+\! \left[ \!
(\Delta e)^{(1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial e}
\!+\!
\sum\limits_j (\Delta m^2_j)^{(1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial m_j^2}
\! \right]
{\rm Re} \left \{ \Pi_a^{(1)} \right\}_{\overline{\rm MS}}
\label{reverse}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum runs over all species of particles $j=Z,\,W,\,H, \, t$, $ (\Delta m^2_j)^{(1)}= {\rm Re} \left \{ \Pi_j
\right\}_{\overline{\rm MS}} \;, $ and the transition from the [$\overline{\rm MS}$ ]{}to the on-shell scheme for the electric charge [@FJ03] is also included. The mass on the l.h.s. of this expression we call the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$-mass of particle. It should be noted, that in this definition the tadpole contribution does not cancel, so that higher powers of the Higgs and the top-quark mass show up at higher orders. In particular, at two-loops, the purely bosonic diagrams generate $m_H^4/m_V^4$ terms and the third fermion family gives rise to the appearance of $m_t^6/(m_H^2 m_V^4)$ power corrections. For the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$-masses, defined in this way, the following properties are valid:
${\bf 1.}$ The UV counter-terms satisfy relations connecting the higher order poles with the lower order ones: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
\biggl(
\gamma_a \!+\!\sum_j \beta_{g_j} \frac{\partial}{\partial g_j }
\!+\! \sum_i \gamma_i m_i^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial m_i^2} \biggr) Z_a^{(n)}
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
= \frac{1}{2} \sum_j g_j \frac{\partial}{\partial g_j } Z_a^{(n+1)} \;, \end{aligned}$$ where we adopt the following definitions for the RG functions: for all dimensionless coupling constants, like $g,g',g_s,e,\lambda, y_t$, the $\beta$-function is given by $\mu^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu^2} g = \beta_g$ and for all mass parameters (a mass or the Higgs v.e.v. $v$) the anomalous dimension $\gamma_{m^2}$ is given by $\mu^2
\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu^2} \ln m^2 = \gamma_{m^2}.$
${\bf 2.}$ Using the fact that $s_P$ is RG-invariant: $\mu^2 \frac{d}{d \mu^2} s_P \!\equiv \!0$, we are able to calculate the anomalous dimension of the masses from our finite results (\[reverse\]) or from the UV counterterms (\[singular\])\
$$\gamma_a = \sum_j \frac{1}{2} g_j \frac{\partial}{\partial g_j } Z_a^{(1)}
\;, (j=g,g_s).$$
${\bf 3.}$ All tree level relations between masses of any particles and parameters of the unbroken Lagrangian are RG invariant. This means, in particular, that the RG equation for the vacuum expectation value $v$ is given by $\gamma_{v^2} \equiv \gamma_{m^2} - \beta_\lambda/\lambda$, where $m^2$ and $\lambda$ are the parameters of the symmetric scalar potential. This fact allow to get anomalous dimension of the masses via the relations [@RG:our] $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-7mm}
\gamma_W = \gamma_{m^2} - \frac{\beta_\lambda}{\lambda} + 2 \frac{\beta_g}{g} \;,
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-7mm}
\gamma_Z = \gamma_{m^2} \!-\! \frac{\beta_\lambda}{\lambda}
\!+\! 2 \left( c_W \frac{\beta_g}{g} \!+\! s_W \frac{\beta_{g'}}{g'} \right),\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-7mm}
\gamma_t = \gamma_{m^2} - \frac{\beta_\lambda}{\lambda} + \frac{\beta_{y_t}}{y_t} \;,
\quad
\gamma_H = \gamma_{m^2} \;,
\label{rg2}\end{aligned}$$ where $s_W (c_W) $ are the $\sin$ ($\cos$) of the weak mixing angle and the 2-loop RG functions $\beta_g, \beta_{g'}, \beta_\lambda,
\gamma_{m^2}, \beta_{y_t}$ are calculated in the unbroken phase [@RG].
The RG invariance of the pole positions $s_{P}$ allow us to factorize explicitely the RG logarithms\
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
M_a^2 =
m_a^2 \!-\! \sum_j g_j^2 \left ( m_a^2 \gamma_j^{(a)} L_b \!-\! X^{(a)}_{j} \right)
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
\!+\! \sum_{i,j} g_i^2 g_j^2
\left[
m_a^2 \left( C_{i,j;a}^{(2,2)} L_b^2 \!+\! C_{i,j;a}^{(2,1)} L_b \right)
\!+\! X^{(a)}_{i,j} \right],
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $L_b = \ln \mu^2/m_b^2$, $ C_{i,j;a}^{(m,n)} = C_{j,i;a}^{(m,n)}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
\mu^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu^2} \ln m_k^2 \!=\!
\gamma^{(k)} \!=\!
\sum_j g_j^2 \gamma^{(k)}_j \!+\! \sum_{i,j} g_i^2 g_j^2 \gamma^{(k)}_{i,j}
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
\mu^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu^2} g_k =
\sum_j g_j^3 \beta_j + \sum_{i,j} g_i^2 g_j^2 \beta_{i,j} \;,
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
C_{i,j;a}^{(2,1)} \!=\! \gamma^{(a)}_{i,j}
\!+\! \frac{1}{2} \!\left(\! \gamma_i^{(a)} \gamma_j^{(b)} \!+\! \gamma_i^{(b)} \gamma_j^{(a)}
\!\right)\!
\!+\! 2 \beta_j \delta_{i,j} \frac{X^{(a)}_j}{m_a^2}
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
\!+\! \frac{1}{2} \sum_k \frac{m_k^2}{m_a^2}
\left(
\gamma^{(k)}_{i} \frac{\partial}{ \partial m_k^2}X^{(a)}_j
\!+\! \gamma^{(k)}_{j} \frac{\partial}{ \partial m_k^2}X^{(a)}_i
\right) \;,
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
2 C_{i,j;a}^{(2,2)} \!=\! 2 \beta_j \gamma_j^{(a)} \delta_{i,j}
\!+\! \gamma_i^{(a)} \gamma_j^{(a)}
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{-5mm}
\!+\! \frac{1}{2} \sum_k \left(
\gamma^{(k)}_{i} m_k^2 \frac{\partial}{ \partial m_k^2} \gamma^{(a)}_j
\!+\! \gamma^{(k)}_{j} m_k^2 \frac{\partial}{ \partial m_k^2} \gamma^{(a)}_i
\right)
\;,
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $X_j^{(a)}$ and their derivatives can be extracted from Appendixes of [@FJ; @poleI; @pole-top].
Crucial point of our definition of the [[$\overline{\rm MS}$ ]{}]{}-mass (\[reverse\]) is the gauge invariant construction (\[polemass\]) for the pole in terms of the unrenormalized, bare diagrams. It can be done only after inclusion of the Higgs tadpole contribution. Another important ingredient are the Ward identities.
${\bf A.}$ The inclusion of the tadpoles is necessary to ensure, that the physical Higgs field has zero vacuum expectation value in each order of the loop expansion.
${\bf B.}$ It is well know, that in order to preserve the Ward identities for the longitudinal part of the gauge boson propagator it is necessary to add the tadpole contribution, which is equal to the propagator of the would-be-Goldstone bosons at zero momentum transfer. In particular, at the two-loop level, the photon would aquire a mass if the tadpole contribution would be omitted.
Our RG equations (\[rg2\]) for the v.e.v. $v$ and the particle masses $m$ are different from the ones obtained in the effective potential approach [@RG-SM]. A comparison of predictions based on these two approaches have been recently performed in [@RG-HighEnergy].
These structural considerations were important to check our calculations of the various counterterms.
For the calculation of the $O(\alpha \alpha_s)$ and the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to the top-quark propagator we refer to [@pole-top] and [@QCD-top], respectively.
Numerical results
=================
According to (\[polemass\]) we need to calculate propagator-type diagrams up to two loops on–shell. To keep control of gauge invariance we adopt the $R_\xi$ gauge with three different gauge parameters $\xi_W,\,\xi_Z$ and $\xi_\gamma$. For our calculation all diagrams have been generated with the help of ${\bf
QGRAF}$ [@qgraf]. The C-program [**DIANA**]{} [@diana] then was used together with the set of Feynman rules extracted from the package [**TLAMM**]{} [@tlamm] to produce the FORM input which is suitable for the package [**ONSHELL2**]{} [@onshell2] and/or for another package based on Tarasov’s recurrence relations [@T97a]. The set of master-integrals, in the limit of massless lepton and light quarks (see details in [@RG:our]) includes diagrams with three different massive scales. In most cases exact analytic results in terms of known functions are not available. Thus, instead of working with the exact formulae (which only can be evaluated numerically, at present) we resort to some approximations, namely, we perform appropriate series expansions in (small) mass ratios. For diagrams with several different masses it is possible that several small parameters are available. In this case we apply different asymptotic expansions (see [@2region]) one after the other. Specifically, we expand in the gauge parameters about $\xi_i=1$, in $\sin^2
\theta_W$ and, for diagrams with Higgs or/and top-quark lines, in $m_V^2/m_H^2$ or/and $m_V^2/m_t^2$. Numerical results are obtained using the packages [**ON-SHELL2**]{} [@onshell2] and [**TLAMM**]{} [@tlamm]. Since the quality of the convergence of a series is not known a priori we have to calculate several coefficients of each expansion (six in $\sin^2 \theta_W$ and five in mass ratios, $m_V^2/(m_H^2,m_t^2)$ ) to keep control on the convergence. For the one-loop diagrams and their derivatives we used the exact analytical results, as given in [@DK; @poleI]. The expansion of diagrams with a top-quark and/or a Higgs boson leads to two-loop bubble diagrams with three massive lines (with two of the masses equal). For these master integrals we utilized a special form of representation [@DK; @poleI]. The diagrams with massless fermion lines also demand special consideration. These diagrams develop threshold singularities which behave like powers of $\ln \sin^2
\theta_W$. To control these terms we had to use the exact analytical results, which have been worked out in [@poleI] using a technique developed in [@poleI; @DK]. We found that after collecting the contributions from all diagrams the threshold singularities canceled. This is a manifestation of the infrared stability of the pole mass of the gauge bosons. The series expansion in $\sin^2
\theta_W$ converges very well, and can be restricted to the first two coefficients. The expansion in the remaining mass ratios require three coefficients in order to get sufficient precision for light Higgs mass values. The numerics has been performed in MAPLE. To get control of the numerical stability, we run the MAPLE program with an accuracy of 100 decimals (a posteriori, as an experimental fact, we find that the minimal accuracy is 40 decimals).
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} M. K.’s research was supported in part by Heisenberg-Landau grant No. 2004 and by RFBR grant No. 04-02-17149.
[99]{}
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 241801. A. Onishchenko, O. Veretin, Phys. Lett. B [**551**]{} (2003) 111. M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Onishchenko, O. Veretin, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 053004. M. Awramik, M. Czakon, Phys. Lett. B [**568**]{} (2003) 48. M. Awramik, M. Czakon, A. Freitas, G. Weiglein, hep-ph/0311148. G. Degrassi, A. Vicini, hep-ph/0307122. F. Jegerlehner, M.Yu. Kalmykov, O. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. [**B641**]{} (2002) 285; Nucl. Phys. [**B658**]{} (2003) 49. F. Jegerlehner, M.Yu. Kalmykov, Nucl. Phys. B [**676**]{} (2004) 365; Acta Phys. Polon. B [**34**]{} (2003) 5335. J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, Phys. Rev. [**D23**]{} (1981) 2001. F. Jegerlehner, hep-ph/0308117. F. Jegerlehner, M.Yu. Kalmykov, O. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**116**]{} (2003) 382; Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**A502**]{} (2003) 618. M. X. Luo, Y. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 011601. H. Arason et al., Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{} (1992) 3945. P. Kielanowski, S. R. Juarez W., hep-ph/0310122. J. Fleischer et al., Nucl. Phys. B [**539**]{} (1999) 671 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**571**]{} (2000) 511\]. P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. [**105**]{}, 279 (1993). J. Fleischer, M.N. Tentyukov, Comp. Phys. Commun. [**132**]{}, 124 (2000). L.V. Avdeev et al., Nucl. Ins. Meth. A [**389**]{}, 343 (1997); Comp. Phys. Commun. [**107**]{}, 155 (1997). J. Fleischer, M. Yu. Kalmykov, A. V. Kotikov, hep-ph/9905379; Phys. Lett. B [**462**]{}, 169 (1999); J. Fleischer, M. Yu. Kalmykov, Comp. Phys. Commun. [**128**]{}, 531 (2000). O.V. Tarasov, Nucl. Phys. B [**502**]{}, 455 (1997). J. Fleischer, M. Yu. Kalmykov, O. L. Veretin, Phys. Lett. [**B427**]{} (1998) 141. A.I. Davydychev, M.Yu. Kalmykov, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**89**]{}, 283 (2000); Nucl. Phys. B [**605**]{}, 266 (2001); hep-th/0303162.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Supported by DFG under Contract SFB/TR 9-03.
[^3]: On leave from BLTP, JINR, 141980 Dubna, Russia
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '0.2in We present a detailed study of the transport and the efficiency of a ratchet system in a periodic potential in the presence of correlated noises. The current and the efficiency of the system are investigated. It is found that, when the potential is spatially symmetric, the correlation between the two noises can induce a net transport. The efficiency shows many interesting features as a function of the applied force, the noise intensity, the external load, etc. The efficiency can be maximized as a function of noise intensity (or temperature), which shows that the thermal fluctuation can facilitate the efficiency of energy transformation.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, ZhongShan University, GuangZhou, China'
- 'Department of Physics, South China University of technology, GuangZhou, China'
- 'Department of Physics, South China Normal University, GuangZhou, China'
- 'Department of Physics, JiNan University, GuangZhou, China'
author:
- 'Bao-Quan Ai'
- 'Guo-Tao Liu'
- 'Hui-Zhang Xie'
- 'De-Hua Wen'
- 'Xian-Ju Wang'
- Wei Chen
- 'Liang-Gang Liu'
title: Efficiency and Current in a correlated ratchet
---
,
,
,
,
,
and
Efficiency, Current, Correlated ratchet 05. 40. -a, 02. 50.Ey, 87. 10. +e,
**In the presence of correlated noises, the current and the efficiency of a ratchet system in a periodic potential are investigated. It is found that the correlation between the two noises can induce a net transport when the potential is spatially symmetric. The efficiency can be maximized as a function of the noise intensity, which shows that the thermal fluctuation can facilitate the efficiency of the energy transformation.**
0.3in
Introduction
============
Much of the interest in non-equilibrium-induced transport processes is concentrated on stochastically driven ratchets [@1][@2][@3]. This subject was motivated by the challenge to explain the origin of directional transport in biological systems. The rectification of noise leading to unidirectional motion in ratchet systems has been an active field of research over the last decade. In these systems the directed Brownian motion of particles is induced by nonequilibrium noise in the absence of any net macroscopic forces and potential gradients. Several physical models have been proposed: rocking ratchets [@4][@5][@6], flashing ratchets [@7], diffusion ratchets [@8], correlation ratchets [@9] and deterministic ratchets [@10][@11]. In all these studies the potential is taken to be asymmetric in space. It has also been shown that one can obtain a unidirectional current in the presence of spatially asymmetric potentials. For these nonequilibrium systems an external force should be asymmetric or the presence of space dependent mobility is required.
Molecular motors are known to have the high efficiency of energy transformation in the presence of thermal fluctuation [@1]. Recently, motivated by the surprising fact, the efficiency with which the ratchet converts fluctuation to useful work is a much interest subject. New questions regarding the nature of heat engines at molecular scales are being investigated [@12].
In most of previous investigations, various noises are assumed to have different origins and are treated as independent random variables [@13]. However, in certain situations these noises may have a common origin and thus may be correlated with each other [@14][@15][@16]. The correlations between the noises can change the properties of stochastic systems. In this paper, a novel condition of the correlated ratchet operation is investigated where the potential is spatially symmetric, namely neither spatially asymmetry in the potential nor temporal asymmetry in the driving force is required, the correlation between the two noises can induce transport. The efficiency of the ratchet is also presented in a periodic potential in the presence of an adiabatic external period force. The organization of the paper is as follows: In Sec. 2 we introduce the model and the basic quantities, namely, the average probability current and the efficiency of the ratchet. In Sec. 3 we discuss the current of the ratchet with the symmetric potential for the case of no external load. Sec. 4 is devoted to the exploration of the efficiency of the system. The summary and discussion of our findings is presented in Sec. 5.\
The Forced Thermal Ratchet with Correlated Noises
=================================================
We consider a forced ratchet system subject to an external load and the equation of motion of the ratchet reads $$\label{1}
m\frac{d^{2}x}{d t^{2}}=-\beta \frac{d x}{d t}-\frac{d V_{0}(x)}{d
x}+a_{0}F(t)+\xi_{2}(t)F(t)+\xi_{1}(t)-\frac{d V_{L}(x)}{d x},$$ where $x$ represents the position of Brownian particle, $m$ denotes the mass of the particle, $\beta$ is the viscous friction drag coefficient, $F(t)$ is an external periodic force, $F(t+\tau)=F(t)$, $\int^{\tau}_{0}F(t)dt=0$ and $F_{0}$ is amplitude of $F(t)$, see Fig.1 . $V_{0}(x+2n\pi)=V_{0}(x)=-\sin(x)$, $n$ is any natural integer and $V_{L}(x)$ is a potential against which the work is done and $\frac{d V_{L}(x)}{d x}=L>0$. $\xi_{1}(t)$, $\xi_{2}(t)$ are white noises with zero mean.
Because the motion of the ratchet is highly overdamped, the inertia term can be neglected. Hence, thereafter in the place of Eq. (1) we shall make use of the following equation in the case of $\beta=1$ and $a_{0}=1$ $$\label{1}
\frac{d x}{d t}=-\frac{d V_{0}(x)}{d
x}+F(t)+\xi_{2}(t)F(t)+\xi_{1}(t)-\frac{d V_{L}(x)}{d x}.$$
In some situations various noise sources must be considered. For example, Millonas [@13]investigated a ratchet system including a subsystem, a thermal bath and a nonequilibrium bath that contains two parts: one is the nonthermal part which can be view as a source, the other is thermal part. Here it is easy to see that the two noises are treated as independent random variables. However, in some situations these noises may have a common origin and thus may be correlated with each other. In the present work, we assume that the two noises $\xi_{1}(t)$, $\xi_{2}(t)$ are correlated with each other and the correlations between the noises have the following form [@16][@17] $$\label{2}
<\xi_{i}(t)\xi_{j}(t^{'})>=2C_{i,j}\sqrt{D_{i}D_{j}}\delta(t-t^{'}),$$ where $C_{i,j}=\lambda$ for $i\neq j$ and $ C_{i,j}=1$ for $i=j$, $\lambda$ denotes the cross-correlation degree between $\xi_{1}(t)$ and $\xi_{2}(t)$, and $-1 \leq \lambda \leq 1$.\
When $F(t)$ changes slowly enough, the system could be treated as quasistatic, the evolution of probability density $P(x,t)$ described by Eq. (2) is then given by the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation, $$\label{3}
\frac{\partial P(x,t)}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial}{\partial
x}[U^{'}(x,F_{0})+G(F_{0},\lambda)\frac{\partial}{\partial
x}]P(x,t)=-\frac{\partial j(x,t)}{\partial x},$$ where the probability current density $j(x,t)$ is given by $$\label{4}
j(x,t)=-U^{'}(x)P(x,t)-G(F_{0},\lambda)\frac{\partial
P(x,t)}{\partial x},$$ where $U^{'}$ denotes the first derivative of $U(x)$, and $$\label{5}
U(x)=V_{0}(x)+V_{L}(x)-F_{0}x=-\sin(x)+Lx-F_{0}x,$$ $$\label{6}
G(F_{0},\lambda)=D_{2}F_{0}^{2}+2\lambda
F_{0}\sqrt{D_{1}D_{2}}+D_{1}.$$ In a quasi stationary state, the steady current of the particle can be solved by evaluating the constants of integration under the normalization condition and the periodicity condition of $P(x)$, the current can be obtained and expressed as [@16] $$\label{7}
j=\frac{G(F_{0},\lambda)[1-\exp(-2\pi(F_{0}-L)/G(F_{0},\lambda))]}{\int^{2\pi}_{0}{\exp[\phi(x)]dx } \int^{x+2\pi}_{x}{\exp[-\phi(y)]dy
}},$$ where the generalized potential is given by $$\label{8a}
\phi(x)=-\frac{U(x)}{G(F_{0},\lambda)}=\frac{\sin(x)+(F_{0}-L)x}{D_{2}F_{0}^{2}+2\lambda
F_{0}\sqrt{D_{1}D_{2}}+D_{1}}.$$ The average probability current over the time interval of a period can be expressed, $$\label{8}
<j>=\frac{1}{2}[j(F_{0})+j(-F_{0})].$$ The input energy $R$ per unit time from an external force to the ratchet and the work $W$ per unit time that the ratchet system extracts from the fluctuation into the work are given, respectively [@18], $$\label{9}
R=\frac{1}{t_{j}-t_{i}}\int^{x(t_{j})}_{x(t_{i})}F(t)dx(t),$$ $$\label{10}
W=\frac{1}{t_{j}-t_{i}}\int^{x(t_{j})}_{x(t_{i})}dV(x(t)),$$ where $V(x(t))=V_{0}(x(t))+V_{L}(x(t))$.
![The driving force $F(t)$, $<F(t)>=0$, $F(t+\tau)=F(t)$, and $F_{0}$ is amplitude.[]{data-label="1"}](fig1.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
For a quasi-static force, they yield $$\label{11}
<R>=\frac{1}{2}F_{0}[(j(F_{0})-j(-F_{0}))],$$ $$\label{12}
<W>=\frac{1}{2}L[j(F_{0})+j(-F_{0})].$$ Thus the efficiency $\eta$ of the system to transform the external energy to useful work is given by $$\label{13}
\eta=\frac{<W>}{<R>}=\frac{L[j(F_{0})+j(-F_{0})]}{F_{0}[j(F_{0})-j(-F_{0})]}.$$
Current in the system for the case $L=0$
=========================================
From Eq. (8) it may be noted that even for $L=0$, $j(F_{0})$ may not be equal to $-j(-F_{0})$ for $\lambda \neq 0$, so the average current $<j>\neq 0$. The fact leads to the rectification of current in the presence of an applied force $F(t)$. Based on Eq. (10), the results are given by Fig. 2-Fig. 5.\
![The current versus $\lambda$ for symmetric potential. $D_{1}=0.5$,$D_{2}=0.5$, $F_{0}=1$, and $L=0$.[]{data-label="1"}](fig2.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
In Fig. 2 we plot the curve of the current which is a function of the intensity $\lambda$ of correlations between the two noises. It is found that the critical value $\lambda_{c}=0$ for current $<j>=0$, the current is positive for $\lambda >0$ and negative for $\lambda<0$. The current increases with $\lambda$. We can see that the current reversal can occur at the case of no correlation and the ratchet can exhibit a current in either direction. The correlation intensity in a symmetric potential case play a important role in the fluctuation-induced transport.\
![The current versus $F_{0}$ for symmetric potential. $D_{1}=0.5$, $D_{2}=0.5$, $\lambda=0.5$ and $L=0$.[]{data-label="2"}](fig3.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
In Fig. 3, we plot the curve of the current versus the amplitude of the adiabatic forcing $F_{0}$. It can be seen from the figure that the current $<j>$ gives a maximum and saturates to the zero value in the large amplitude limit.\
![The current versus $D_{2}$ for symmetric potential. $D_{1}=0.5$, $F_{0}=1$, $\lambda=0.5$ and $L=0$.[]{data-label="3"}](fig4.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
![The current versus $D_{1}$ for symmetric potential. $D_{2}=0.5$, $F_{0}=0.5$, $\lambda=0.5$, and $L=0$.[]{data-label="4"}](fig5.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
Fig. 4 shows that the current is a peaked function of $D_{2}$ and the current goes to zero for a large noise case. Similarly, the current is a peaked function of $D_{1}$ as shown in Fig. 5. The results shows that an optimal transport occurs at some noise cases and there is no net current for a large noise case.\
In our ratchet the potential of the ratchet is completely symmetric in space and the external driving force $F(t)$ is completely symmetric in time. In a period of external force $F(t)$, the effective generalized potential $\phi_{eff}(x)=1/\tau\int_{0}^{\tau}\phi(x,F(t))dt=[\phi(x,F_{0})+\phi(x,-F_{0})]/2$, so $$\label{2Q}
\phi_{eff}(x,\lambda)=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{\sin(x)+F_{0}x}{D_{2}F_{0}^{2}+2\lambda
F_{0}\sqrt{D_{1}D_{2}}+D_{1}}+\frac{\sin(x)-F_{0}x}{D_{2}F_{0}^{2}-2\lambda
F_{0}\sqrt{D_{1}D_{2}}+D_{1}}].$$ Let us introduce $\Delta\phi_{eff}(\lambda)$to measure the slope of $\phi_{eff}(x,\lambda)$ over a period $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\Delta\phi_{eff}(\lambda)&=&\frac{\phi_{eff}(x+2\pi,\lambda)-\phi_{eff}(x,\lambda)}{2\pi} \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{-4\lambda F_{0}^{2}
\sqrt{D_{1}D_{2}}}{(D_{2}F_{0}^{2}+D_{1})^{2}-4\lambda^{2}F_{0}^{2}D_{1}D_{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to obtain $\Delta\phi_{eff}(-\lambda)=-\Delta\phi_{eff}(\lambda)$, which shows that $<j(-\lambda)>=-<j(\lambda)>$(see Fig.2 ). When there is no correlations ($\lambda=0$)between noises, the effective spatially generalized potential $\phi_{eff}(x)=\frac{\sin(x)}{D_{2}F_{0}^{2}+D_{1}}$ is symmetric and $\Delta\phi_{eff}(\lambda)=0$ (see Eq. (16) and Eq. (17)), so no currents occur. However, From the Eq. (16), if $\lambda\neq 0$, the effective potential is not the same as the symmetric potential $V(x)$, since the two effects of external driving force in its period can not be cancelled because of $\lambda\neq 0$, so the symmetry of the effective generalized potential is broken by the correlation between noises. It is known that the state-dependent diffusion can induce transport in case of the symmetry of generalized potential being broken. Therefore, correlations between the two noises can induce transport. Some previous works also involved a symmetry breaking. Reimann [@19] introduced a model of interacting Brownian particles in a symmetric, periodic potential that undergoes non-equilibrium phase transition. The associated spontaneous symmetry breaking entails a ratchet-like transport mechanism. The ratchet-like transport mechanism arise through a symmetry breaking was also investigated by Mangioni [@20] under a system of periodically coupled nonlinear phase oscillators submitted to multiplicative white noises. In Buceta’s study [@21] the combination with local potential and external fluctuations causes a symmetry breaking.
Efficiency in Correlated Ratchet
================================
In this section we discuss the efficiency and the corresponding current of the ratchet in the presence of an external load based on Eq. (13)-Eq. (15). Because $\frac{j(-F_{0})}{j(F_{0})}<0$, Eq. (15) can be rewritten as follow $$\label{14}
\eta=\frac{L}{F_{0}}\{1-\frac{2|\frac{j(-F_{0})}{j(F_{0})}|}{1+|\frac{j(-F_{0})}{j(F_{0})}|}\}.$$ In the limit $|\frac{j(-F_{0})}{j(F_{0})}|\rightarrow 0$, the maximum efficiency of the energy transformation for given load $L$ and force amplitude $F_{0}$ is given: $\eta_{max}=\frac{L}{F_{0}}$. The results are represented by Fig. 6-Fig. 9.\
![Efficiency $\eta$, $<R>$, $<W>$ as a function of $D_{2}$ for $\lambda=0.5$. $F_{0}=0.5$, $D_{1}=0.5$, $L=0.04$. $<W>$ has been scaled up by a factor 30 to make it comparable with $\eta$ and $<R>$. Y-axis is in dimensionless units.[]{data-label="5"}](fig6.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
In Fig. 6 we plot the efficiency $\eta$, input energy $<R>$ and work done $<W>$ (scaled up by a factor 30 for convenience of comparison) as a function of $D_{2}$ for the parameter values, $F_{0}=0$, $D_{1}=0.5$, $\lambda=0.5$, $L=0.04$. The figure shows that the efficiency exhibits a maximum as a function of $D_{2}$ which indicates that the thermal fluctuation facilitates energy conversion. The input energy $<R>$ increases with $D_{2}$ monotonically and saturates to a certain value in a large noise intensity limit. The work $<W>$ exhibits a maximum as a function of $D_{2}$.\
![Efficiency $\eta$ as function of $D_{1}$ for different values of correlation $\lambda$=0.3, 0.5. $D_{2}=0.5$, $F_{0}=0.5$, $L=0.04$. The inset shows the $<j>$ as a function of $D_{1}$ for the same parameters.[]{data-label="6"}](fig7.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
Fig. 7 shows the efficiency $\eta$ as a function of $D_{1}$ for different value of $\lambda$. The efficiency is a peaked function of $D_{1}$ and increases with the parameter $\lambda$. Similarly, the current is a peaked function of $D_{1}$ for the corresponding parameters as shown in the inset. From the inset we can notice that the current reverses its direction for the case $\lambda\neq 0$. It is noted that noise intensity $D_{1}$ corresponding to maximum efficiency is not the same as the noise intensity at which the current $<j>$ (see the inset of Fig. 7) is maximum. The difference is attributed to the observation that the efficiency is ratio of the extracted $<W>$ to the consumed energy $<R>$. The work $<W>$ is purely proportional to the current $<j>$. However, the consumed energy is not a constant but varies sensitively according to the condition. Therefore the efficiency $\eta$ is not simply proportional to the current $<j>$.
In Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 we obtained the resonance curve which is the same as the previous results [@22]. When $D_{1},
D_{2}\rightarrow 0$, thermal diffusion over the potential barriers vanishes, no net currents occur, so $\eta\rightarrow 0$. On the other hand, when $D_{1}, D_{2}\rightarrow \infty$, diffusion becomes insensitive to the ratchet amplitude and its modulation, no net currents occur, too, so $\eta\rightarrow 0$. The resonance occurs at a finite noise intensity.
![Efficiency $\eta$ as function of $L$ for different values of correlation $\lambda$=0.3, 0.6, 0.9. $D_{1}=0.5$, $D_{2}=0.5$, $F_{0}=0.5$. The inset shows the $<j>$ as a function of $L$ for the same parameters.[]{data-label="7"}](fig8.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
In Fig. 8, we plot the efficiency $\eta$ (the inset for current $<j>$) versus load $L$ for different values of $\lambda$. It is expected that the efficiency also exhibits a maximum as a function of the load. It is obvious that the efficiency is zero when load is zero. At the critical value $L_{c}$ (beyond which current flows in the direction of the load (see the inset of Fig.8)) the current is zero and hence the efficiency vanishes again. Between the two extreme values of the load the efficiency exhibits a maximum. Beyond $L=L_{c}$ the current flows down the load, and therefore, the definition of efficiency becomes invalid.\
![Efficiency $\eta$ as function of $F_{0}$ for different values of correlation $\lambda$=0.3, 0.5, 0.7. $D_{1}=0.5$, $D_{2}=0.5$, $L=0.04$.[]{data-label="8"}](fig9.eps){width="10cm" height="7cm"}
The efficiency $\eta$ versus the amplitude of the adiabatic forcing $F_{0}$ for different values of $\lambda$ is shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen from the figure that efficiency exhibits a maximum and saturates to the same value (zero) in large amplitude limit. Beyond the large amplitude limit the efficiency increases with $\lambda$, which indicates that the correlation between the two noises plays a important role for energy transformation.\
Summary and Conclusion
======================
In the present paper, we study the current and the efficiency of a forced thermal ratchet with correlated noises. For the case of no external load, no net current occurs when there is no correlation ($\lambda=0$) between the thermal noises, while the net current occurs for the case of $\lambda \neq 0$. It is obvious that the symmetry of effective generalized potential is broken by the correlation between the noises. Therefore, neither spatially asymmetry nor temporal asymmetry is required, the correlation can induce a net transport. The current is a peaked function of $D_{2}$, $D_{1}$ and $F_{0}$ and goes to zero for the case of large $D_{2}$, $D_{1}$ and $F_{0}$ limit.\
For the case of $L\neq 0$, the efficiency of the ratchet is investigated. The efficiency shows a maximum as a function of noise intensity as does the net current, though they do not occur at the same noise intensity. It is obvious that the thermal fluctuation is not harmful for fluctuation-induced work even facilitates its efficiency. The current reversal occurs at $\lambda\neq 0$ which is different from the case of $L=0$.\
Based on energetic analysis of the ratchet model Kamegawa et al. [@18] made an important conclusion that the efficiency of energy transformation cannot be optimized at finite temperature. However, the discussion in that paper was only on the quasistatic limit where the change of the external of force is slow enough. Takagi and Hondou[@23] found that thermal noise may facilitate the energy conversion in the forced thermal ratchet when the ratchet is not quasistatic. Recently, investigation of Dan et al. [@24] showed that the efficiency can be optimized at finite temperatures in inhomogeneous systems with spatially varying friction coefficient in an adiabatically rocked ratchet. Efficiency optimization in homogeneous non-adiabatic ratchet systems was observed by Sumithra et al.[@25]. Sokolov and Blumen [@26] found that the maximal efficiency is obtained at a finite temperature in a ratchet which consists of an array of three-level systems placed sequentially. In our system the thermal fluctuations actually facilitate the energy transformation under the homogeneous adiabatic condition which is not the same as the previous works.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
The work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. of 10275099) and GuangDong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. of 021707 and 001182).\
0.2in P. Reimann, Phys. Rep. **361**, 57-265(2002). R. D. Astumian and F. Moss, Chaos **8**, 533-538(1998). R. D. Astumian and P. Hanggi, Physics Today **55(11)**, 33 (2002). B. Q. Ai, X. J. Wang, G. T. Liu, D. H. Wen, H. Z. Xie, W. Chen, and L. G. Liu., Phys. Rev. E **68**, 061105 (2003). B. Q. Ai, X. J. Wang, G. T. Liu, H. Z. Xie, D. H. Wen, W. Chen, and L. G. Liu., Eur. Phys. J. B **37**, 523-526(2004 ). M. O. Magnasco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1477-1481(1993). P. Hanggi and R. Bartussek, Nonlinear physics of complex system - Current status and Future Trends(Spring, Berlin) **476**, 294 (1996). P. Reimann, R. Bartussek, R. Haussler, and P. Hanggi, Phys. Lett. A **215**, 26-31(1996). C. R. Doering, W. Horsthemke, and J. Riordan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 2984-2987(1994). P. Jung, J. G. Kissner, and P. Hanggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 3436-3439(1996). J. L. Mateos, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 258-261(2000). D. Dan and A. M. Jayannavar, Phys. Rev. E **65**, 037105 (2002). M. M. Millonas, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 10-13(1995). B. Q. Ai, X. J. Wang, G. T. Liu, and L. G. Liu, Phys. Rev. E **67**, 022903 (2003). Y. Jia, X. P. Zheng, X. M. Hu, and J. R. Li, Phys. Rev. E **63**, 031107 (2001). Y. Jia and J. R. Li, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B**14**, 507-517 (2000). C. J. Tessone and H. S. Wio, Mod. Phys. Lett. B**12**, 1195 (1998). H. Kamegawa, T. Hondou, and F. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 5251-5153(1998). P. Reimann, R. Kawai, C. Van den Broeck, and P. Hanggi, Europhys. Lett.**45 (5)**, 545 (1999); S. E. Mangioni, R. R. Deza, and H. S. Wio, Phys. Rev. E **63**, 041115 (2001). J. Buceta, J. M. Parrondo, C. Van den Broeck, and F. J. de la Rubia, Phys. Rev. E**61**, 6287(2000). M. Borromeo and F. Marchesoni, Thermal conveyers, Appl. Phys. Lett. **75(7)**, 1024(1999). F. Takagi and T. Hondou, Phy. Rev. E**60**, 4954-4957(1999). D. Dan, M. C. Mahato, and A. M. Jayannavar, Physica A **296**, 375-390(2001). K. Sumithra and T. Sintes, Physica A **297**, 1-12 (2001). I. M. Sokolov and A. Blumen, Chem. Phys. **235**, 39-45 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Transferability of crystal-field parameters for rare-earth ions in Y$_2$SiO$_5$ tested by Zeeman spectroscopy {#transferability-of-crystal-field-parameters-for-rare-earth-ions-in-y_2sio_5-tested-by-zeeman-spectroscopy .unnumbered}
=============================================================================================================
N. L. Jobbitt$^{a,b}$, S. J. Patchett$^{a,b}$, Y. Alizadeh$^{a,b}$, M. F. Reid$^{a,b,*}$,\
J.-P. R. Wells$^{a,b}$, S. P. Horvath$^{a,c}$, J. J. Longdell$^{b,c}$,\
A. Ferrier$^{d,e}$ and P. Goldner$^d$
$^{a}$School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury,\
PB 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand\
$^{b}$The Dodd-Walls Centre for Photonic and Quantum Technologies,\
New Zealand\
$^{c}$Department of Physics, University of Otago, PB 56, Dunedin,\
New Zealand\
$^{d}$Chimie ParisTech, PSL University, CNRS,\
Institut de Recherche de Chimie Paris, Paris, France\
$^{e}$Faculté des Sciences et Ingénierie, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
$^*$Email: [[email protected]]([email protected])
**Abstract—** Zeeman spectroscopy is used to demonstrate that phenomenological crystal-field parameters determined for the two $C_1$ point-group sites in Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ may be transferred to other ions. The two crystallographic six- and seven-coordinate substitutional sites may be distinguished by comparing the spectra with crystal-field calculations.
Introduction
============
Yttrium orthosilicate (Y$_2$SiO$_5$) doped with rare-earth ions has been widely used over the past decade in the development of quantum-information devices. Yttrium has a very small nuclear magnetic moment, while isotopes of Si and O with non-zero nuclear spin have very low natural abundances. This minimises decoherence due to spin flips, giving outstanding coherence properties. Furthermore, the rare-earth substitutional sites in Y$_2$SiO$_5$ has $C_1$ point-group symmetry, giving highly admixed wavefunctions and enabling efficient and diverse optical pumping schemes [@rippe2005; @lauritzen2008; @longdell_experimental_2004]. Performance improvements for these devices rely on accurate modelling of magnetic-hyperfine structure. For example, the spin Hamiltonian for Eu$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ was utilized in a computational search for magnetic field orientations exhibiting a near-zero gradient with respect to hyperfine energy levels. This Zero-First-Order-Zeeman (ZEFOZ) technique enabled an experimental demonstration of a coherence time of six hours in $^{151}$Eu$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ [@zhong_optically_2015].
Spin Hamiltonians are not transferable between electronic levels of the same ion, or to other ions. This limits the opportunity to explore candidate systems by theoretical modelling. On the other hand, crystal-field calculations [@carnall_systematic_1989; @GoBi96; @NeNg00; @liu_electronic_2006] model the electronic structure of the entire $4f^N$ configuration. The parameters show systematic trends across the rare-earth series, so they may be transferred from ion to ion. Crystal-field calculations may be used to construct spin Hamiltonians, or used directly for magnetic-hyperfine calculations. Since the crystal-field Hamiltonian automatically handles mixing of crystal-field levels by a magnetic field, crystal-field calculations may be used to extend the ZEFOZ method to large magnetic fields where a simple spin Hamiltonian approach breaks down. This is particularly relevant given the demonstration of a coherence time exceeding one second in Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ using a 7 Tesla magnetic field by Rancić et al. [@rancic2018].
Determination of crystal-field parameters for low-symmetry systems is non-trivial. Data from Zeeman splitting is essential to give orientation information necessary to determine a unique set of parameters [@antipin1972; @smcaf22018]. In $C_1$ symmetry (i.e. no symmetry) there are 27 crystal-field parameters, which makes calculations computationally challenging. Previous work on $C_1$ symmetry sites has been based on *ab initio* calculations [@Avanesov1992; @doualan_energy_1995; @wen2014], or the use of a higher-symmetry approximation to reduce the number of parameters [@guillot-noel_calculation_2010; @sukhanov2018].
We have recently developed techniques that make full phenomenological crystal-field fits for $C_1$ point-group symmetry sites practical. These methods have been applied to both sites of Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ [@Horvath2016; @erysocf2018]. The fits used both optical, magneto-optical and electron-paramagnetic resonance experimental data from the literature [@doualan_energy_1995; @sun_magnetic_2008; @chen2018].
In this work we demonstrate the transferability of the crystal-field parameters to the ions Sm$^{3+}$ and Nd$^{3+}$ by performing Zeeman spectroscopy. Calculations based on the Er$^{3+}$ parameters clearly distinguish the two sites, and this information may be combined with EPR and ab-initio calculations for particular ions to allow the identification of sites.
Experimental and theoretical techniques
=======================================
Y$_2$SiO$_5$ (in the X2 phase) is a monoclinic crystal with $C^6_{2h}$ space group symmetry. The yttrium ions occupy two crystallographically distinct sites, each with $C_1$ point-group symmetry, referred to as site 1 and site 2, corresponding to oxygen coordination numbers of six and seven, respectively [@maksimov1971crystal]. Y$_2$SiO$_5$ has three perpendicular optical-extinction axes: the crystallographic $b$ axis, and two mutually perpendicular axes labelled $D_1$ and $D_2$. In our calculations we follow the convention of identifying these as the $z$, $x$, and $y$ axes respectively [@sun_magnetic_2008].
Samples of Y$_2$SiO$_5$ doped with Er$^{3+}$ (50ppm) and Nd$^{3+}$ (200ppm) were prepared in Paris. The Sm$^{3+}$ (5000ppm) sample was supplied by Scientific Materials. All samples were oriented using Laue backscattering. The samples were cuboids with the $D_1$ and $D_2$ and $b$ axes through the faces and dimensions of approximately 5mm. Infrared spectroscopy was performed using a 0.075cm$^{-1}$ resolution Bruker Vertex 80 with an optical path purged by N$_2$ gas. Zeeman spectroscopy was performed using a 4T, simple solenoid, superconducting magnet with samples cooled by thermal contact with a copper sample holder fixed through the centre of the solenoid. Measurements were carried out at 4.2K.
The Hamiltonian appropriate for modelling the $4f^N$ configuration is [@carnall_systematic_1989; @GoBi96; @liu_electronic_2006] $$H = H_{\mathrm{FI}} + H_{\mathrm{CF}} + H_{\mathrm{Z}} + H_{\mathrm{HF}}.
\label{eqn:hdefn}$$ The terms in this equation represent the free-ion contribution, the crystal-field interaction, the Zeeman term, and the electron-nuclear hyperfine interaction.
The free-ion Hamiltonian may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mathrm{FI}} &=& E_\mathrm{avg} + \sum_{k=2,4,6} F^k f_k + \zeta A_{\mathrm{SO}} + \alpha L(L+1) + \gamma G(R_7) \nonumber \\
&+& \beta G(G_2) + \sum_{i = 2,3,4,6,7,8} T^i t_i + \sum_{i=0,2,4} M^i m_i + \sum_{i=2,4,6} P^i p_i.
\label{eqn:hfidefn}\end{aligned}$$ $E_\mathrm{avg}$ is a constant configurational shift, $F^k$ Slater parameters characterizing aspherical electrostatic repulsion, and $\zeta$ the spin-orbit coupling constant. The other terms parametrize two- and three- body interactions, as well as higher-order spin-dependent effects [@carnall_systematic_1989; @liu_electronic_2006].
The crystal-field Hamiltonian has the form $$H_{\mathrm{CF}} = \sum_{k,q} B^k_q C^{(k)}_q,
\label{eqn:hcfc1}$$ for $k = 2, 4, 6$ and $q = -k \cdots k$. The $B^k_q$ parameters are the crystal-field expansion coefficients and C$^{(k)}_q$ are spherical tensor operators. In $C_1$ symmetry all non-axial ($q \neq
0$) $B^k_q$ parameters are complex, leading to a total of 27 parameters.
We do not explicitly consider hyperfine interactions in this work. The reader is referred to Refs. [@Horvath2016; @smcaf22018; @erysocf2018] for a discussion of the calculation of hyperfine effects with a crystal-field model.
The Zeeman interaction for an external magnetic field is represented by $$H_{\mathrm{Z}} = \mu_{\mathrm{B}} \mathbf{B} \cdot (\mathbf{L} + 2 \mathbf{S}),
\label{eqn:hZdefn}$$ where $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ is the Bohr magneton, and $\mathbf{L}$ and $\mathbf{S}$ are the total orbital and spin angular momenta. In this work we only consider Kramers ions (with total spin a multiple of $\hbar/2$). For Kramers ions in low-symmetry sites all electronic levels are doubly-degenerate in the absence of an applied magnetic field. For low magnetic fields the splitting of these doublets may be parametrized by $g$ values, such that the splitting $\Delta_E$ is a function of the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ applied in a particular direction: $$\label{eq:gvalues}
\Delta_E = g \mu_{\mathrm{B}} |\mathbf{B}|.$$ Transitions between the ground electronic state and an excited electronic state will, in general, contain four spectral lines, as indicated schematically in Figure \[fig:zeeman\], with the energy differences depending on sums and differences of ground and excited-state $g$ values. Measurements of these differences can reveal a large amount of information regarding the wavefunctions and the effect of magnetic fields using moderately high-resolution spectroscopy, such as Fourier-transform absorption spectroscopy. In contrast, non-Kramers ions in low-symmetry sites have no electronic degeneracy and measurements of magnetic splitting of the hyperfine structure usually requires high-resolution techniques, such as in Ref.[@zhong_optically_2015].
Parameters for Site 1 and Site 2 of Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ (using the convention of Ref. [@sun_magnetic_2008]) are given by Horvath [@Horvath2016]. An alternative parameter set for Site 1 is given in Ref. [@erysocf2018]. However, since the latter is optimised for high-resolution magneto-hyperfine data, we use the former in this work, as this gives more consistency between the parameter sets for the two sites. Since the ionic radius and the crystal-field parameters reduce across the rare-earth series [@carnall_systematic_1989; @GoBi96; @NeNg00; @liu_electronic_2006], the crystal-field parameters for Sm$^{3+}$ and Nd$^{3+}$ should be scaled up from the Er$^{3+}$ parameters. However we found that for the levels considered here, scaling made a very small difference, and the calculations presented here use unscaled parameters. The free-ion parameters for Sm$^{3+}$ and Nd$^{3+}$ were taken from Ref.[@carnall_systematic_1989].
Results and discussion
======================
Zeeman spectra for Nd$^{3+}$, Sm$^{3+}$, and Er$^{3+}$ in Y$_2$SiO$_5$ crystals are given in Figure \[fig:ysozeeman\]. Calculated magnetic splittings for the particular orientation and field chosen are indicated on the diagrams. Details of the transitions and magnetic fields are given in Table \[tab:ysozeeman\], along with calculated $g$ values.
Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$
-----------------------
We begin with Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, since this is the ion for which the crystal-field parameters were determined [@Horvath2016; @erysocf2018]. Er$^{3+}$ has 11 $4f$ electrons and has a reltively small ionic radius, similar to Y$^{3+}$, so it would be expected to substitute equally into both Y$^{3+}$ sites.
Figure \[fig:ysozeeman\](c) shows the spectrum of Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ in the region of the transitions from the ground state to the lowest-energy $^4$I$_{13/2}$ states for each site, with a 1T field along the $b$ axis. The magnetic splittings of these transitions were extensively studied by Sun et al. [@sun_magnetic_2008] and our spectrum corresponds to the the $\theta=0$ points of their Figures 3(c) and 4(c). The data from that study was crucial input to the crystal-field fit [@Horvath2016; @erysocf2018]. The magnetic splittings of other transitions are also generally in good agreement, confirming the experimental energy-level assignments used in the fits.
The absorption for the Site 1 and Site 2 transitions is comparable, so if the oscillator strengths are assumed to be similar then the concentration of Er$^{3+}$ in each site is comparable. The crystal-field splitting for Site 1 is larger than for Site 2 [@doualan_energy_1995], and this is reflected in our fitted crystal-field parameters [@Horvath2016]. This suggests that Site 1 is the six-fold coordinate site, for which the crystal-field parameters are calculated to be larger [@wen2014].
Nd$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$
-----------------------
Nd$^{3+}$ has 3 $4f$ electrons, so has a larger ionic radius than Er$^{3+}$ and substitution into the seven-coordinate site is expected to be favoured. The site with the largest absorbance, labelled Type 1 in Ref. [@beach1990], has been studied by EPR [@wolfowicz2015; @sukhanov2018]. In Ref.[@sukhanov2018] this site was identified as seven-coordinate by pulsed EPR measurements.
Figure \[fig:ysozeeman\](a) shows the spectrum of Nd$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ in the region of the transitions from the ground state to the lowest-energy $^4$F$_{3/2}$ states for each site, with a 2T field along the $b$ axis. The magnetic splitting for the site with the strongest absorption matches the Site 2 calculation. The spectrum, and the calculated ground-state $g$ value of 4 for a field along the $b$ axis is consistent with the EPR data.
Sm$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$
-----------------------
Sm$^{3+}$ is a Kramers ion with a large number of absorption lines in the IR, visible, and UV spectral regions. It is, therefore, an ideal ion for extensive Zeeman measurements.
Sm$^{3+}$ has 5 $4f$ electrons, so it has an ionic radius slightly smaller than Nd$^{3+}$ and, again, substitution into the seven-coordinate site is expected to be favoured. Figure \[fig:ysozeeman\](b) shows the spectrum of Sm$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$ in the region of the transitions from the ground state to the lowest-energy $^6$H$_{13/2}$ states for each site, with a 4T field along the $D_1$ axis.
The magnetic splitting for the transitions with highest absorbance is consistent with the Site 2 calculation. The $g$ values for the ground state for both sites are small (Table \[tab:ysozeeman\]) and are not fully resolved in Figure \[fig:ysozeeman\](b), whereas the excited-state $g$ values are large, particularly for Site 2.
Conclusions
===========
We have used Zeeman spectroscopy to demonstrate that crystal-field parameters determined for Er$^{3+}$ in the two Y$_2$SiO$_5$ substitutional sites give a reasonable account of magnetic splittings in other ions. Future work will use more extensive measurements to refine the crystal-field parameters across the rare-earth series. This will provide improved modelling relevant to the development of quantum-information applications.
[10]{}
L. Rippe, M. Nilsson, S. Kr[ö]{}ll, R. Klieber, and D. Suter. Physical Review A **71**, 062328 (2005).
B. Lauritzen, S. R. [Hastings-Simon]{}, H. [de Riedmatten]{}, M. Afzelius, and N. Gisin. Physical Review A **78**, 043402 (2008).
J. J. Longdell and M. J. Sellars. Physical Review A **69**, 032307 (2004).
M. Zhong, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, J. G. Bartholomew, S. E. Beavan, S. M. Wittig, J. J. Longdell, and M. J. Sellars. Nature **517**, 177 (2015).
W. T. Carnall, G. L. Goodman, K. Rajnak, and R. S. Rana. The Journal of Chemical Physics **90**, 3443 (1989).
C. G[ö]{}rller-Walrand and K. Binnemans. In J. K. A. Gschneidner and L. Eyring, editors, Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, volume 23, 121, (North-Holland, Amsterdam1996).
D. J. Newman and B. K. C. Ng, editors. Crystal Field Handbook, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2000).
G. Liu. In G. Liu and B. Jacquier, editors, Spectroscopic [[Properties]{}]{} of [[Rare Earths]{}]{} in [[Optical Materials]{}]{}, ([Springer Science & Business Media]{}2006).
M. Ran[č]{}i[ć]{}, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, and M. J. Sellars. Nature Physics **14**, 50 (2018).
A. A. Antipin, M. P. Davydova, M. V. Eremin, R. K. Luks, and A. L. Stolov. Optika i Spektroskopiya **33**, 673 (1972).
S. P. Horvath, J.-P. R. Wells, M. F. Reid, M. Yamaga, and M. Honda. Electron paramagnetic resonance enhanced crystal field analysis for low point-group symmetry systems: [C$_{2v}$]{} sites in [Sm$^{3+}$:CaF$_2$/SrF$_2$]{} (2018). <https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.07397>.
A. G. Avanesov, V. V. Zhorin, B. Z. Malkin, and V. F. Pisarenko. Soviet Physics Solid State (1992).
J. L. Doualan, C. Labbe, P. L. Boulanger, J. Margerie, R. Moncorge, and H. Timonen. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter **7**, 5111 (1995).
J. Wen, C.-K. Duan, L. Ning, Y. Huang, S. Zhan, J. Zhang, and M. Yin. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A **118**, 4988 (2014).
O. Guillot-Noël, Y. Le Du, F. Beaudoux, E. Antic-Fidancev, M. F. Reid, R. Marino, J. Lejay, A. Ferrier, and P. Goldner. Journal of Luminescence **130**, 1557 (2010).
A. A. Sukhanov, R. F. Likerov, R. M. Eremina, I. V. Yatsyk, T. P. Gavrilova, V. F. Tarasov, Y. D. Zavartsev, and S. A. Kutovoi. Journal of Magnetic Resonance **295**, 12 (2018).
S. P. Horvath. High-resolution spectroscopy and novel crystal-field methods for rare-earth based quantum information processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Canterbury (2016). <https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/12430>.
S. P. Horvath, J. V. Rakonjac, Y.-H. Chen, J. J. Longdell, P. Goldner, J.-P. R. Wells, and M. F. Reid. A comprehensive understanding of ground and optically-excited hyperfine structure of [$^{167}$Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$]{} (2018). <https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01058>.
Y. Sun, T. B[ö]{}ttger, C. W. Thiel, and R. L. Cone. Physical Review B **77**, 085124 (2008).
Y.-H. Chen, X. Fernandez-Gonzalvo, S. P. Horvath, J. V. Rakonjac, and J. J. Longdell. Physical Review B **97**, 024419 (2018).
B. A. Maksimov, V. V. Ilyukhin, Y. A. Khariton, and N. V. Belov. Soviet Physics Crystallography, USSR **15**, 806 (1971).
R. Beach, M. D. Shinn, L. Davis, R. W. Solarz, and W. F. Krupke. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics **26**, 1405 (1990).
G. Wolfowicz, H. Maier-Flaig, R. Marino, A. Ferrier, H. Vezin, J. J. L. Morton, and P. Goldner. Physical Review Letters **114**, 170503 (2015).
![\[fig:zeeman\] Schematic diagram of Zeeman splitting of ground ($g^\pm$) and excited ($e^\pm$) electronic states of a Kramers ion, and the possible transitions. $g_g$ and $g_e$ are the $g$ values of the ground and excited states. ](zeemanfigure.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
----------- ---------------- ------- --------- ------------------- ------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------
Ion Excited
multiplet axis $B$ (T) $E_0$ (cm$^{-1}$) $g_g$ $g_e$ $E_0$ (cm$^{-1}$) $g_g$ $g_e$
Nd$^{3+}$ $^4$F$_{3/2}$ $b$ 2.0 11309.7 1.20 0.82 11322.5 4.00 0.66
Sm$^{3+}$ $^6$H$_{13/2}$ $D_1$ 4.0 4987.8 0.39 6.36 4936.3 0.71 15.00
Er$^{3+}$ $^4$I$_{13/2}$ $b$ 1.0 6508.4 7.82 10.00 6498.1 3.04 4.39
----------- ---------------- ------- --------- ------------------- ------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------
: \[tab:ysozeeman\] Details of the transitions and magnetic-field settings for the spectra of Nd$^{3+}$, Sm$^{3+}$, and Er$^{3+}$ in Y$_2$SiO$_5$ given in Figure \[fig:ysozeeman\]. For each site the experimental wavenumber at zero magnetic field ($E_0$) is listed, and $g$ values calculated from the crystal-field model, using the notation of Figure \[fig:zeeman\].
![\[fig:ysozeeman\] Zeeman spectra for Nd$^{3+}$, Sm$^{3+}$, and Er$^{3+}$ in Y$_2$SiO$_5$. Transitions from the ground state to the lowest-energy states of a particular excited multiplet for each site are shown. Details of the excited multiplets, and the magnetic field directions and strengths, are given in Table \[tab:ysozeeman\]. Zeeman splittings calculated from the crystal-field model are shown in each plot. All measurements were done at 4.2K. For Sm$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, the small features on the high-energy side of the site 2 lines are satellite lines. For Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, the feature marked with an asterisk is not associated with Er$^{3+}$.](ndyso.pdf "fig:"){width="0.55\linewidth"}\
![\[fig:ysozeeman\] Zeeman spectra for Nd$^{3+}$, Sm$^{3+}$, and Er$^{3+}$ in Y$_2$SiO$_5$. Transitions from the ground state to the lowest-energy states of a particular excited multiplet for each site are shown. Details of the excited multiplets, and the magnetic field directions and strengths, are given in Table \[tab:ysozeeman\]. Zeeman splittings calculated from the crystal-field model are shown in each plot. All measurements were done at 4.2K. For Sm$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, the small features on the high-energy side of the site 2 lines are satellite lines. For Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, the feature marked with an asterisk is not associated with Er$^{3+}$.](smyso.pdf "fig:"){width="0.55\linewidth"}\
![\[fig:ysozeeman\] Zeeman spectra for Nd$^{3+}$, Sm$^{3+}$, and Er$^{3+}$ in Y$_2$SiO$_5$. Transitions from the ground state to the lowest-energy states of a particular excited multiplet for each site are shown. Details of the excited multiplets, and the magnetic field directions and strengths, are given in Table \[tab:ysozeeman\]. Zeeman splittings calculated from the crystal-field model are shown in each plot. All measurements were done at 4.2K. For Sm$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, the small features on the high-energy side of the site 2 lines are satellite lines. For Er$^{3+}$:Y$_2$SiO$_5$, the feature marked with an asterisk is not associated with Er$^{3+}$.](eryso.pdf "fig:"){width="0.55\linewidth"}\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we present a new error bound on sampling algorithms for frequent itemsets mining. We show that the new bound is asymptotically tighter than the state-of-art bounds, i.e., given the chosen samples, for small enough error probability, the new error bound is roughly half of the existing bounds. Based on the new bound, we give a new approximation algorithm, which is much simpler compared to the existing approximation algorithms, but can also guarantee the worst approximation error with precomputed sample size. We also give an algorithm which can approximate the top-$k$ frequent itemsets with high accuracy and efficiency.'
author:
- |
Shiyu Ji, Kun Wan\
{shiyu,kun}@cs.ucsb.edu
bibliography:
- './cs273.bib'
title: '**An Asymptotically Tighter Bound on Sampling for Frequent Itemsets Mining**'
---
Introduction
============
Frequent Itemsets (FI) mining has been popular in research recently [@AIS93; @HCX07; @RU15]. The goal of FI mining is to find out the items that most frequently appear in the observed transactions, e.g., the researchers who are the most prolific in writing papers with others, the patterns that appear frequently in long pieces of genetic code, etc.
In the era of big data, to compute the exact frequencies can be very time consuming. Thus in many cases approximate values are also acceptable [@AIS93; @PCY95; @FSG99; @HCX07; @LRU14; @RU15]. For FI mining in large scale transactional datasets, we often take samplings on the transactions, and compute the frequencies of the itemsets among the sampled transactions as approximate results of their true frequencies among all the transactions. Usually the sampling size is much less than the scale of all the transactions, and the approximations can achieve acceptable precision. Also in reality we often only want to know the most frequent itemsets without the need of their actual frequencies, and there are already many works [@AIS93; @PCY95; @FSG99; @HCX07; @LRU14] on this area. Thus FI approximation can be useful in practice.
The state-of-art progressive sampling based FI approximation algorithms [@RU15] need an upper bound of the approximation error for the worst case, i.e., the maximum error the algorithm can generate among all the items. The algorithms keep taking new samples until the upper bound is less than the acceptable threshold. Hence how to bound the maximum error as tightly as possible is an interesting problem. The current bounds use some results of Rademacher average in statistical learning theory [@Vap98; @Vap13; @BBL04; @BBL05]. However, we find that based on the ideas given by [@BBL04; @Toi96], we can develop a new upper bound *without* Rademacher average. We also find that this new bound is asymptotically tighter than the existing bounds, i.e., given the chosen samples, as the allowed error probability approaches zero, the new bound is roughly only half of the existing ones. This implies that by using the new bound, a progressive sampling based FI approximation algorithm can reach the guaranteed accuracy with much fewer samples. We also notice that there is no parameter in the new bound that needs to be progressively computed. Hence the sample size that will guarantee the worst error can be precomputed.
Based on the similar idea, we also consider the top-$k$ FI mining problem, which seeks for the $k$ most frequent itemsets in the observed ones. We need to decide when the sampling should stop. The number of the sampled transactions is enough if the worst-case error upper bound is less than the frequency gap between the $k$-th and the $(k+1)$-th most frequent itemsets. Hence we propose a progressive approximation algorithm to address the top-$k$ FI mining problem.
[**Our Contributions**]{}. We give a worst-case error upper bound that is asymptotically tighter than the state-of-art bounds, and propose an approximation algorithm which can guarantee the worst-case error upper bound with precomputed sample size. We also give a progressive sampling algorithm to find the top-$k$ most frequent itemsets. Combining with existing methods, our algorithms can approximate the frequent itemsets accurately and efficiently.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:rw\] reviews the related research works. Section \[sec:prlm\] introduces the notations and preliminaries throughout this paper. Section \[sec:refine\] gives the worst-case error upper bound without Rademarcher average and compares it with the existing ones. Section \[sec:algs\] proposes our approximation algorithms based on our upper bounds. Section \[sec:eval\] gives our evaluation results, which compare our algorithms with the state-of-art.
Related Works {#sec:rw}
=============
Frequent Itemset Mining has been very popular in the communities of information retrieval and data mining [@LRU14]. Unsurprisingly, many algorithms that can compute the exact frequencies have been proposed, e.g., A-Priori algorithm [@AIS93], Park-Chen-Yu’s algorithm [@PCY95], Multistage algorithms [@FSG99]. However it is very challenging to deal with large scaled data sets with limited main memory. Thus the classical exact algorithms may not fit well in practice. As a result, how to approximate the frequent itemsets by sampling has become interesting, since usually the sample size is much less than the entire data scale. Toivonen [@Toi96] was among the first to study sampling on FI approximation, and suggested the first worst-case error bound on frequencies. However his algorithm did not directly use the bound and still needed to parse all the dataset. Thus for scenarios like streams where the size of dataset is unbounded, we cannot use Toivonen’s algorithm directly.
Sampling-based frequent itemset approximation has been studied extensively by the researchers. The first works on this problem used heuristic methods to progressively approximate the frequencies [@CHS02; @CCY05; @Parth02]. There were no guarantee on the worst-case error upper bound. To fix this, Riondato and Upfal were the first to propose FI approximation algorithms that could guarantee the worst error bounds by using results of Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension [@RU12; @RU14] and Rademacher average [@RU15]. Note that in statistical learning theory VC dimension and Rademacher average are usually used to address the worst-case error upper bound for *infinite case*, i.e., the number of possible functions in the learning model is infinite [@BBL04]. However in the case of FI mining, since there are only *finite* itemsets, it is possible to develop bounds without VC dimension or Rademacher average [@BBL04]. In this paper we apply this idea on FI mining problem. Riondato et al. also considered using parallelism in FI mining [@RDF12], which is an orthogonal topic to sampling-based FI approximation.
In practice we are often only interested in the most frequent itemsets. Thus top-$k$ FI mining is a popular research topic with many research works [@PRU10; @SW02; @RU15; @RV14]. Another interesting question is to find all itemsets with frequencies larger than a threshold. Savasere, Omiecinski, and Navathe [@SON95] give an two-pass algorithm (called SON algorithm) that can find the exact solutions. We will use SON algorithm to significantly reduce the number of itemsets to be observed, and then apply our algorithms to approximate the frequencies and select the top $k$ ones. Also Toivonen’s Algorithm [@Toi96] is an alternative way to find the most frequent itemsets given a threshold.
Preliminaries {#sec:prlm}
=============
Frequency of Itemset
--------------------
In this paper we use the notations and definitions from Riondato and Upfal’s pioneering work [@RU15]. Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ be the set of items. A transaction $\tau$ is a subset of ${\mathcal{I}}$ (i.e., $\tau \subseteq {\mathcal{I}}$). An itemset $A$ is a set of items that appear together in a transaction $\tau$, i.e., $A \subseteq \tau$. Clearly any itemset is also a subset of ${\mathcal{I}}$. Let transactional dataset ${\mathcal{D}}$ be the set of all the transactions. In this paper we always assume ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a finite set. Denote by $T_{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ the set of all the transactions in ${\mathcal{D}}$ that contain the itemset $A$. $T_{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ is also known as the support set of $A$ in ${\mathcal{D}}$. If ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a finite set, we can define the frequency of itemset $A$ in ${\mathcal{D}}$ as the fraction of transactions in ${\mathcal{D}}$ that contain $A$. $$f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) = |T_{\mathcal{D}}(A)|/|{\mathcal{D}}|.$$ Clearly $0 \leq f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) \leq 1$ for any $A \subseteq {\mathcal{I}}$.
The goal of our sampling algorithm is to approximate $f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ given an itemset $A$ as accurately as possible.
Approximation Algorithms
------------------------
An $(\epsilon,\delta)$-approximation algorithm of the frequencies $f_{\mathcal{D}}(\cdot)$ takes as input all the items ${\mathcal{I}}$ and outputs a sampled average $f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)$ for each $A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}$ such that with probability at least $1-\delta$, $$\max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}|f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) - f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)| \leq \epsilon.$$ We often use progressive sampling [@RU15; @RU16], i.e., to keep taking more samples until a stopping condition is reached. A stopping condition usually takes the form $\Delta(n, \delta) \leq \epsilon$, where $n$ is the number of samples that have been taken, and $\Delta$ is an upper bound of the worst approximation error given by statistical learning theory. Note that $\Delta$ is usually a function of $n$ and $\delta$.
There is a variant called top-$k$ approximation, which returns the $k$ most frequent itemsets among the observed ones based on the approximated frequencies. This is quite popular in practice since we are often only interested in the most common itemsets.
Risk Bounds {#sec:rb}
-----------
We briefly review some risk bounds in statistical learning theory [@BBL05] with the background of frequent itemsets mining.
For each itemset $A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}$, define the indicator function $\phi_A : 2^{\mathcal{I}}\to \{0, 1\}$ as follows. $$\phi_A(\tau) = \begin{cases}
1 & \textrm{if $A\subseteq \tau$}\\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}\\
\end{cases},\quad
\tau\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}.$$ Clearly, the frequency $f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ equals to the *true* average of $\phi_A(\tau)$ where $\tau$ goes over all the transactions in ${\mathcal{D}}$. $$f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) = \frac{1}{|{\mathcal{D}}|} \sum_{\tau\in{\mathcal{D}}} \phi_A(\tau).$$ Similarly let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be the set of the sampled transactions. Then the *sampled* average of $\phi_A(\tau)$ can be defined as $$f_{\mathcal{S}}(A) = \frac{1}{|{\mathcal{S}}|} \sum_{\tau\in{\mathcal{S}}} \phi_A(\tau).$$ Clearly $f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)$ is the frequency of $A$ appearing in the sampled transactions ${\mathcal{S}}$.
Assume $|{\mathcal{S}}| = n$. For each transaction $\tau_i \in {\mathcal{S}}$, let $\sigma_i$ be a Rademacher random variable taking value from $\{-1, 1\}$ with uniform probability distribution. The $\sigma_i$’s are independent. Assuming ${\mathcal{I}}$ is finite, we define the sample conditional Rademacher average as follows. $${\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}= \mathbb{E}_\sigma \left[\max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \sigma_i\phi_A(\tau_i)\right],$$ where $\mathbb{E}_\sigma$ denotes the expectation taken over all the random variables $\sigma_i$’s, conditionally on the sample ${\mathcal{S}}$.
The following theorem tells us that Rademacher average can be used to upper bound the approximation error, even for the worst case.
\[thm:old\] (Theorem 3.2, [@BBL05]) For any $\delta>0$, with probability at least $1-\delta$, $$\max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}} |f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) - f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)|\leq 2{\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}+ \sqrt{\frac{2\log(2/\delta)}{n}}.$$
If we want to use the upper bound given in Theorem \[thm:old\] in an approximation algorithm, we still need to upper bound the ${\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}$. A classical result is given by Massart [@Mas00].
\[thm:massart\] (Lemma 5.2, [@Mas00]) Let $\ell = \max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}} [\sum_{i=1}^n\phi_A(\tau_i)^2]^{1/2}$ where each $\tau_i\in{\mathcal{S}}$. Then $${\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}\leq \frac{\ell}{n}\sqrt{2\log N},$$ where $N = 2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$ and $n = |{\mathcal{S}}|$.
Hence we have the following stopping condition for an $(\epsilon,\delta)$-approximation sampling algorithm. $$\Delta_1 := \frac{2\ell}{n}\sqrt{2\log N} + \sqrt{\frac{2\log(2/\delta)}{n}} \leq \epsilon.$$ However for many applications the above bound is not tight enough [@RU15; @RU16]. In the next section we will first review the state-of-art bound on the worst approximation error, and then give an asymptotically tighter bound.
Refining the Upper Bound {#sec:refine}
========================
The reason why the bound given in the previous section is often not tight enough in practice is that the $\ell$ defined in Theorem \[thm:massart\] can be quite large. Suppose there is an itemset $A$ that almost always appears in every transaction in ${\mathcal{D}}$. Then no matter which sample the algorithm chooses, $\ell$ is roughly $\sqrt{n}$. For $\delta=0.01$, $N = 2^{1000}$, even 100,000 samples are taken, the upper bound is still larger than 0.15. For many applications such an upper bound cannot be acceptable and thus we need to take more samples. Clearly if the upper bound is tighter, a lot of samples can be saved.
A Brief Review on the Existing Results
--------------------------------------
Riondato and Upfal [@RU15] attempted to give a tighter bound of the Rademacher average ${\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}$.
\[thm:ru\] (Theorem 3, [@RU15], revised) Let $w : \mathbb{R}^+ \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be the function defined as $$w(s) = \frac{1}{s}\log \sum_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}\exp\left(\frac{s^2 \sum_{i=1}^n \phi_A(\tau_i)^2}{2n^2}\right).$$ Then ${\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}\leq \min_{s>0} w(s)$.
[**Remark**]{}. Note that in Theorem \[thm:ru\], the summation in $w(s)$ takes *exactly* $2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$ terms. However in the original version in [@RU15], the authors claimed that the summation could take much less than $2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$ terms. We argue that there is a gap between these two versions. Based on the proof given in [@RU15], one can reach the inequality as follows. $$\label{eqn:ru}\exp(s{\mathcal{R}}_{\mathcal{S}}) \leq \sum_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}\exp\left(\frac{s^2\sum_{i=1}^n \phi_A(\tau_i)^2}{2n^2}\right).$$ Note that on the right hand side, each term in the summation is no less than 1. Hence when taking the logarithm on both sides and dividing by $s$, each of the $2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$ terms cannot be eliminated. Thus the range of the summation cannot be compressed.
Formally, suppose there is a set $\mathcal{V}\subseteq 2^{\mathcal{I}}$, where $2^{\mathcal{I}}$ denotes the power set of ${\mathcal{I}}$, such that $$\alpha(s) := \sum_{A\in 2^{\mathcal{I}}}\exp\left(\frac{s^2\sum_{i=1}^n \phi_A(\tau_i)^2}{2n^2}\right) \leq \sum_{A\in \mathcal{V}}\exp\left(\frac{s^2\sum_{i=1}^n \phi_A(\tau_i)^2}{2n^2}\right) :=\beta(s).$$ We take the limits as $s$ approaches 0. $$2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}=\lim_{s\to 0}\alpha(s) \leq \lim_{s\to 0}\beta(s) = |\mathcal{V}|.$$ Hence $\mathcal{V} = 2^{\mathcal{I}}$. This implies any summation over only a part of $2^{\mathcal{I}}$ must be less than the summation over all of $2^{\mathcal{I}}$. Thus one cannot use Inequality (\[eqn:ru\]) to reach Theorem 3 in [@RU15].
Tighter Bound Without Rademacher Average
----------------------------------------
In statistical learning theory, the upper bound given by Theorem \[thm:old\] is for the general case, i.e., the set of itemsets can be infinite or finite. However, for frequent itemsets mining, the number of itemsets is always finite (at most $2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$). Given this assumption, can we establish any upper bound without using the Rademacher average? Following the similar lines given by Boucheron, Bousquet and Lugosi [@BBL04] and Toivonen [@Toi96], we can give a positive answer.
For any $\epsilon > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \Pr[\max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}|f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)|>\epsilon] \\
= & \Pr[\exists A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}, f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)>\epsilon \vee f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)<-\epsilon] \\
\leq & \Pr[\exists A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}, f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)>\epsilon] +\Pr[\exists A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}, f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)<-\epsilon] && \textrm{(union bound)}\\
\leq & \sum_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}} \Pr[f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)>\epsilon] + \sum_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}} \Pr[f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)>\epsilon] && \textrm{(union bound)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Recall Hoeffding’s inequalities [@H63]. Let $X_1, \cdots, X_n$ be independent random variables bounded by the intervals $[a_i, b_i]$. Define the sampled average of them as $$\overline{X} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i.$$ Then for any $t>0$, $$\Pr[\overline{X} - \mathbb{E}[\overline{X}] > t] \leq \exp\left(-\frac{2n^2t^2}{\sum_{i=1}^n (b_i-a_i)^2}\right),$$ and $$\Pr[\mathbb{E}[\overline{X}] - \overline{X} > t] \leq \exp\left(-\frac{2n^2t^2}{\sum_{i=1}^n (b_i-a_i)^2}\right).$$ Note that if we set $X_i = \phi_A(\tau_i)$, then $X_i$’s are independent since $\tau_i$’s are independent, and thus $f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) = \mathbb{E}[\overline{X}]$ and $f_{\mathcal{S}}(A) = \overline{X}$. Based on Hoeffding’s inequalities, $$\Pr[f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) - f_{\mathcal{S}}(A) > \epsilon] \leq \exp\left(-2n\epsilon^2\right),$$ and $$\Pr[f_{\mathcal{S}}(A) - f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) > \epsilon] \leq \exp\left(-2n\epsilon^2\right).$$ Putting the above results together, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \Pr[\max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}|f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)|>\epsilon] \\
\leq & 2\sum_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}} \exp\left(-2n\epsilon^2\right) \\
= & 2N \exp\left(-2n\epsilon^2\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $N = 2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$. Equivalently for any $\delta>0$, with probability at least $1-\delta$, $$\max_{A\subseteq{\mathcal{I}}}|f_{\mathcal{D}}(A)-f_{\mathcal{S}}(A)| \leq \sqrt{\frac{\log(2N) + \log(1/\delta)}{2n}} =: \Delta_2.$$ Note that the above bound $\Delta_2$ is very similar to the result in Section 3.4, [@BBL04]. Now the bound $\Delta_2$ can generate a new stopping condition for an approximation algorithm.
Recall the classical upper bound given in Section \[sec:rb\]. $$\Delta_1 := \frac{2\ell}{n}\sqrt{2\log N} + \sqrt{\frac{2\log(2/\delta)}{n}}.$$ Clearly $\lim_{\delta\to 0}\Delta_1/\Delta_2 = 2$, i.e., when $\delta$ is very small, the bound $\Delta_1$ is roughly twice of $\Delta_2$ given the sample size $n$. This assures us that the bound $\Delta_2$ is highly competitive.
Theorem \[thm:ru\] can give another upper bound on the worst approximation error. However, since the number of terms in the summation grows exponentially on $|{\mathcal{I}}|$, to find the minimum is computationally infeasible. Furthermore, even if the minimum $w(s^*)$ is found, let $\Delta_1'$ be the upper bound of this variant defined as $$\Delta_1' := w(s^*) + \sqrt{\frac{2\log(2/\delta)}{n}}.$$ By fixing the sample ${\mathcal{S}}$, we still have $\lim_{\delta\to 0}\Delta_1'/\Delta_2 = 2$. For small $\delta$, the bound without Rademacher average still outperforms the existing ones.
Our Frequent Itemset Approximation Algorithm {#sec:algs}
============================================
Approximating with Precomputed Sample Size {#sec:nonprg}
------------------------------------------
We observe the bound given in the previous section: $$\Delta_2 := \sqrt{\frac{\log(2N) + \log(1/\delta)}{2n}},$$ where $N = 2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$. The upper bound $\Delta_2$ can be treated as a function of allowed error probability $\delta$, sample size $n$ and $N = 2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$, all of which are already given. A good news is that there is no parameter that needs to be progressively computed (e.g., $\ell$ in $\Delta_1$). Thus to guarantee an worst approximation error at most $\epsilon$, we only need to make sure $\Delta_2 \leq \epsilon$. By solving it we have $$n \geq \frac{1}{2\epsilon^2}(\log (2N) + \log (1/\delta)).$$ Note that this sampling bound agrees with Toivonen’s result (Corollary 2 in [@Toi96]).
Hence an $(\epsilon,\delta)$-approximation algorithm takes a very simple form. We first consider a brute-force algorithm to approximate frequencies for *all* the itemsets. Note that since the number of subsets (itemsets) in ${\mathcal{I}}$ is exponential (i.e., $2^{|{\mathcal{I}}|}$), the brute-force algorithm is not efficient.
Since the brute-force algorithm above is computationally infeasible when $|{\mathcal{I}}|$ is large, in practice, we often only consider the frequencies of a few itemsets, e.g., most popular pairs of complementary goods, influential coauthoring in a community, etc. For this case, we do not have to consider the itemsets, which do not appear frequently enough.
Denote by ${\mathbf{Ob}}$ the set of the itemsets to be observed. Then the worst approximation error is defined as the maximum error on every itemset in ${\mathbf{Ob}}$. By the same reasoning in the derivation of $\Delta_2$, we have the adjusted new bound: $$\Delta_2' := \sqrt{\frac{\log(2|{\mathbf{Ob}}|) + \log(1/\delta)}{2n}}.$$ Since ${\mathbf{Ob}}$ is a subset of $2^{{\mathcal{I}}}$, this bound $\Delta_2'$ is tighter than $\Delta_2$. Note that Toivonen (Corollary 2, [@Toi96]) also found a similar result as our bound here. The approximation algorithm will also be revised as follows.
Note that we do not have to estimate for any itemset which is out of the observed ones ${\mathbf{Ob}}$. Also we need the size of ${\mathbf{Ob}}$ to be as small as possible. Depending on the practical requirements, the choice of ${\mathbf{Ob}}$ can vary a lot. We will give a SON-based idea in the next section. However many other methods can be tried, e.g., most potentially frequent itemsets can be suggested by the users’ experience or historic records.
Approximating Top-$k$ Frequent Itemsets {#sec:prg}
---------------------------------------
In practice we often need to find out the top-$k$ frequent itemsets among the given candidates ${\mathbf{Ob}}$. We can slightly revise the algorithm given in the previous section to approximate the $k$ most frequent itemsets. A new problem here is how to give the stopping condition. Note that if we only need the top-$k$ frequent itemsets, then our approximation can stop when the members of top-$k$ FIs are fixed with high probability (i.e., at least $1-\delta$). In particular, if with probability at least $1-\delta$, the true frequency of any itemset will not surpass the middle point of the $k$-th and $(k+1)$-th largest approximated frequencies, the $k$ itemsets with largest approximated frequencies should probably be the correct top $k$ ones. By Hoeffding’s inequality and union bounds, given the approximate frequencies with $n$ samples, the probability $p$ that there exists an itemset, whose approximated frequency and true frequency are on the different sides of the middle point of the $k$-th and $(k+1)$-th largest approximated frequencies, can be upper bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
p&=\Pr[\bigvee_{A\in{\mathbf{Ob}}} (f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) < m < \hat{f}_{\mathcal{D}}(A)) \vee (f_{\mathcal{D}}(A) > m > \hat{f}_{\mathcal{D}}(A)) ] \\
&\leq \sum_{A\in{\mathbf{Ob}}} \exp\left(-2n(\hat{f}_{\mathcal{D}}(A) - m)^2\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is the frequency middle point as described above. Hence we can let the sampling stop when the upper bound of $p$ is less than $\delta$. Combining these ideas, a progressive sampling approximation algorithm can be given as follows:
Note that in out top-$k$ approximation algorithm, the stopping condition depends on the $k$-th and $(k+1)$-th largest frequencies. If these two frequencies tie, it is likely that many samples will be needed since we cannot distinguish them based on approximated frequencies. Hence we require the number of samples should not exceed $N$, the number of samples that can guarantee the $(\epsilon, \delta)$-approximation. If more than $N$ samples are needed, we can assume that the $k$-th and $(k+1)$-th largest frequencies tie or are very close. Then we directly output the approximated top FIs, since further computations to distinguish the very close FIs on the boundary are often unnecessary in practice.
To be efficient, we must ensure the size of ${\mathbf{Ob}}$ is small enough. One possible way, which is similar to A-Priori algorithm [@AIS93], is given as follows:
1. We first only consider the itemsets with single item. The item size is usually small enough (i.e., $|{\mathcal{I}}|$) that can be put in main memory. We approximate their frequencies, and take the threshold $T$ as the $k$-th largest frequency among the single items. Usually people are only interested in small $k$, e.g., 10 to 100, which is much less than $|{\mathcal{I}}|$.
2. Then we use SON algorithm $\cite{SON95}$ to exactly find the itemsets with frequencies at least $T$. For efficiency, in SON we only consider the itemsets with 2 items, like what [@LRU14] did. The reason is that the itemsets of sizes larger than 2 usually have much lower frequencies than pairs. Clearly SON algorithm can find at most $k^2$ candidate itemsets.
3. We use our (top-$k$) approximation algorithms to estimate the frequencies of the candidate itemsets (or select the top-$k$ ones).
Since we only consider frequent pairs, we can also build our scheme on PCY or Multistage algorithms. The major difference between PCY, Multistage and A-Priori is how to fully use the main memory for the passes, in which we select the most frequent items or itemsets. Hence the difference does not affect our sampling. Also we can use Toivonen’s algorithm instead of SON to mine frequent itemsets with more than 2 items.
Evaluation {#sec:eval}
==========
In this section we present our evaluation results. We try to find the top-$K$ frequent itemsets (in pairs) by two algorithms proposed in this paper:
- [**A-Priori + Precomputed Sample Size**]{}. We first use A-Priori algorithm to find the top-$K$ most frequent items, and then use the algorithm (discussed in Section \[sec:nonprg\]) to approximate the frequencies of all the pairs formed by the $K$ items. At last we sort the frequencies and find the top-$K$ pairs with the highest approximate frequencies. Note that the sample size can be precomputed.
- [**A-Priori + Progressive Sampling**]{}. This is given in Section \[sec:prg\]. Note that the sampling is progressive, i.e., there is no precomputed sample size.
We compare our algorithms with the state-of-art [@RU15], which is a progressive sampling approximation. For each comparison, our code for each algorithm is similarly organized except that the bounds are different. For the performance, we consider time complexity (running time), sample size, and precision/recall.
Setup
-----
We implemented our algorithms by Python 3.4.3 and ran the programs on knot cluster (one DL580 nodes with 4 Intel X7550 eight core processors and 512GB RAM) at UCSB Center for Scientific Computing. To reduce the entire running time in the experiments (it is very time consuming to compute the exact solutions), for each dataset, we selected the first 70 items and then approximate the top 10 frequencies of their pairs. Each approximation was repeated by 10 times and we took the averaged results. By default we chose that the sample size increases by 100 for each round, and $\epsilon = 0.05$, $\delta = 0.01\%$.
Datasets
--------
[l | r r]{} Name & No. of Transactions & No. of items\
accidents & 340183 & 468\
chess & 3196 & 75\
connect & 67557 & 129\
kosarak & 990002 & 41270\
mushroom & 8124 & 119\
pumsb & 49046 & 7116\
pumsb star & 49046 & 7116\
retail & 88162 & 16470\
For consistency, we choose FIMI’03 data repository [@GZ04], the real-world data set from [@RU15] (the data repository is available at `http://fimi.ua.ac.be/data/`). The item and transaction data sizes of the FIMI datasets are given in Table \[tab:data\]. We will use these data sets to evaluate the samples sizes and worst case errors of our algorithms, and compare our results with the state-of-art algorithms.
Worst-case Error Upper Bound Comparison
---------------------------------------
We compare our new worst-case error bound with the state-of-art [@RU15]. Figure \[fig:b1\] and Figure \[fig:b2\] give our bounds on worst-case errors and [@RU15]’s for different combinations of $\epsilon$, $\delta$ and sample size. Clearly our new bound outperforms the state-of-art, implying that to achieve a certain degree of accuracy, compared to [@RU15]’s estimation, actually much fewer samples are needed. This key result gives the basic motivation of our algorithms.
![$\epsilon = 0.001$, $\delta = 0.00001$.[]{data-label="fig:b2"}](e01d0001.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![$\epsilon = 0.001$, $\delta = 0.00001$.[]{data-label="fig:b2"}](e001d00001.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Comparison Results
------------------
We compare the performance between our methods and the state-of-art [@RU15]. Table \[tab:res1\] gives the evaluation results for our algorithms discussed in Section \[sec:nonprg\]. The algorithms try to find the top-100 most frequent itemsets with two items. Our algorithm will first find the 100 most frequent items, and then approximate the frequencies of the pairs between the 100 items. Thus the number of the observed itemsets is $|{\mathbf{Ob}}| = 100*99/2 = 4950$ for the second pass. Given the default $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, the precomputed sample size $n$ for the second pass is fixed, except the dataset chess, whose transactional size is less than the precomputed sample size. Note that we have significantly confined the observed itemsets, and thus it is efficient to compute the upper bound in [@RU15], i.e., we do not need to consider each subset of ${\mathcal{I}}$. In the table we have included all the samples taken in both the first and second passes. By using our new error upper bound, the running time and sample size are significantly reduced compared to [@RU15], while the accuracy is still quite competitive, i.e., all are larger than 90%. This is natural since [@RU15] takes more samples and thus the estimation should be more accurate. In the dataset chess, every transaction is sampled since its data volume is very small. In the dataset connect, our sample size is only 1/20 of [@RU15]’s, but the accuracy is almost the same.
[l | r r r | r r r]{} Item &
-----------------
Used time (sec)
(ours)
-----------------
: Results of our approximation algorithms with precomputed sample size and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res1"}
&
-------------
Sample size
(ours)
-------------
: Results of our approximation algorithms with precomputed sample size and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res1"}
&
-----------
Precision
(ours)
-----------
: Results of our approximation algorithms with precomputed sample size and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res1"}
&
-----------------
Used time (sec)
[@RU15]
-----------------
: Results of our approximation algorithms with precomputed sample size and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res1"}
&
-------------
Sample size
[@RU15]
-------------
: Results of our approximation algorithms with precomputed sample size and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res1"}
&
-----------
Precision
[@RU15]
-----------
: Results of our approximation algorithms with precomputed sample size and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res1"}
\
accidents & 48.78 & 6894 & 97% & 2683.74 & 387782 & 99%\
chess & 21.44 & 3196 & 100% & 21.86 & 3196 & 100%\
connect & 50.34 & 6636 & 98% & 1097.70 & 132751 & 99%\
kosarak & 104.31 & 7657 & 90% & 11735.33 & 949155 & 98%\
mushroom & 43.32 & 6620 & 98% & 125.56 & 18646 & 99%\
pumsb & 193.39 & 7438 & 98% & 2998.37 & 115939 & 98%\
pumsb star & 155.15 & 7438 & 95% & 2595.17 & 133668 & 99%\
retail & 102.93 & 7606 & 91% & 1909.02 & 128544 & 96%\
Table \[tab:res2\] gives the evaluation results for our algorithms discussed in Section \[sec:prg\]. Similarly to the above non-progressive version, our progressive method is still quite efficient and accurate. The comparison between ours and [@RU15] show that our method is competitive.
[l | r r r | r r r]{} Item &
-----------------
Used time (sec)
(ours)
-----------------
: Comparisons on our progressive approximation algorithms and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res2"}
&
-------------
Sample size
(ours)
-------------
: Comparisons on our progressive approximation algorithms and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res2"}
&
-----------
Precision
(ours)
-----------
: Comparisons on our progressive approximation algorithms and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res2"}
&
-----------------
Used time (sec)
[@RU15]
-----------------
: Comparisons on our progressive approximation algorithms and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res2"}
&
-------------
Sample size
[@RU15]
-------------
: Comparisons on our progressive approximation algorithms and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res2"}
&
-----------
Precision
[@RU15]
-----------
: Comparisons on our progressive approximation algorithms and [@RU15].[]{data-label="tab:res2"}
\
accidents & 18.69 & 3600 & 98% & 357.37 & 60600 & 99%\
chess & 21.96 & 3200 & 98% & 22.33 & 3200 & 99%\
connect & 43.04 & 6700 & 99% & 748.37 & 110200 & 100%\
kosarak & 110.84 & 7700 & 88% & 1367.20 & 86000 & 97%\
mushroom & 46.13 & 6700 & 98% & 100.68 & 16400 & 98%\
pumsb & 170.12 & 7500 & 98% & 2225.19 & 98200 & 98%\
pumsb star & 130.49 & 7500 & 98% & 1708.80 & 98200 & 98%\
retail & 98.24 & 7700 & 94% & 1152.59 & 83700 & 97%\
Conclusion
==========
We have proposed a new upper bound for the worst-case errors on sampling-based approximate frequent itemsets mining. Our new bound is tighter than the state-of-art result. Based on our new bound, two approximation algorithms have been proposed. We have used real-world datasets to evaluate our results and the performance of our algorithms. The evaluation results have shown that our algorithms are not only competitive but also efficient.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Presupernova evolution and explosive nucleosynthesis in massive stars for main-sequence masses from 13 $M_\odot$ to 70 $M_\odot$ are calculated. We examine the dependence of the supernova yields on the stellar mass, ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha, \gamma) ^{16}O}$ rate, and explosion energy. The supernova yields integrated over the initial mass function are compared with the solar abundances.'
address:
- 'Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo,Tokyo 113, Japan'
- 'Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 810, Japan'
- 'National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 181, Japan'
- 'Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Basel CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland'
author:
- |
K. Nomoto, M. Hashimoto, T. Tsujimoto, F.-K. Thielemann, N. Kishimoto,\
Y. Kubo, N. Nakasato
title: '**NUCLEOSYNTHESIS IN TYPE II SUPERNOVAE**'
---
epsf
\#1[$\times$ $10^{#1}$ ]{} \#1[$10^{#1}$ ]{} \#1[$L_{\rm #1}$]{} \#1[$M_{\rm #1}$]{} \#1[$v_{\rm #1}$]{}
Stellar Nucleosynthesis and the ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha,
\gamma)^{16}O}$ Rate
=====================================================
Nucleosynthesis in massive stars is one of the major sources of nuclei in the cosmos. We present presupernova models for helium stars with masses of $M_\alpha$ = 3.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, and 32 $M_\odot$ as an extension of the studies by Nomoto & Hashimoto (1988). These helium star masses correspond approximately to main-sequence masses of $M_{\rm ms}$ = 13, 15, 18, 20, 25, 40, and 70 $M_\odot$, respectively (Sugimoto & Nomoto 1980). The systematic study for such a dense grid of stellar masses enables us to understand how explosive nucleosynthesis depends on the presupernova stellar structure and to apply the results to the chemical evolution of galaxies. We use the Schwarzschild criterion for convection and neglect overshooting. The initial compositions are: $X({\rm ^4He})$ = 0.9879 and $X({\rm ^{14}N})$ = 0.0121, where all the original CNO elements are assumed to be converted into $^{14}$N during core hydrogen burning. These helium stars are evolved from helium burning through the onset of the Fe core collapse.
Nuclear reaction rates are mostly taken from Caughlan & Fowler (1988). For the uncertain rate of ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha,
\gamma)^{16}O}$, we use the rate by Caughlan (1985; CFHZ85), which is larger than the rate by Caughlan & Fowler (1988; CF88) by a factor of $\sim 2.3$. To examine the influence of this difference, we evolve the $M_\alpha$ = 8 helium star, using the ${\rm
^{12}C(\alpha, \gamma)^{16}O}$ rate by CF88 (case 25B). \[The 25 star model with the ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha, \gamma)^{16}O}$ rate by CFHZ85 is denoted as case 25A.\] At the end of core helium burning, the formation of the carbon-oxygen core and its composition are influenced largely by the ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha, \gamma)^{16}O}$ rate. The larger rate results in a smaller C/O ratio, which affects the abundances of Ne, Mg, Al relative to O in the more evolved cores.
Comparison of the presupernova density structures for the two cases 25A and 25B shows that case 25B has a more concentrated core at $M_r < 2 M_\odot$ (i.e., a steeper density gradient) and more extended outer layers than case 25A. This is due to a larger carbon abundance and thus stronger carbon shell burning for 25B. Model 25B has smaller masses of the Fe core (1.37 ) and the O-rich layer than those for 25A (1.41 ) due also to the stronger carbon shell burning.
It is found that the size of the iron core is not a monotonic function of the helium core mass as shown by Barkat & Marom (1990) and Woosley & Weaver (1995). For $M_{\rm ms}$ = 13, 15, 18, 20, 25 (case 25A), 40, and 70 $M_\odot$, the iron core masses are 1.18, 1.28, 1.36, 1.40, 1.42, 1.88, and 1.57 $M_\odot$, respectively. In case 25B, the iron core mass is 1.37 $M_\odot$, which is smaller than in case 25A.
Explosive Nucleosynthesis
=========================
The hydrodynamic phases of supernova explosions for the above eight presupernova models were followed with an extensive nuclear reaction network (Hashimoto 1989, 1993; Thielemann 1990, 1996).
Since the mechanism of supernova explosions after core collapse is not fully understood yet, the explosion energy and the mass cut (or mass) have remaining uncertainties, except for SN 1987A. The final kinetic energy of the explosion is assumed to be $E$ = 1.0 $\times$ 10$^{51}$ erg as inferred from the modeling of SN 1987A and SN 1993J (e.g., Shigeyama & Nomoto 1990; Shigeyama 1994).
In the present study, the mass cut is chosen to produce $\sim$ 0.15 $M_\odot$ ${\rm ^{56}Ni}$ for 13 – 15 stars and $\sim$ 0.075 $M_\odot$ ${\rm ^{56}Ni}$ for 18 – 70 stars. This is based on the estimates from the light curves of SN 1993J and Type Ib supernovae for the 13 – 15 $M_\odot$ stars (e.g., Nomoto 1993) and SN 1987A for the 18 – 20 $M_\odot$ stars (e.g., Nomoto 1993). For more massive stars, a similar mass of ${\rm ^{56}Ni}$ is suggested from SN 1990E (Schmidt 1993).
Figures \[fig:abd1\] and \[fig:abd2\] show the integrated abundances of the ejecta relative to the solar values (Anders & Grevesse 1989) for $M_{\rm ms}$ = 13, 15, 18, 20, 40, and 70 $M_\odot$. Figure \[fig:abd3\] shows three cases of $M_{\rm ms}$ = 25 $M_\odot$, i.e., cases 25A, 25B, and 25BE (see below). Table 1 gives the ejected masses () of stable species for the 13 - 70 stars.
To examine the dependence on the explosion energy, we show the case 25BE, i.e., case 25B with $E = 1.5 \times 10^{51}$ erg. The larger explosion energy leads to the outward shift of the abundance distribution. This leads to minor differences between the abundances for the two explosion energies (Fig. \[fig:abd3\]).
Isotopic Abundances
===================
Figure \[fig:abd4\] shows the isotopic abundances relative to their solar values (Anders & Grevesse 1989) after averaging over the mass range from 10 to 50 $M_\odot$ with an initial mass function $\propto M^{-1.35}$. Here the upper mass limit 50 is chosen from the comparison of \[O/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\] with those of metal-poor stars (Tsujimoto 1993). We also assume no heavy element production below 10 and approximate the abundances of 10 – 13 stars by a linear interpolation between 10 and 13 .
Figure \[fig:abd4\] shows that the relative abundance ratios >from massive stars are in good agreement with the solar ratios for $A <
27$. \[The sum of type Ia and type II products with a ratio of 1 to 9 reproduces well the solar abundances for a wider range of $A$ (Tsujimoto 1995).\] Note that this agreement is realized for the ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha, \gamma) ^{16}O}$ rate by CFHZ85, i.e., case 25A.
For case 25B, Ne, Na, and Al relative to O are overproduced with respect to the solar ratios as seen in Figure \[fig:abd3\]. This is due to the larger C/O ratio in case 25B after helium burning. Since the products of the 25 $M_\odot$ star dominate type II supernova yields, this result suggests that the ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha,
\gamma)^{16}O}$ rate is higher than that of CF88 and closer to CFHZ85. The presently most reliable experimental investigations give values inbetween the two rates.
We should note that the isotopic ratios in Figures \[fig:abd1\] – \[fig:abd4\] depend not only on the ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha,
\gamma)^{16}O}$ rate but also on convective overshooting, mixing fresh He into the core at late high temperature core helium burning stages. The above comparison that favors the CFHZ85 rate is based on the calculations with no convective overshooting. If overshooting during convective core helium burning would reduce the C/O ratio, a smaller ${\rm ^{12}C(\alpha, \gamma)^{16}O}$ rate would be favored (Weaver & Woosley 1993; Woosley & Weaver 1995).
Figure \[fig:abd4\] also shows that some species, ${\rm
^{35}Cl}$, ${\rm ^{39}K}$, ${\rm ^{44}Ca}$, ${\rm ^{48}Ti}$, and ${\rm
^{59}Co}$, are underproduced relative to the solar values. If we include the weak component of the s-process nuclei $50 < A < 100$ produced during core helium burning (Prantzos 1990), ${\rm
^{48}Ti}$ and ${\rm ^{59}Co}$ are enhanced appreciably compared with the seed (solar) abundances. ${\rm ^{35}Cl}$, ${\rm ^{39}K}$ and ${\rm ^{44}Ca}$ are enhanced only by a factor of $\sim$ 2. Synthesis of s-process elements during carbon shell burning would also be significant.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been supported in part by the Grant in Aid for Scientific Research (05243206, 06234210) and COE research (07CE2002) of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture in Japan.
\
\
\
\
\
\
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Species $m$=13 $M_\odot$ $m$=15 $M_\odot$ $m$=18 $M_\odot$ $m$=20 $M_\odot$ $m$=25 $M_\odot$ $m$=40 $M_\odot$ $m$=70 $M_\odot$
$^{12}$C 2.68E-03 8.26E-02 1.65E-01 1.14E-01 1.48E-01 1.48E-01 4.67E-01
$^{13}$C 9.47E-09 4.97E-10 7.73E-10 1.17E-10 1.03E-08 3.02E-10 2.57E-10
$^{14}$N 3.75E-08 5.37E-03 3.39E-03 2.72E-03 9.53E-04 7.08E-05 7.68E-03
$^{15}$N 2.08E-08 1.36E-10 9.05E-08 6.48E-10 1.04E-08 1.19E-08 2.36E-10
$^{16}$O 1.51E-01 3.55E-01 7.92E-01 1.48 2.99 9.11 2.14E+01
$^{17}$O 6.07E-08 4.41E-09 4.01E-07 9.86E-09 7.86E-08 3.13E-07 6.64E-10
$^{18}$O 9.44E-09 1.35E-02 8.67E-03 8.68E-03 6.69E-03 1.79E-06 3.80E-03
$^{19}$F 8.06E-10 2.12E-11 7.67E-09 7.84E-11 8.17E-10 7.38E-10 2.63E-15
$^{20}$Ne 2.25E-02 2.08E-02 1.61E-01 2.29E-01 5.94E-01 6.58E-01 2.00
$^{21}$Ne 2.08E-04 3.93E-05 2.19E-03 3.03E-04 3.22E-03 2.36E-03 1.14E-02
$^{22}$Ne 1.01E-04 1.25E-02 2.74E-02 2.93E-02 3.39E-02 5.66E-02 5.23E-02
$^{23}$Na 7.27E-04 1.53E-04 7.25E-03 1.15E-03 1.81E-02 2.37E-02 6.98E-02
$^{24}$Mg 9.23E-03 3.16E-02 3.62E-02 1.47E-01 1.59E-01 3.54E-01 7.87E-01
$^{25}$Mg 1.38E-03 2.55E-03 7.54E-03 1.85E-02 3.92E-02 4.81E-02 1.01E-01
$^{26}$Mg 8.96E-04 2.03E-03 5.94E-03 1.74E-02 3.17E-02 1.07E-01 2.91E-01
$^{27}$Al 1.04E-03 4.01E-03 5.44E-03 1.55E-02 1.95E-02 8.05E-02 1.44E-01
$^{28}$Si 6.68E-02 7.16E-02 8.69E-02 8.50E-02 1.03E-01 4.29E-01 7.55E-01
$^{29}$Si 7.99E-04 3.25E-03 1.76E-03 9.80E-03 6.97E-03 5.43E-02 1.08E-01
$^{30}$Si 1.87E-03 4.04E-03 3.33E-03 7.19E-03 6.81E-03 4.32E-02 1.00E-01
$^{31}$P 2.95E-04 6.55E-04 4.11E-04 1.05E-03 9.02E-04 5.99E-03 2.57E-02
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
: Nucleosynthesis products of SNe II for various progenitor masses (H-rich envelope is not included).
Species $m$=13 $M_\odot$ $m$=15 $M_\odot$ $m$=18 $M_\odot$ $m$=20 $M_\odot$ $m$=25 $M_\odot$ $m$=40 $M_\odot$ $m$=70 $M_\odot$
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
$^{32}$S 1.46E-02 3.01E-02 3.76E-02 2.29E-02 3.84E-02 1.77E-01 2.05E-01
$^{33}$S 1.19E-04 9.60E-05 1.48E-04 8.84E-05 2.20E-04 7.49E-04 1.02E-03
$^{34}$S 1.83E-03 1.49E-03 1.89E-03 1.26E-03 2.77E-03 1.14E-02 1.98E-02
$^{36}$S 3.04E-07 3.34E-07 8.08E-07 4.23E-07 7.51E-07 1.40E-05 2.17E-06
$^{35}$Cl 3.70E-05 3.45E-05 8.95E-05 6.05E-05 6.72E-05 4.75E-04 1.76E-03
$^{37}$Cl 6.73E-06 9.60E-06 1.04E-05 4.96E-06 1.32E-05 1.17E-04 1.01E-04
$^{36}$Ar 2.36E-03 5.63E-03 6.13E-03 3.78E-03 6.71E-03 3.11E-02 2.92E-02
$^{38}$Ar 4.85E-04 6.49E-04 6.29E-04 3.25E-04 7.24E-04 9.14E-03 6.16E-03
$^{40}$Ar 4.82E-09 3.24E-09 1.42E-08 4.65E-09 8.92E-09 1.74E-07 5.07E-08
$^{39}$K 1.95E-05 3.31E-05 3.66E-05 3.24E-05 3.47E-05 3.83E-04 3.84E-04
$^{41}$K 1.42E-06 2.37E-06 2.23E-06 1.28E-06 2.79E-06 3.43E-05 2.84E-05
$^{40}$Ca 2.53E-03 5.29E-03 5.11E-03 3.25E-03 6.15E-03 2.56E-02 2.14E-02
$^{42}$Ca 1.02E-05 1.63E-05 1.45E-05 9.45E-06 1.77E-05 3.13E-04 1.64E-04
$^{43}$Ca 1.91E-06 1.30E-06 3.99E-07 3.38E-06 2.78E-07 4.02E-07 4.09E-06
$^{44}$Ca 1.22E-04 7.49E-05 1.43E-05 9.15E-05 2.11E-05 2.00E-05 2.97E-04
$^{46}$Ca 2.06E-10 6.23E-11 3.23E-11 1.12E-11 2.60E-10 4.39E-10 2.23E-10
$^{48}$Ca 1.13E-13 3.99E-16 1.07E-15 2.41E-16 1.70E-14 2.48E-13 2.36E-14
$^{45}$Sc 4.26E-08 7.44E-08 1.18E-07 1.04E-07 8.96E-08 1.53E-06 2.78E-06
$^{46}$Ti 2.56E-06 6.26E-06 6.72E-06 6.81E-06 6.84E-06 3.56E-05 1.44E-05
$^{47}$Ti 5.13E-06 3.75E-06 3.11E-07 1.73E-06 9.11E-07 9.74E-07 6.26E-07
$^{48}$Ti 1.68E-04 1.58E-04 8.59E-05 1.85E-04 8.98E-05 1.58E-04 1.42E-04
$^{49}$Ti 3.45E-06 6.10E-06 7.54E-06 4.89E-06 6.01E-06 2.17E-05 6.97E-06
$^{50}$Ti 3.56E-10 1.21E-09 1.17E-10 1.12E-10 5.90E-10 2.00E-10 2.56E-10
$^{50}$V 8.65E-10 8.57E-10 4.64E-10 2.15E-10 7.99E-10 2.14E-09 1.52E-09
$^{51}$V 9.34E-06 1.25E-05 1.25E-05 6.40E-06 9.96E-06 2.73E-05 1.15E-05
$^{50}$Cr 2.30E-05 5.15E-05 7.49E-05 3.54E-05 5.01E-05 1.49E-04 1.01E-04
$^{52}$Cr 1.15E-03 1.36E-03 1.44E-03 8.64E-04 1.31E-03 2.77E-03 6.86E-04
$^{53}$Cr 9.34E-05 1.35E-04 1.50E-04 7.12E-05 1.39E-04 3.56E-04 1.00E-04
$^{54}$Cr 3.35E-08 4.09E-08 2.53E-08 6.26E-09 2.41E-08 2.81E-08 7.61E-08
$^{55}$Mn 3.65E-04 4.74E-04 5.48E-04 2.27E-04 5.02E-04 8.41E-04 3.64E-04
$^{54}$Fe 2.10E-03 4.49E-03 6.04E-03 2.52E-03 4.81E-03 9.17E-03 5.81E-03
$^{56}$Fe 1.50E-01 1.44E-01 7.57E-02 7.32E-02 5.24E-02 7.50E-02 7.50E-02
$^{57}$Fe 4.86E-03 4.90E-03 2.17E-03 3.07E-03 1.16E-03 2.29E-03 3.83E-03
$^{58}$Fe 3.93E-09 1.27E-08 1.37E-08 3.70E-09 8.34E-09 1.29E-08 4.17E-08
$^{59}$Co 1.39E-04 1.22E-04 4.82E-05 1.31E-04 2.19E-05 2.51E-05 1.59E-04
$^{58}$Ni 5.82E-03 7.50E-03 3.08E-03 3.71E-03 1.33E-03 3.31E-03 9.25E-03
$^{60}$Ni 3.72E-03 3.36E-03 8.71E-04 2.18E-03 6.67E-04 3.88E-04 1.77E-03
$^{61}$Ni 1.58E-04 1.43E-04 4.77E-05 1.59E-04 2.75E-05 2.57E-05 1.55E-04
$^{62}$Ni 1.05E-03 9.50E-04 2.52E-04 7.26E-04 1.70E-04 1.11E-04 1.28E-03
$^{64}$Ni 2.02E-15 4.28E-15 2.93E-16 2.06E-15 6.08E-15 6.49E-16 4.33E-12
$^{63}$Cu 1.18E-06 1.01E-06 4.32E-07 3.00E-06 1.50E-07 1.62E-07 9.09E-06
$^{65}$Cu 9.11E-07 7.17E-07 8.40E-08 7.02E-07 1.42E-07 1.89E-08 5.34E-07
$^{64}$Zn 2.14E-05 1.99E-05 3.89E-06 1.78E-05 3.10E-06 8.79E-07 1.02E-05
$^{66}$Zn 1.63E-05 1.30E-05 4.47E-06 2.08E-05 2.58E-06 9.99E-07 3.09E-05
$^{67}$Zn 2.13E-08 1.54E-08 3.39E-09 6.39E-08 2.95E-09 2.51E-10 1.95E-07
$^{68}$Zn 6.63E-09 7.35E-09 8.36E-10 5.33E-09 9.29E-10 1.20E-10 9.51E-08
[widest citation in source list]{}
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53, 197 Barkat, Z., & Marom, A. 1990, in Supernovae, ed. J.C. Wheeler (World Scientific), p. 95 Caughlan, G.R., Fowler, W.A., Harris, M.J., & Zimmerman, B.A. 1985, Atomic Data & Nuclear Data Tables 32, 197 Caughlan, G.R., & Fowler, W.A. 1988, Atomic Data & Nucl. Data Tables 40, 283 Hashimoto, M., Nomoto, K., & Shigeyama, T. 1989, A&A 210, L5 Hashimoto, M., Nomoto, K., Tsujimoto, T., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1993, in Nuclei in Cosmos, ed. F. Käppeler & K. Wisshak (Institute Physics Publ.), p. 587 Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M. 1988, Phys. Rep. 163, 13 Nomoto, K., Shigeyama, T., Kumagai, S., Yamaoka, H., & Suzuki, T. 1994, in Supernovae (Les Houches, Session LIV), ed. S. Bludman, R. (Elsevier Sci. Publ.), p. 489 Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., Kumagai, S., Yamaoka, H., & Saio, H. 1993, Nature 364, 507 Prantzos, N., Hashimoto, M., & Nomoto, K. 1990, A&A 234, 211 Schmidt, B.P. 1993, AJ 105, 2236 Shigeyama, T., & Nomoto, K. 1990, ApJ 360, 242 Shigeyama, T., Nomoto, K., Tsujimoto, T. & Hashimoto, M. 1990, ApJ 361, L23 Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., Nomoto, K., Saio, H., & Yamaoka, H. 1994, ApJ 420, 341 Sugimoto, D., & Nomoto, K. 1980, Space Sci. Rev. 25, 155 Thielemann, F.-K., Hashimoto, M., & Nomoto, K. 1990, ApJ 349, 222 Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M. 1996, ApJ 460, 408 Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, M., Yanagida, S., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1995, MNRAS 277, 945 Tsujimoto, T., Iwamoto, K., Hashimoto, M., Nomoto, K., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1993, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed. S. Kubono & T. Kajino (World Scientific) p. 50 Weaver, T., & Woosley, S.E. 1993, Phys. Rep. 227, 65 Woosley, S.E., & Weaver, T.A. 1995, ApJS 101, 181
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Electro-stimulation or modulation of deep brain regions is commonly used in clinical procedures for the treatment of several nervous system disorders. In particular, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is widely used as an affordable clinical application that is applied through electrodes attached to the scalp. However, it is difficult to determine the amount and distribution of the electric field (EF) in the different brain regions due to anatomical complexity and high inter-subject variability. Personalized tDCS is an emerging clinical procedure that is used to tolerate electrode montage for accurate targeting. This procedure is guided by computational head models generated from anatomical images such as MRI. Distribution of the EF in segmented head models can be calculated through simulation studies. Therefore, fast, accurate, and feasible segmentation of different brain structures would lead to a better adjustment for customized tDCS studies.
In this study, a single-encoder multi-decoders convolutional neural network is proposed for deep brain segmentation. The proposed architecture is trained to segment seven deep brain structures using T1-weighted MRI. Network generated models are compared with a reference model constructed using a semi-automatic method, and it presents a high matching especially in Thalamus (Dice Coefficient (DC) = 94.70%), Caudate (DC = 91.98%) and Putamen (DC = 90.31%) structures. Electric field distribution during tDCS in generated and reference models matched well each other, suggesting its potential usefulness in clinical practice.
address:
- 'Department of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt'
- 'Center of Biomedical Physics and Information Technology, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan'
author:
- 'Essam A. Rashed'
- 'Jose Gomez-Tames'
- Akimasa Hirata
bibliography:
- 'Refs1.bib'
title: 'End-to-end semantic segmentation of personalized deep brain structures for non-invasive brain stimulation'
---
End-to-end semantic segmentation, convolutional neural network, brain stimulation, MRI, tDCS
Introduction
============
Deep brain electrostimulation (modulation) in a non-invasive manner is a clinical procedure applied in the treatment of neurological disorders. One promissing application is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) where a weak direct current can be used to modulate cortical, sub-cortical, and deeper regions [@Dasilva2012headache; @Frase2016NPhys; @Kim2012BS]. Although tDCS is known as an affordable clinical tool, it still suffers from limitations due to high inter- and intra-subject variability that makes it hard to predict the electric current spread in different brain regions [@Datta2011BS; @Laakso2015BS; @Wiethoff2014BS]. Moreover, tDCS bipolar electrode montages can generate consistent current not only in superficial tissues underneath the electrodes but also consistent and significant currents in deep regions at group-level, in which current spread is influenced by all non-brain, cortical and deep brain tissues [@GomezTames2019CN]. However, the capability to customize the tDCS treatment scenarios that generate specific currents for specific neurophysiological impact is difficult [@Sadleir2012FP; @Datta2012FP]. Several published works have studied the effect of subject/anatomy variability on the neuromodulation effects using tDCS [@Lopezalonso2014BS; @Tremblay2014BS; @Laakso2015BS; @GomezTames2019JNE].
The common practice in tDCS is to use one-fits-all electrode montage. However, personalized tDCS is required to reduce the inter-subject difference effects and to increase the potential effectiveness. Simulation studies using personalized head models generated by a segmentation of anatomical images such as MRI is expected to become common in clinical tDCS for dosage optimization [@Sadleir2010neuroimage; @Thair2017FN]. A volume conductor model representing the patient under study can provide better understating on how likely is the current pathways and what are the potential brain regions that are likely to be stimulated. However, this approach requires a reliable and instance segmentation of major head tissues to be useful in clinical use. Manual segmentation of all head tissues is known to be a tedious time-consuming process that requires special experience for accurate results. On the other hand, automatic segmentation using MRI is a challenging task as several head tissues are presented in low-contrast in MRI (e.g., blood vessels, dura, and spongy bones). Therefore, it is difficult to be identified using standard intensity-based approaches. This problem can be mitigated when additional anatomical information from CT and/or venogram are available but this means additional patient burden.
Convolutional neural networks are evolving as the state-of-art image segmentation techniques for brain MRI [@Bernal2019AIM]. With deep learning network architectures, several automatic features can be observed by the network with no need of prior hand-crafted design [@Rashed2019pulse]. Recently, several network designs are presented for brain segmentation [@Chen2018neuroimage; @Wachinger2018NeuroImage; @Jog2019neuroimage; @Khalili2019MRI; @Dolz2019TMI] and deep brain regions [@Roy2019NeuroImage; @Kushibar2018MIA; @Dolz2018NeuroImage; @Ryu2019MRI]. Reviews on brain structure segmentation in MRI can be found in [@GonzlezVill2016AIM] with an emphasis on deep learning approaches in [@Akkus2017JDI]. Although supervised-based segmentation is known to be time-consuming in feature optimization (training phase), it is of reasonable computation cost in evaluation (testing phase). Moreover, an end-to-end network architecture that evolves convolutional operations is highly robust to data vulnerabilities to some extent.
Previous studies in brain segmentation using deep neural networks can be categorized based on network architecture into three classes. 1) Batch-based networks, in which images/volumes are divided into 2D/3D patches that are used to derive a pixel/voxel oriented features using local neighborhood, 2) semantic-based networks where the whole image is used as network input, and 3) hybrid-networks where both approaches are fused, with potential use of statistical priors such as atlases.
In this study, a semantic-based end-to-end network architecture is proposed to handle the deep brain region segmentation. In our previous studies [@Rashed2019Neuroimage; @Rashed2019ICIP], we presented the ForkNet architecture for full personalized head segmentation. In that work, ForkNet was trained for the segmentation of 13 head standard tissues using T1-weighted MRI for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the brain. Here, we extend the ForkNet design for the segmentation of sub-cortical brain regions and validate the accuracy of automatic segmentation for application to tDCS EF estimation. The accuracy of the segmentation is validated by tDCS-generated EFs that are shaped not only by non-brain tissues and cortical tissues but also significantly by deep brain structures.
{width="\textwidth"}
Materials and methods
=====================
The proposed pipeline to segment deep brain region is presented in this section along with evaluation study using tDCS stimulation. First, we present the datasets used in the study, followed by details of network architecture used in the segmentation process. Next, the segmentation pipeline for deep brain regions is discussed. Finally, we compute tDCS neuromodulation in deep regions using volume conductor models generated using different segmentation methods.
MRI Datasets
------------
In this study, two brain MRI datasets are used for the evaluation of the proposed method. The first dataset is the NAMIC (Brain Multimodality) dataset[^1] with voxel size 1 mm$^3$ of 18 subjects. The semi-automatic method in our previous study [@Laakso2015BS] is used to segment the whole head into different tissues including sub-cortical regions. An example of deep brain region segmentation using the semi-automatic method is shown in Fig. \[example\]. The second dataset is the MICCAI 2012 workshop on multi-atlas labeling[^2] [@Miccai2012] with 35 subjects along with golden truth segmentation of brain structures. Both datasets are used to validate the segmentation accuracy. Segmentation of NAMIC dataset is also used for tDCS studies to validate segmentation quality effect on EF distribution in deep brain structures.
{width="\textwidth"}
Network architecture
--------------------
The proposed network architecture is a generalized extension of ForkNet [@Rashed2019Neuroimage]. The main design features an end-to-end architecture composite of single track encoders followed by multi-decoders as shown in Fig. \[arch\]. The main components are convolution, encoding, decoding, and map modules. Convolution module (ConvMod) consists of a convolutional layer followed by a batch normalization (BN) layer and rectifier linear unit (ReLU) layer. Encode modules (EncMod) are presented in a single track with variable length determined by the network depth $D$. Each encoder is a ConvMod followed by a maximum pooling layer. Decovolution modules (DecMod) are presented in $N$ tracks and $D$ depth. Each deconvolution module is a composition of deconvolution layer, BN layer, ReLU layer, and ConvMod. Finally, each decoding track is attached to a Map modeule which is a convolutional layer and logic sigmoid. This architecture can be customized with degree $N$ identify the number of decoder tracks and depth $D$ refers to how many successive convolutional operations are perfumed. The input is a 2D MRI slice and outputs are probability maps representing different anatomical structures. A key feature of the proposed architecture is the ability to customize decoder tracks individually to fit with texture variability of anatomical structures. Detailed parameters are listed in Table \[SubForkSize\].
Consider $M$ as a volume MRI with $K$ slices, the network output is computed as:
$$L_{k,n}=\textnormal{SubForkNet}(M_k),~k=1,\dots\,K;~ n=1,\dots,N.$$
The corresponding segmented slice is computed using the following SoftMax rule:
$$R_k(i,j)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \arg \max_n L_{k,n}(i,j) & \max_n L_{k,n}(i,j)>= \epsilon \\ 0 & \max_n L_{k,n}(i,j)< \epsilon \end{array} \right.$$
where $\epsilon$ is a background threshold value. The proposed architecture, named SubForkNet hereafter, is trained using different slicing directions (i.e. axial, sagittal, and coronal) as shown in Fig. \[model\]. The rule-based segmentation merge approach using majority vote is used for generate the final segmentation from different slicing directions. When no majority in a voxel is found, the neighborhood majority vote is computed as:
$$R_k^f(i,j)=\arg \max_{t=a,s,c} \max_n \textnormal{Count}_{i,j \in \Omega} R^t_k(i,j),$$
where $R^a, R^s,$ and $R^c$ are segmentation results obtained from axial, sagittal, and coronal directions, respectively and $\Omega$ is a local neighborhood region (here: $\Omega=$3$\times$3).
[**Module**]{} [**layer**]{} [**output size**]{} [**kernel**]{} [**label**]{}
----------------- ------------------------- --------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------
Input $2^{8}\times2^{8}$
EncMod$_{i}$ $i=1 \rightarrow (D+1)$ Convolution $2^{(i+2)} \times [2^{(9-i)}]^2 $ $2^{(i+2)}$ $\times r^2$
BN & ReLU $2^{(i+2)} \times [2^{(9-i)}]^2$
Pooling (Max) $2^{(i+2)} \times [2^{(8-i)}]^2$
DecMod$_{j,n}$ $j=(D+1) \rightarrow 1$ Deconvolution $2^{(j+1)} \times [2^{(9-j)}]^2 $ $2^{(j+1)}$ $\times2^2$
$n=1 \rightarrow N$ BN & ReLU $2^{(j+1)} \times [2^{(9-j)}]^2 $
Convolution $2^{(j+1)} \times [2^{(9-j)}]^2 $ $2^{(j+1)}$ $\times r^2$
ConvMod$_{j,n}$ $j=D \rightarrow 1$ Convolution $2^{(j+2)} \times [2^{(8-j)}]^2 $ $2^{(j+2)}$ $\times r^2$
$n=1 \rightarrow N$ BN & ReLU $2^{(j+2)} \times [2^{(8-j)}]^2 $
Concat$_{j,n}$ $j=D \rightarrow 1$ Concatenation $2^{(j+3)} \times [2^{(8-j)}]^2 $
$n=1 \rightarrow N$
Map$_n$ $n=1 \rightarrow N$ Convolution $1 \times 2^{8} \times 2^{8}$ $r^2$
Sigmoid (Log) $2^{8} \times 2^{8}$
Output$_n$ $n=1 \rightarrow N$ $ 2^{8}\times2^{8}$
\[SubForkSize\]
Pipeline for personalized head model
------------------------------------
To simulate the EF distribution in brain stimulation procedures with acceptable accuracy, a whole head model considering major tissues is required. This is a difficult task as several head tissues need to be segmented to be associated with equivalent tissue conductivity value. In our previous work, we proposed a deep learning method for segmentation of 13 head tissues [@Rashed2019Neuroimage] for cortical stimulation. However, that study did not consider the deep brain regions where the segmentation is more challenging and become essential in deep brain regions targeted by tDCS. Therefore, we present a pipeline for human head segmentation as follows. First, the 13 head tissues are annotated using ForkNet. Based on this segmentation, all non-brain tissues are excluded from the MRI (i.e., skull-stripping). Deep brain structures are then labeled using SubForkNet. This pipeline is demonstrated in Fig. \[pipeline\].
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
tDCS studies
------------
The electric potential generated by the current injected by the electrodes attached to the scalp was computed using the scalar potential finite-difference (SFPD) method with successive-over-relaxation and multigrid methods [@Dawson1998TMag; @Laakso2012PMB]. First, the SPFD was used to solve the scalar-potential equation:
$$\nabla (\sigma \nabla \phi)=0,$$
where $\phi$ and $\sigma$ denote the scalar potential and tissue conductivity, respectively. Then, the EF was obtained by dividing the potential between the two nodes along the edge of a cubic voxel (the minimum component of the model) by the length of the voxel edge.
[**Tissue**]{} [**Conductivity**]{} [**Tissue**]{} [**Conductivity**]{}
------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
Amygdala 0.20 Intervertebral disk 0.10
Blood 0.70 Muscle 0.16
Bone (Cancellous) 0.027 Nucleus accumbens 0.20
Bone (Cortical) 0.008 Pallidum 0.20
Caudate 0.20 Putamen 0.20
Cerebellum 0.20 Skin 0.10
CSF 1.80 Thalamus 0.20
Fat 0.08 Vitreous humor 1.50
GM 0.20 WM 0.14
Hippocampus 0.20
### Electrode montages
The tDCS electrode model was a 1-mm-thick rubber sheet (conductivity of 0.1 S/m) [@Saturnino2015neuroimage; @Laakso2016neuroimage] inserted into a sponge soaked in normal saline solution (1.6 S/m) [@Dundas2007CN; @Saturnino2015neuroimage]. The electrode was 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ and 5 mm of thickness. The injected current was 2 mA on top of the center of the rubber. Each electrode montage was a bipolar electrode (anode: positive pole and cathode: negative pole) placed at C3-Fp2 (motor cortex-supraorbital) positions according to the 10-20 electroencephalogram system. Large bipolar electrodes were selected to generate a large current spread in the brain, which is suitable for inducing high EFs in deep brain regions. Another common electrode size in clinics and research is 5$\times$7 cm$^2$. Though not used in this paper, we confirmed that the spatial distribution of the EF was marginally affected by the difference in the electrode size.
### Tissue conductivity
The electrical conductivity of head tissues was assumed to be linear and isotropic, as shown in Table \[Conduct\], on the basis of the values reported in [@GomezTames2016PMB; @Laakso2016neuroimage].
Results
=======
Analysis methods
----------------
The segmentation quality is evaluated using Dice Coefficient (DC) defined as follows:
$$DC(R,R_{\circ})=\frac{2|R \cap R_{\circ}|}{|R|+|R_{\circ}|} \times 100\%,$$
where $R$ and $R_{\circ}$ are the network segmented volume and golden truth one, respectively. Moreover, the Hausdorff distance (HD) is used as a quality metric and is defined as:
$$HD(R,R_{\circ})=\max_{a \in R} [ \min_{b \in R_{\circ}} [ d(a,b]],$$
where $d(.,.)$ is the Euclidian distance between the two voxels $a$ and $b$. To quantify the global difference of the internal EF distributions obtained by the different segmented head models and the ground truth, the normalized average of point-wise absolute difference (global error) is used as follows:
$$\textnormal{Diff}(R,R_{\circ})=\frac{1}{\max_{i \in \Omega} (E(i), E_{\circ}(i))}\times \frac{\sum_{i=1}^I |E(i)-E_{\circ}(i)|}{I} \times 100\%,$$
where $E$ and $E_\circ$ are the internal EF in $R$ and $R_\circ$ models, respectively. The relative difference of the maximum internal EF is used as of the local error. These metrics are applied to the different deep brain structures separately and also to the brain (white matter and grey matter) and the whole deep brain tissues. To mitigate numerical artifacts derived from computing the EF using the voxel model at the surface of the CSF-brain boundaries [@Reilly2016PMB], post-processing based on the 99.9$^{th}$ percentile value of the EF was applied for each tissue [@GomezTames2018TEMC]. In this work, the EF strength was adopted as metric of neuromodulation to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed segmentation. Although the most suitable metric is still to be resolved [@Laakso2019SR; @Antonenko2019BS].
{width="\textwidth"}
.\[aggregate\]
{width="\textwidth"}
Deep brain segmentation (NAMIC dataset)
---------------------------------------
The NAMIC dataset is randomly divided into 10 subjects for training and 8 subjects for testing. The training subjects are used to extract slices in a different directions, and then the whole set of slices is shuffled and split into 90% for training and 10% for validation. The proposed architecture is implemented using Wolfram Mathematica (R) ver. 12.0, installed on a workstation of 4$\times$Intel (R) Xeon CPUs @ 3.60 GHz, 128 GB memory, and 3$\times$NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 GPUs. In training, the cross-entropy loss function is minimized using ADAM algorithm [@Kingma2014arXiv]. Network initialization and learning rate are computed automatically by the `NetInitialize` and `NetTrain` Mathematica functions, respectively. The network training is conducted using 100 epochs with batch size = 4. Three networks are used in different directions with unified degree $N=7$, depth $D=2$, $\epsilon=0.3$, and convolutional window $r^2=3\times3$. Segmentation results are evaluated using the semi-automatic segmentation as a golden truth, and DC values are shown in Fig. \[aggregate\]. A sample of the segmented deep brain structures is shown in Fig. \[s1\]. It is observed that segmentation of Thalamus, Caudate, and Putamen structures is of high quality, which is relatively recognized from being presented in a relatively large region in MRI. However, small regions such as Accumbens structure are of low segmentation quality. Another observation is the superior quality of aggregate segmentation, which considers the combination of segmentation along the three directions and elimination of voxels located outside GM regions.
{width="\textwidth"}
Other studies were conducted to understand how different architecture parameters are related to the segmentation quality. Similar to previous study, network is trained over 100 epochs with batch size of 4. First, we evaluate segmentation obtained using different network depth ($D=2$, $3$, and $4$). Although more deep network means more observed features, but we have found that going deeper may not have a good influence on the DC coefficient as shown in Fig. \[depth\] and Table \[Dicecomp1\]. One reason might be the over-fitting of the trained network. Also, another study is used to evaluate different kernel size ($r^2$) of convolution operation. Segmentation is conducted using architectures of 3$\times$3, 5$\times$5, and 7$\times$7 kernel size. Moreover, a new architecture is customized based on the observation of results obtained from different kernel size on different slicing directions. Superior DC values are used to design a customized kernel size for each decoder independently as detailed in Table \[Dicecomp2\]. The measured dice values are shown in Fig. \[kernel\] and it indicates that the use of customized design can slightly improve the segmentation quality.
[**Structure**]{} $D=2$ $D=3$ $D=4$
------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------
Thalamus [**93.65**]{} $\pm$ 2.86 93.52 $\pm$ 4.35 93.08 $\pm$ 3.99
Caudate 89.59 $\pm$ 3.28 [**90.75**]{} $\pm$ 3.10 88.79 $\pm$ 3.03
Putamen [**90.31**]{} $\pm$ 2.52 88.22 $\pm$ 2.32 87.63 $\pm$ 3.55
Pallidum [**85.41**]{} $\pm$ 3.48 84.73 $\pm$ 4.16 82.80 $\pm$ 5.96
Hippocampus [**89.62**]{} $\pm$ 1.45 86.20 $\pm$ 3.48 84.90 $\pm$ 5.00
Amygdala [**84.27**]{} $\pm$ 2.82 82.43 $\pm$ 3.72 80.51 $\pm$ 6.03
Accumbens [**72.71**]{} $\pm$ 7.79 68.63 $\pm$ 15.19 64.98 $\pm$14.56
Deep regions [**86.51**]{} $\pm$ 7.39 84.87 $\pm$ 9.81 83.24 $\pm$ 10.75
------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ --------------------------
axial sagittal coronal
Thalamus $5 \times 5$ $7 \times 7$ $7 \times 7$ 93.65 $\pm$ 2.86 94.28 $\pm$ 2.99 94.13 $\pm$ 2.22 [**94.70**]{} $\pm$ 2.57
Caudate $5 \times 5$ $5 \times 5$ $5 \times 5$ 89.59 $\pm$ 3.28 91.93 $\pm$ 2.32 91.47 $\pm$ 2.16 [**91.98**]{} $\pm$ 2.16
Putamen $3 \times 3$ $5 \times 5$ $5 \times 5$ [**90.31**]{} $\pm$ 2.52 89.29 $\pm$ 2.54 89.37 $\pm$ 1.95 89.15 $\pm$ 1.72
Pallidum $7 \times 7$ $7 \times 7$ $7 \times 7$ 85.41 $\pm$ 3.48 86.88 $\pm$ 3.46 87.20 $\pm$ 2.93 [**89.42**]{} $\pm$ 4.41
Hippocampus $7 \times 7$ $5 \times 5$ $5 \times 5$ 89.62 $\pm$ 1.45 90.29 $\pm$ 1.93 89.55 $\pm$ 2.26 [**90.74**]{} $\pm$ 2.56
Amygdala $7 \times 7$ $5 \times 5$ $5 \times 5$ 84.27 $\pm$ 2.82 85.83 $\pm$ 2.34 84.94 $\pm$ 3.46 [**86.34**]{} $\pm$ 2.39
Accumbens $5 \times 5$ $7 \times 7$ $5 \times 5$ 72.71 $\pm$ 7.79 74.05 $\pm$ 6.81 74.13 $\pm$ 8.49 [**75.13**]{} $\pm$ 7.62
86.51 $\pm$ 7.39 87.51 $\pm$ 7.01 87.26 $\pm$ 7.13 [**88.21**]{} $\pm$ 6.93
------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ --------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Deep brain segmentation (MICCAI 2012 dataset)
---------------------------------------------
For further validation of the proposed method, the well-known MICCAI 2012 dataset is used for additional evaluation. This dataset is divided into 15 subjects for training and 20 subjects for testing. The segmentation pipeline descriped in Fig. \[pipeline\] is used and the labels corresponding to left and right portions of each deep brain structures are unified. SubForkNet with $D=2$, $N=7$, $r^2=3\times 3$, $\epsilon=0.3$ is trained using 100 epochs and batch size=4. Dice coefficient and HD values are shown in Tables \[Dicecomp3\] and \[HDcomp3\] with corresponding values computed using FIRST [@Patenaude2011neuroimage], FreeSurfer [@Fischi2012NeuroImage], PICSL method [@Wang2013MICCAI] and CNN+Atlas method [@Kushibar2018MIA]. Although the network parameters are not optimized to achieve the best performance, it still can provide notable improvement compared with related methods.
[**Structure**]{} FIRST FreeSurfer PICSL CNN+Atlas Proposed
------------------- --- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ------------------------ -------------------------
L 88.9 $\pm$ 1.8 83.0 $\pm$ 1.8 92.2 $\pm$ 1.3 92.1 $\pm$ 1.8
R 89.0 $\pm$ 1.7 84.9 $\pm$ 2.1 92.4 $\pm$ 0.8 92.0 $\pm$ 1.6
L 79.7 $\pm$ 4.6 80.8 $\pm$ 7.9 88.5 $\pm$ 7.4 [**89.4**]{} $\pm$ 7.1
R 83.7 $\pm$ 11.7 80.1 $\pm$ 4.2 88.7 $\pm$ 6.5 [**89.2**]{} $\pm$ 5.7
L 86.0 $\pm$ 6.0 77.1 $\pm$ 3.9 90.9 $\pm$ 4.2 91.6 $\pm$ 2.3
R 87.6 $\pm$ 8.0 79.9 $\pm$ 2.6 90.8 $\pm$ 4.6 91.4 $\pm$ 3.1
L 81.5 $\pm$ 8.8 69.3 $\pm$ 18.9 87.3 $\pm$ 3.2 84.3 $\pm$ 10.1
R 79.9 $\pm$ 6.0 79.2 $\pm$ 8.5 87.4 $\pm$ 4.7 86.1 $\pm$ 4.9
L 80.9 $\pm$ 2.2 78.4 $\pm$ 5.4 87.1 $\pm$ 2.4 87.6 $\pm$ 2.0
R 81.0 $\pm$ 14.0 79.4 $\pm$ 2.5 86.9 $\pm$ 2.2 87.9 $\pm$ 2.0
L 72.1 $\pm$ 5.3 58.5 $\pm$ 6.4 83.2 $\pm$ 2.6 83.3 $\pm$ 3.2
R 70.7 $\pm$ 5.4 57.6 $\pm$ 7.6 81.2 $\pm$ 3.3 82.1 $\pm$ 2.7
L 69.9 $\pm$ 8.9 63.0 $\pm$ 5.5 79.0 $\pm$ 5.0 [**79.9**]{} $\pm$ 5.2
R 67.8 $\pm$ 8.1 44.3 $\pm$ 6.5 78.3 $\pm$ 5.8 [**79.1**]{} $\pm$ 6.7
Deep regions 79.9 $\pm$ 9.4 72.5 $\pm$ 13.7 86.7 $\pm$ 6.1 86.9 $\pm$ 6.4 [**87.9**]{} $\pm$ 11.8
[**Structure**]{} FIRST FreeSurfer PICSL CNN+Atlas Proposed
------------------- --- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
L 4.65 $\pm$ 0.90 4.94 $\pm$ 1.01 3.22 $\pm$ 0.99 3.39 $\pm$ 1.13
R 4.39 $\pm$ 0.92 4.76 $\pm$ 0.75 3.11 $\pm$ 0.79 3.31 $\pm$ 1.01
L 3.56 $\pm$ 1.30 9.89 $\pm$ 3.09 3.44 $\pm$ 1.89 [**3.32**]{} $\pm$ 2.00
R 4.16 $\pm$ 1.37 10.39 $\pm$ 3.09 3.60 $\pm$ 1.67 [**3.51**]{} $\pm$ 1.67
L 3.79 $\pm$ 1.76 6.31 $\pm$ 1.09 3.07 $\pm$ 1.40 [**2.63**]{} $\pm$ 1.09
R 3.26 $\pm$ 1.23 5.85 $\pm$ 0.84 2.91 $\pm$ 1.41 [**2.75**]{} $\pm$ 0.99
L 2.89 $\pm$ 0.71 3.89 $\pm$ 1.07 2.52 $\pm$ 0.54 2.38 $\pm$ 0.76
R 3.18 $\pm$ 0.93 3.45 $\pm$ 0.98 2.49 $\pm$ 0.59 2.59 $\pm$ 0.61
L 5.49 $\pm$ 1.66 6.35 $\pm$ 1.87 4.34 $\pm$ 1.66 4.48 $\pm$ 2.02
R 4.80 $\pm$ 1.66 6.19 $\pm$ 1.59 4.01 $\pm$ 1.45 3.76 $\pm$ 1.23
L 3.54 $\pm$ 0.72 5.05 $\pm$ 0.97 [**2.44**]{} $\pm$ 0.29 2.39 $\pm$ 0.39
R 4.11 $\pm$ 0.75 5.43 $\pm$ 0.90 [**2.72**]{} $\pm$ 0.50 2.72 $\pm$ 0.69
L 6.81 $\pm$ 8.76 4.28 $\pm$ 1.11 2.57 $\pm$ 0.67 2.39 $\pm$ 0.64
R 3.93 $\pm$ 1.75 5.47 $\pm$ 1.02 2.65 $\pm$ 0.76 2.54 $\pm$ 0.65
Deep regions 4.18 $\pm$ 2.76 5.87 $\pm$ 2.48 3.08 $\pm$ 1.27 3.01 $\pm$ 1.30 [**2.83**]{} $\pm$ 2.36
tDCS validation
---------------
To validate the effect of the deep brain structure’s segmentation using SubForkNet and how it is related with the tDCS measurements, we generated four different head models; $R_s^s$, $R_s^f$, $R_f^s$, and $R_f^f$. Where $R_a^b$ is the head model generated from 13 head tissues segmentation using method $a$ and deep brain structure’s segmentation using method $b$, $s$ refers to the semi-automatic method (golden truth) and $f$ refers to ForkNet or SubForkNet segmentation. The tDCS electrodes positioning for eight subjects are shown in Fig. \[montage\]. The four head models generated for the subject (case01017, NAMIC dataset) were used to carry out tDCS studies. The EF induced in the brain and deep brain structures is shown in Fig. \[tDCS\]. From this figure, even where some segmentation errors can be observed in deep brain structures, their impact on the tDCS simulation results was insignificant. Hot spot regions in cortical surface and deep regions are of high consistency. The tDCS simulation is repeated for the remaining seven subjects to investigate the variability factors and quantitative evaluation results are shown in Table \[tDCSStat\]. Global error can reach mean of 3.11% in Amygdala structure in case both 13 head tissues and deep regions are segmented using ForkNet and SubForkNet, respectively (i.e. $R_f^f$). As for the local error, Accumbens, Hippocampus, and Amygdala record the mean values of 12.91%, 11.00%, and 7.79%, respectively. These values are relatively small considering that it represent the segmentation error in both major head tissues and deep brain structures. Smaller values are observed when the segmentation of main head tissues are set to the golden truth values (i.e. $R_s^f$).
{width="\textwidth"}
-------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- -------------------
$R_s^f$ $R_f^s$ $R_f^f$ $R_s^f$ $R_f^s$ $R_f^f$
Thalamus 0.04 $\pm$ 0.11 2.10 $\pm$ 1.17 2.31 $\pm$ 1.19 4.15 $\pm$ 5.64 4.37 $\pm$ 4.41 6.30 $\pm$ 4.86
Caudate 0.03 $\pm$ 0.08 1.84 $\pm$ 1.13 2.16 $\pm$ 1.17 10.54 $\pm$ 7.94 4.32 $\pm$ 5.11 9.56 $\pm$ 6.30
Putamen 0.06 $\pm$ 0.16 1.75 $\pm$ 1.57 1.88 $\pm$ 1.54 2.38 $\pm$ 1.37 2.78 $\pm$ 3.35 2.94 $\pm$ 2.96
Pallidum 0.07 $\pm$ 0.20 1.71 $\pm$ 1.52 1.80 $\pm$ 1.45 2.88 $\pm$ 3.26 2.77 $\pm$ 2.10 5.60 $\pm$ 3.77
Hippocampus 0.08 $\pm$ 0.21 2.76 $\pm$ 0.63 2.87 $\pm$ 0.80 7.92 $\pm$ 11.35 4.31 $\pm$ 1.86 11.00 $\pm$ 12.25
Amygdala 0.09 $\pm$ 0.24 3.10 $\pm$ 0.87 3.11 $\pm$ 0.92 3.23 $\pm$ 4.80 3.71 $\pm$ 2.34 7.79 $\pm$ 7.90
Accumbens 0.05 $\pm$ 0.13 1.74 $\pm$ 1.17 1.82 $\pm$ 1.11 12.19 $\pm$ 8.42 4.35 $\pm$ 3.99 12.91 $\pm$ 8.22
Deep regions 0.05 $\pm$ 0.90 1.69 $\pm$ 0.90 1.85 $\pm$ 0.90 6.30 $\pm$ 4.66 2.87 $\pm$ 3.78 7.69 $\pm$ 4.79
Brain 0.00 $\pm$ 0.00 0.98 $\pm$ 0.41 0.98 $\pm$ 0.41 0.00 $\pm$ 0.00 4.47 $\pm$ 3.87 4.47 $\pm$ 3.86
-------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- -------------------
\[tDCSStat\]
Discussion
==========
SubForkNet architecture
-----------------------
In our previous study [@Rashed2019Neuroimage], we proposed the ForkNet architecture for automatic segmentation of major head tissues. Then, the EF distribution in the cortical region of the brain was computed. It was found that the segmentation accuracy of peripheral structures such as skin, scalp, and CSF were significantly important compared to deep regions for the accurate estimation of TMS-induced EFs in cortical regions. In this study, we investigated the segmentation of deep brain tissues using semantic end-to-end network architecture, and then studied how it is correlated to the accuracy of induced EF. In contrast to TMS, tDCS-generated EFs are significant not only on superficial but also on deeper brain regions and highly sensitive to the segmentation accuracy of deep structures and surrounding regions. Therefore it is important to investigate how the proposed network architecture can provide a segmentation quality that is reliable for personalized tDCS studies.
The network architecture presented here is proved to generate a good segmentation quality using only T1-weighted MRI. One important feature is the split design of decoders, which provide a more feasible architecture for network customization. In this study, we presented a single example of this feature, where a multi-size convolution kernel can achieve better segmentation accuracy, as shown in Table \[Dicecomp2\]. The personalized head model pipeline shown in Fig. \[pipeline\] demonstrate how the two networks ForkNet and SubForkNet (proposed) can be combined for rigid segmentation of different head tissues. Both networks are designed for different segmentation tasks. The former is for superficial and the latter is for deep regions. Customization of the proposed network architecture, such as network depth and convolutional kernel size, were evaluated. The tDCS neuromodulation in deep brain regions was computed for the generated head models and compared with those generated using alternative methods.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Data limitations
----------------
The performance of supervised-based segmentation is known to be highly related to the accuracy of the annotation labels within the training dataset. Faults in the training dataset may lead to improper bias and network confusion. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the proposed architecture using two datasets. The first one is generated using a semi-automatic method detailed in [@Laakso2015BS]. The second (MICCAI 2012 dataset) is a commonly used dataset for the evaluation of similar approaches. However, with a comprehensive analysis of the golden truth segmentation of the second dataset, a notable limitation is observed. As shown in Fig. \[datalimit0\], spike artifacts can be observed in region boundaries in axial and sagittal directions. However, more rigid boundaries can be found in the coronal direction. This may indicate that the manual segmentation is performed in the coronal direction and not corrected in other directions. These artifacts can mislead the assessment of segmentation accuracy as the golden truth may become inaccurate in axial and sagittal directions. To demonstrate this effect, we compare the segmentation of Caudate structure in different orientations in Fig. \[datalimit\]. In the first two rows, we demonstrate examples where both golden truth segmentation and SubForkNet are of high matching with reference to MRI. In the later rows, we show other examples where a strong mismatching is observed. However, it is clear that SubForkNet segmentation fits more with anatomical reference. It worth noting that accurate manual segmentation of deep brain regions is rather difficult and time-consuming task. Even with the above-discussed limitations, using MICCAI 2012 is preferable as standard dataset commonly used by the community for comparison.
Conclusion
==========
In this study, a new end-to-end convolutional neural network architecture is proposed for the annotation of deep brain structures. A key feature of the proposed SubForkNet is the composition of single encoder sequence and individual decoders for different anatomical structure. Therefore, SubForkNet has more space to learn features associated to individual anatomical structures, which increase significantly the learning representation. Deep brain regions segmented by SubForkNet were embedded into personalized head models generated from ForkNet. Therefore, tDCS studies were conducted, and results indicated relatively high matching between the gold standard models and network segmented ones. These results suggest that the use of the convolutional neural network may take a leading role in personalized medicine, especially for clinical applications conducted through non-invasive brain electrostimulation.
Mathematica notebooks demonstrate the implementation of SubForkNet architectures and pre-trained networks are available for download at:
[https://github.com/erashed/SubForkNet](http://github/erashed/Sub-ForkNet)
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported in part by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A), JSPS KAKENHI 17H00869. The authors would like to thank Mr. Akihiro Asai (Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan) for his help with the tDCS montage setup.
[^1]: <http://hdl.handle.net/1926/1687>
[^2]: <https://my.vanderbilt.edu/masi/workshops/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown that the critical currents of high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{} superconducting tapes fabricated by the coated conductor technologies are enhanced considerably if grain arrangements with large effective grain boundary areas are used. Increasing the [aspect ratio]{}s of the grains reduces the deleterious effects of the grain boundaries. A practical road to competitive high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}cables is proposed.'
author:
- |
S. Leitenmeier, H. Bielefeldt, G. Hammerl, A. Schmehl,\
C. W. Schneider, and J. Mannhart
title: Coated conductors containing grains with big aspect ratios
---
{#section .unnumbered}
Cables that are superconducting at [77K]{} require the use of polycrystalline high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}-superconductors [@bednorz] with large [critical currents]{}. For materials with sufficient pinning, such as [YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$]{}[@wu], three strategies have been found to achieve this goal. The first is to enhance the *critical current density* of the [grain boundaries]{}. This can be done by aligning the grains along all three major axes to within few degrees [@Dimos]. This approach is based on the fact that the [grain boundary]{} [[critical current]{} density]{} is an exponential function of the misorientation angle [@Ivanov], dropping by three to four orders of magnitude as the misorientation angle is increased from [[0[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}]{} to [[45[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}]{}. Second, for a given misorientation angle, the [grain boundary]{} [critical current]{} density is enhanced by appropriate doping [@Hammerl; @Schmehl]. The third strategy consists in maximizing the effective *grain boundary area* by optimizing the arrangement and the shape of the grains, as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:3DKorn\]. In the simplest case, this can be achieved by utilizing grains with large [aspect ratios]{}[@MannhartTsuei; @MannhartSpringerBuch].
The most promising candidates for economically competitive cables are tapes fabricated by coated conductor technologies, such as ion beam-assisted deposition (IBAD) [@IBAD], rolling-assisted biaxially-textured substrates (RABiTS) [@RABiTS1; @RABiTS2], and inclined-substrate deposition (ISD) [@ISD1; @ISD2]. For practical applications, the coated conductor technologies are superior to the competing powder in tube technology which is based on Bi-based high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}superconductors embedded in silver tubes, because the material costs of coated conductors are decisively smaller and the ReBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$superconductors, where Re is Y or a rare earth, offer the potential of operation at 77 K in large magnetic fields. The best coated conductors fabricated at present support [[critical current]{} densities]{} exceeding $10^{6} \mathrm{A/{cm^{2}}}$ over meter lengths. Taking the substrate thickness and thereby the whole cross-section of the tape into account, these current densities correspond to engineering [[critical current]{} densities]{} of several [$10^{4} \mathrm{A/{cm^{2}}}$]{}. These values are achieved by aligning the grains along all axes with a spread of misorientation angles smaller than [[10[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}]{}. Because the corresponding grain alignment processes are slow and costly, strategies are urgently sought to enhance the [[critical current]{} density]{} of such tapes for a given misorientation spread. The solution of this problem would provide the key to commercially viable large scale applications of high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}superconductors.
Applying the concepts conceived in Ref. [@MannhartTsuei] to coated conductors, we suggest to enhance their [critical currents]{} [[$I_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{} by using grains with large [aspect ratios]{} to optimize the effective [[grain boundary]{} area]{} (see Fig. \[Fig:3DKorn\]). According to the model calculations described below, an increase of the average grain [aspect ratio]{} causes a monotonous, strong increase of [[$I_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}, as well as a reduction of the sensitivity of [[$I_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{} to the average [grain boundary]{} angle.
The calculations performed to analyze the [critical current]{} of a given [grain boundary]{} network were based on a modified version of the algorithm developed by Holzapfel [*et al.*]{}, as described in detail in Ref. [@Holzapfel]. This algorithm has been designed to analyze the [critical currents]{} of [grain boundary]{} networks in coated conductors. The procedure considers two-dimensional grain networks characterized by a given spread of grain orientations. In such a network the algorithm searches for the cross-section that limits the [critical current]{}, and then calculates the [critical current]{} of this cross-section. Because for the grain misorientations of interest the [grain boundaries]{} do not act as Josephson junctions, and all phase effects are negligible. As shown in Ref. [@Holzapfel], the results of such calculations agree well with transport measurements of [[$I_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}. For our work, the algorithm was optimized for speed, so that several thousand networks, each containing $10^5 - 10^6$ grains, could be calculated on a personal computer. This optimization was achieved by accelerating the search for the limiting cross-section, storing information gained in the individual search routines.
To analyze the effect of the enhancement of the effective [[grain boundary]{} area]{} on [[$I_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}, two-dimensional arrays of $N$ grains arranged in brickwall-type structures were considered (see Fig. \[Fig:ModelGrain\] and Fig. \[Fig:ModelSubGrain\]). In these structures to each grain an in-plane orientation $\alpha_i$ was assigned (see Fig. \[Fig:ModelGrain\]). Whereas the same width $w$ was selected for all grains, the length $l_i$ of each grain was randomly chosen, following a Gaussian distribution with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of $l/5$ centered around the average length $l$, clipped to zero below $w/2$ and above 250 $w$. The [average [aspect ratio]{}]{} of the grains is then given by $N^{-1}\sum l_i/w$. As the [critical current]{} of the network is also affected by the intragranular [[critical current]{} density]{}[$J_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{grain}}$]{}, each grain was split into two rows of square subgrains (see Fig. \[Fig:ModelSubGrain\]) and the [[critical current]{} density]{} of the boundaries between the subgrains was set to equal [$J_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{grain}}$]{}.
The angles $\alpha_i$ were also randomly chosen, again following a Gaussian distribution, this time centered at [0[$^{\circ}$]{}]{} with a FWHM-spread $\sigma$. Misorientation angles $\alpha_i$ exceeding [[45[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}]{} were clipped.
The grain arrangements and the Gaussian distributions were selected to provide clear and simple rules for the design of the model systems. These systems are presented as first examples for practical conductors with more complicated designs. As will be obvious, the conclusions of our work are not affected by the particular choice of the model systems used for the calculations.
In case self field effects are negligible, the [critical current]{} of the [grain boundary]{} between two grains, $n$ and $m$, is well approximated by the product of the boundary area and its [[critical current]{} density]{} $J_{\mathrm{c}}^{n,m}$. To calculate the [[critical current]{} density]{}, an exponential dependence on the misorientation angle $|\alpha_n-\alpha_m|$ was used [@Ivanov]
$$J_{\mathrm{c}}^{n,m}=J_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{grain}}\cdot \exp
(-\frac{|\alpha_{n}-\alpha_{m}|}{\beta}).$$
Here [$J_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{grain}}$]{} was set to [${5}\cdot10^{6} \mathrm{A/{cm^{2}}}$]{} and $\beta$ to [5.3[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}, values typical for coated conductors operated at [77K]{}. With this, the influence of the grain [aspect ratio]{} on the [critical current]{} of the network was analyzed. For a series of [average [aspect ratios]{}]{} and grain orientation distributions the [[critical current]{} densities]{} of networks 200 subgrains wide and 1,000 subgrains long were calculated. Depending on the grains [average [aspect ratio]{}]{}these networks consisted of about 500 to 50,000 grains. For each set of parameters the [[critical current]{} densities]{} of at least 20 different networks have been determined and the resulting [[critical current]{} densities]{} averaged. Fig. \[fig3\] shows the resulting [[critical current]{} densities]{}. The error bars display the standard deviation of the calculated currents as determined from the averaging process.
As shown by the figure, the [[critical current]{} density]{} of the network rises strongly and monotonously with increasing [aspect ratio]{} of the grains. The gradient is largest at small [aspect ratios]{}, which is attributed to the relatively small current densities of these networks, which are barely affected by [$J_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{grain}}$]{}. For small misorientation angles and large [aspect ratios]{} the current densities saturate at [$J_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{grain}}$]{}. The calculated [[$J_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{} enhancements are impressive. For example, for grain misorientations resulting from an alignment spread of [[10[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}]{}, the current densities are enhanced from [${4.4}\cdot10^{5} \mathrm{A/{cm^{2}}}$]{} to [${1.6}\cdot10^{6} \mathrm{A/{cm^{2}}}$]{} if the [average [aspect ratio]{}]{} is increased from 1 to 10.
Further, the dependence of the [critical current]{} on the spread $\sigma$ of the grain orientations was analyzed, considering various [average [aspect ratios]{}]{}. The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. As expected, for small angular spreads the critical current densities of the networks equal the intragrain critical current density, independent of the [aspect ratios]{}. Surprisingly, in networks consisting of grains with large aspect ratios, the well known exponential drop of [[$J_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{} with misorientation is modified and damped. Approaching the intragranular current density, coated conductors with a grain alignment as large as 10[$^{\circ}$]{}and grain aspect ratios of 50 have the same critical current density as standard coated conductors (aspect ratio 1) with a misalignment of only 2[$^{\circ}$]{}. Networks with [aspect ratios]{} $\sim100$ support critical current densities exceeding [$10^{6} \mathrm{A/{cm^{2}}}$]{} for grain alignment spreads as large as $\sigma=$[[25[$^{\circ}$]{}]{}]{}.
Although the presented calculations consider particularly simple, mathematically accessible tape structures and neglect self field and second order effects, they clearly show the usefulness of optimizing the grain structure in the coated conductor technologies, in particular the use of grains with large [aspect ratios]{}.
The realization of coated conductors with big aspect ratios we consider to be technologically straightforward. The IBAD or ISD processes may be modified so that grains with large aspect ratios are nucleated, for example, by taking advantage of anisotropic diffusion during grain nucleation and growth. The RABiTS architecture is particularly suited for the implementation of grains with big aspect ratios. For example, metallic tapes with standard RABiTS texture, consisting of Ni-alloys or steel, may be rolled and annealed in mass production processes to contain long grains which are aligned parallel to the length of the tape. Standard RABiTS buffer layer and superconductor epitaxy, performed by cheap deposition processes under development, will reproduce this grain structure in the ReBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$-based superconductor, yielding at competitive costs high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}tapes with very large critical currents.
In summary, suggesting a solution to the grain boundary problem, we propose a practical road to competitive high-[[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}]{}cables: fabricating doped coated conductors containing grains with big aspect ratios.
[99]{}
J.G. Bednorz and K.A. Müller, Z. Phys. B [**65**]{} (1986) 189
M.K. Wu, J.R. Ashburn, C.J. Torng, P.H. Hor, R.L. Meng, L. Gao, Z.J. Huang, Y.Q. Wang, and C.W. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{} (1987) 908
D. Dimos, P. Chaudhari, and J. Mannhart, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{} (1990) 4038
Z. G. Ivanov, P. Å. Nilsson, D. Winkler, J. A. Alarco, T. Claeson, E. A. Stepantsov, and A. Ya. Tzalenchuk, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**59**]{} (1991) 3030
G. Hammerl, A. Schmehl, R. R. Schulz, B. Goetz, H. Bielefeldt, C. W. Schneider, H. Hilgenkamp, and J. Mannhart, Nature [**407**]{} (2000) 162
A. Schmehl, B. Goetz, R. R. Schulz, C. W. Schneider, H. Bielefeldt, H. Hilgenkamp, and J. Mannhart, Europhys. Lett. [**47**]{} (1999) 110
J. Mannhart and C. C. Tsuei, Z. Phys. B [**77**]{} (1989) 53
J. Mannhart, in [*Earlier and Recent Aspects of Superconductivity*]{}, edited by J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller, Springer, Vol. 90, Berlin 1990, p. 208
Y. Iijima, N. Tanabe, O. Kohno, and Y. Ikeno, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**60**]{} (1992) 769
D. P. Norton, A. Goyal, J. D. Budai, D. K. Christen, D. M. Kroeger, E. D. Specht, Q. He, B. Saffian, M. Paranthaman, C. E. Klabunde, D. F. Lee, B. C. Sales, and F. A. List, Science [**274**]{} (1996) 755
A. Goyal, D. P. Norton, J. D. Budai, M. Paranthaman, E. D. Specht, D. M. Kroeger, D. K. Christen, Q. He, B. Saffian, F. A. List, D. F. Lee, P. M. Martin, C. E. Klabunde, E. Hartfield, and V. K. Sikka, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**69**]{} (1996) 1795
K. Hasegawa, N. Yoshida, K. Fujino, H. Mukai, K. Hayashi, K. Sato, T. Ohkuma, S. Honjyo, H. Ishii, and T. Hara, in [*Proceedings of the International Cryogenic Engineering Conference (ICEC16)*]{}, Kitakyushu, Japan 1996, p. 1413
M. Bauer, R. Semerad, and H. Kinder, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. [**9**]{} (1999) 1502
B. Holzapfel, L. Fernandez, F. Schindler, B. de Boer, N. Reger, J. Eickemeyer, P. Berberich, and W. Prusseit, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. [**11**]{} (2001) 3872
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A dynamical analysis is presented that self-consistently takes into account the motion of the critical layer, in which the magnetic field reconnects, to describe how the $m=n=1$ resistive internal kink mode develops in the nonlinear regime. The amplitude threshold marking the onset of strong nonlinearities due to a balance between convective and mode coupling terms is identified. We predict quantitatively the early nonlinear growth rate of the $m=n=1$ mode below this threshold.'
author:
- 'M.-C. Firpo'
- 'B. Coppi'
title: Dynamical analysis of the nonlinear growth of the $m=n=1$ resistive internal mode
---
The large scale dynamics and confinement properties of tokamak plasmas depend intimately on the behavior of $m=n=1$ magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) internal kink modes. This has motivated an intense, long-lasting, experimental and theoretical research, notably devoted to study their implication in magnetic reconnection or as triggers of the sawtooth oscillations and crashes. These phenomena typically proceed beyond the linear regime, that is now rather well understood but assumes very small amplitudes of the modes. To offer a quantitative, predictive description of their nonlinear manifestations remains a difficult objective of both academic interest and very practical importance. This is especially relevant for the design of fusion burn experiments in which the fulfilment of linear stability constraints is challenged by the search for ignition. Such devices are thus expected to operate at best close to marginal stability for the $m=n=1$ ideal mode so that nonlinear effects come into play for fairly small values of the mode amplitude [@Coppi02; @Odblom02].
In this Letter, we focus on the $m=n=1$ resistive mode [@Coppi76] in which a finite resistivity $\eta $ destabilizes the otherwise marginally stable ideal MHD internal kink mode. Since Kadomtsev’s scenario [@Kadomtsev] predicting the complete reconnection of the helical flux within the $q=1$ surface on a timescale of order $\eta ^{-1/2}$, that later appeared too large to account for observations, the nonlinear behavior of the $m=n=1$ mode has become a somewhat controversial issue. Some numerical simulations suggested that the mode still grows exponentially into the nonlinear regime [@waddell] which was supported by a theoretical model [@Hazeltine86]. Later some analytic studies [@Waelbroeck89], supported by numerical simulations [@Biskamp91], rather predicted a transition to an algebraic growth early in the nonlinear stage. This result was challenged by Aydemir’s recent simulations using a dynamical mesh [@Aydemir97]. These did show the linear exponential stage evolving towards an algebraic stage, yet this was brutally interrupted by a second nonlinear exponential growth. A modified Sweet-Parker model was able to fit continuously both stages of evolution [@Aydemir97] and the transition related to a change in the geometry of the current sheet [@Wang99]. However, some fundamental questions remain unanswered or unclear. Among them, how to relate the transition threshold with $\eta $ ? or what is the role of the $q$-profile ? The aim of this Letter is to describe analytically how the $m=n=1$ resistive mode develops in the nonlinear regime, by focusing on the equations controlling plasma dynamics.
We consider the low-$\beta $ reduced MHD equations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial U}{\partial t} &=&\left[ \phi ,U\right] +\left[ J,\psi \right]
\label{finsys_1} \\
\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial t} &=&\left[ \phi ,\psi \right] +\eta
(J-J_{0}) \label{finsys_2}\end{aligned}$$ assuming helical symmetry [@FirpoMIT]. Only a single angular variable is then involved in the problem, namely the helical angle $\alpha \equiv
\varphi -\theta $, with $\varphi $ the toroidal and $\theta $ the poloidal angles. $U=\nabla _{\bot }^{2}\phi $ is the vorticity and $J=\nabla _{\bot
}^{2}\psi $ the helical current density, with $\nabla _{\bot }^{2}\equiv
r^{-1}\partial _{r}r\partial _{r}+r^{-2}\partial _{\alpha }^{2}$. Time is normalized by the poloidal Alfvén time ($t\rightarrow t/\tau _{Hp}$), the radial variable by the minor radius ($r\rightarrow r/a$) and $\eta $ is the dimensionless resistivity, inverse of the magnetic Reynolds number $S$ ($\eta \equiv S^{-1}=\tau _{Hp}/\tau _{R}$) with the poloidal Alfvén time $\tau _{Hp}=\left( \mu _{0}\rho _{0}\right) ^{1/2}R/B_{0\varphi }$ and resistive time $\tau _{R}=\mu _{0}a^{2}/\eta _{0}$. The Poisson brackets are defined by $\left[ \phi ,U\right] =-\mathbf{\hat{\varphi}}\cdot \left(
\mathbf{\nabla }_{\bot }\phi \times \mathbf{\nabla }_{\bot }U\right)
=r^{-1}\left( \partial _{r}\phi \partial _{\alpha }U-\partial _{r}U\partial
_{\alpha }\phi \right) $. $\phi $ and $\psi $ are the plasma velocity and helical magnetic field potentials expressed in cylindrical coordinates, so that the velocity is $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{\hat{\varphi}}\times \mathbf{\nabla
}_{\bot }\phi $ and the magnetic field is $\mathbf{B}=B_{0\varphi }\mathbf{\hat{\varphi}}+\mathbf{\hat{\varphi}}\times \mathbf{\nabla }_{\bot }\left(
\psi -r^{2}/2\right) $.
We consider MHD equilibria given by $\phi _{0}=0$ and by an helical magnetic flux $\psi _{0}\left( r\right) $, related to the safety profile $q(r)$ through $d_{r}\psi _{0}=r\left[ 1-1/q(r)\right] $, such that $q=1$ for an internal radius $r=r_{s0}$. Thus $d_{r}\psi _{0}\left( r_{s0}\right) =0$. This means that the low-frequency ideal linear equations associated to (\[finsys\_1\])-(\[finsys\_2\]) are singular at $r=r_{s0}$, with a formally diverging current density. This marks the presence of a critical layer in which the dynamics differs considerably from the outer one and where resistivity enters to cure the singularity.
We wish to analyse perturbatively the time evolution of the $m=1$ mode. For this, we assume that only the $m=1$ mode is destabilized initially with an amplitude $A_{0}$, neglect all ideal MHD transients and restrict to the linear resistive timescale $\tau \equiv \eta ^{1/3}t$. We do not consider the somehow ill-posed, singular limit $\eta \rightarrow 0$, but instead realize that *two* small parameters are indeed competing in this problem, namely the small *given* resistivity $\eta $ and the time-dependent amplitude $A(\tau )$ of the linear $m=1$ mode. This introduces some subtleties in the amplitude expansion. The order one solution is given by linear theory using an asymptotic analysis [@Coppi76] to match inner and outer solutions. Excitation of the $m=1$ mode leads to a self-consistent correction to the location of the critical layer. One estimates the amplitude threshold, scaling with $\eta $, at which next order solution is required and the procedure iterated. Separability in time and space propagates at each order resulting in an amplitude expansion in $A$. As in any perturbative approach, the solution is formally known when the order one solution is. This is given by the linear theory reviewed now.
Let $f_{n}^{(m)}$ be the projection on $\exp (im\alpha )$ of any function $f$ at order $n$. In the inner resistive layer, Eqs. (\[finsys\_1\])-(\[finsys\_2\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \tau }\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\phi _{1}^{(1)}+i\kappa _{0}x\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\psi
_{1}^{(1)}\right] w^{-1} &=&0 \label{lin_1} \\
\left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \tau }\psi _{1}^{(1)}+i\kappa _{0}x\phi
_{1}^{(1)}-\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\psi _{1}^{(1)}\right] w &=&0
\label{lin_2}\end{aligned}$$ where we define $\kappa _{0}\equiv \psi _{0}^{\prime \prime }\left(
r_{s0}\right) /r_{s0}$. In these equations, $x$ is the stretched coordinate $x=\left( r-r_{s0}\right) /w$ and $w\equiv \eta ^{1/3}$ the magnitude of the width of the critical layer giving the maximal resistive ordering [@Coppi76] in (\[lin\_1\])-(\[lin\_2\]). In the layer, radial derivatives are large, since $\partial _{r}=w^{-1}\partial _{x}$ and (\[lin\_1\])-(\[lin\_2\]) are the dominant equations for $w\ll 1$. There is one unstable solution, the $m=1$ resistive mode, with growth rate $\hat{\gamma}_{L}=\kappa _{0}^{2/3}=q^{\prime }(r_{s0})^{2/3}$. Real space potentials read $$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{1}\left( x,\alpha ,\tau \right) &=&A_{0}\exp \left( \hat{\gamma}_{L}\tau \right) g_{L}\left( \frac{\kappa _{0}^{1/3}x}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \cos
\alpha \label{psi-1rst-order} \\
\phi _{1}\left( x,\alpha ,\tau \right) &=&-\frac{A_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}\exp \left(
\hat{\gamma}_{L}\tau \right) g_{L}^{\prime }\left( \frac{\kappa _{0}^{1/3}x}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \sin \alpha \label{phi-1rst-order}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{L}$ is the function $$g_{L}\left( s\right) =\frac{s}{2}\mathop{\mathrm{erfc}}\left( s\right) -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\exp (-s^{2}). \label{def-gL}$$ This solution was chosen to satisfy the matching asymptotic conditions $g_{L}^{\prime }\left( -\infty \right) =1$ and $g_{L}^{\prime }\left( +\infty
\right) =0$. This analysis has to be complemented with the derivation of the outer solution. On the resistive timescale, this amounts to solve, at leading (zero) order in $w$, a linear system of ideal MHD equilibria, singular at $r=r_{s0}$ [@FirpoMIT]. This illustrates the passive character of the outer domain. We only retain here that, given the asymptotic and boundary conditions imposing $\psi _{1}^{\prime
(1)}(r_{s0}^{+})=0$ and $\psi _{1}^{(1)}(1)=0$, the outer linear $m=1$ solution $\psi _{1}^{(1)}(r)$ is identically vanishing for $r_{s0}<r\leq 1$.
Linear theory breaks down when, in the resistive critical layer, nonlinear terms due to mode couplings, e.g. in Eq. (\[finsys\_1\]) $\left[ \phi
_{1},U_{1}\right] \sim w^{-3}A^{2}$, balance linear ones, i.e. $\kappa
_{0}xw\partial _{\alpha }J_{1}\sim A/w$ in Eq. (\[lin\_1\]). Thus $A(\tau )=\mathcal{O}(\eta ^{2/3})$ marks the onset of second order terms. Before pursuing the analysis on the critical layer, we need to track it and self-consistently estimate its location. The total magnetic flux in the critical layer is now $\psi \left( x,\alpha ,\tau \right) =\eta ^{2/3}\psi
_{0}^{\prime \prime }\left( r_{s0}\right) x^{2}/2+\psi _{1}\left( x,\alpha
,\tau \right) $. To follow continuously the linear stage, we define the ’backbone’ $r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) $ of the critical layer as the ’neutral’ field line with $\partial _{r}\psi \left( r_{s}\right) \equiv 0$. Writing $r_{s1}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) =r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right)
-r_{s0}=wx_{1}(\alpha ,\tau )$ with $\partial _{x}\psi (x_{1})=0$, this gives $$r_{s1}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) \simeq -\frac{A\left( \tau \right) }{\eta
^{1/3}}\frac{\kappa _{0}^{1/3}g_{L}^{\prime }\left( 0\right) }{\sqrt{2}\psi
_{0}^{\prime \prime }\left( r_{s0}\right) }\cos \alpha \label{rs_1rst_order}$$ which relates to the shift of the core plasma inside the $q=1$ surface due to the kink instability. Then the x-point shift $r_{s1}\left( \alpha =\pi
,\tau \right) $ goes like $A(\tau )/\eta ^{1/3}$, consistently with Aydemir’s numerical results [@Aydemir97]. Thus the critical radius starts to leave the linear critical layer band, centered on $r_{s0}$, when $r_{s1}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) $ becomes of the order $\eta ^{1/3}$ for some $\alpha $, that is when $A\left( \tau \right) \gtrsim \eta ^{2/3}$. This is again the threshold marking the end of the linear stage. We need now to define a generalized stretched coordinate in the critical layer as $x=\left( r-r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) \right) /w$. The replacements $\partial _{\tau }\rightarrow \partial _{\tau }-w^{-1}\left( \partial
r_{s}/\partial \tau \right) \partial _{x}$ and $\partial _{\alpha
}\rightarrow \partial _{\alpha }-w^{-1}\left( \partial r_{s}/\partial \alpha
\right) \partial _{x}$ are then required [@note1].
The second order critical layer equations involve an inhomogeneous part composed of quadratic terms in the order one solutions (\[psi-1rst-order\]), (\[phi-1rst-order\]) and (\[rs\_1rst\_order\]). This acts to force the growth of the $m=0$ and $m=2$ perturbations but brings no contribution to the $m=1$ dynamics. Therefore the $m=1$ equations (\[lin\_1\])-(\[lin\_2\]) are unchanged, except that, due to the motion of the critical layer (\[rs\_1rst\_order\]), one needs to replace $\kappa _{0}$ in (\[lin\_1\])-(\[lin\_2\]) by the time-dependent average $$\kappa ^{(0)}(\tau )\equiv \frac{1}{2\pi }\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi }\frac{\partial _{r}^{2}\psi \left[ r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) \right] }{r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) }d\alpha . \label{def-kappa-t}$$ This introduces a generalized linear system of equations. Neglecting the initially zero amplitudes of the $m=0$ and $m=2$ perturbations in front of $A(\tau )$, the second order correction to the location of the critical layer is given by $r_{s2}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) \simeq -\left( 2\psi
_{0}^{\prime \prime }\left( r_{s0}\right) \right) ^{-1}\psi _{0}^{\prime
\prime \prime }\left( r_{s0}\right) r_{s1}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) ^{2}$. The validity threshold of the second order solution is reached when the instantaneous critical line moves out of the critical layer of width $w$ centered on $r_{s0}+r_{s1}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) $ for some $\alpha $. This corresponds to $r_{s2}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) \sim w$, that is to $r_{s1}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) ^{2}\sim \eta ^{1/3}$, which gives $A(\tau
)=\mathcal{O}\left( \eta ^{1/2}\right) $. This threshold in the amplitude of the linear $m=1$ mode marks the onset of third order terms, that will contribute again to the $m=1$ dynamics. Its brutal manifestation is visible on Aydemir’s plots [@Aydemir97]. They clearly report a transition in the $m=1$ kinetic energy when this becomes of order $\eta /2$ [@note2], namely around $5\times 10^{-8}$ for $\eta =10^{-7}$ and around $5\times
10^{-6}$ for $\eta =10^{-5}$.
![Picture in the $(x,\protect\alpha )$ space of the initial linear critical layer and of a nonlinear one centered on the instantaneous transverse neutral field line (in bold). The grey region represents their overlapping domain within which the gradients of linear potentials are $\mathcal{O}(w^{-1})$-large.[]{data-label="fig-criti-layer"}](FirpoFig1.eps){width="8cm"}
At third order, cubic terms in the order one solutions or quadratic terms coupling the $m=0$ and $m=2$ second order terms to the $m=1$ first order ones appear in the inhomogeneous part of the critical layer equations and modify the $m=1$ dynamics. These terms involve some radial derivatives, e.g. $\partial _{r}\phi _{1}^{(1)}$, that are $\mathcal{O}(w^{-1})$-large only within the linear layer. Locality enters here the analysis since the dominant contribution of these mode coupling terms comes from the localized zone in $(r,\alpha )$ where the instantaneous and linear critical layers overlap. This is depicted by the grey shaded region in Fig. \[fig-criti-layer\]. The novelty is that, in this region, mode couplings are now able to balance convective derivatives, both being dominant with respect to linear terms. More explicitly, while, e.g. in the Eq. (\[finsys\_1\]) written in the region where the instantaneous and linear critical layers overlap, the magnitude of linear terms is $\partial _{\tau }\partial
_{r}^{2}\phi ^{(1)}\sim w^{-2}A(\tau )$, convective terms are of the order of $\partial _{\tau }r_{s2}^{(0)}\partial _{r}^{3}\phi _{1}^{(1)}\sim
w^{-5}A^{3}$. Thus linear terms become negligible for $A(\tau )\gg \eta
^{1/2}$, which marks the onset of the fully nonlinear regime for the $m=1$ mode. Moreover, convective terms, e.g. $\partial _{\tau
}r_{s2}^{(0)}\partial _{r}^{3}\phi _{1}^{(1)}\sim w^{-5}A^{2}\partial _{\tau
}A$, equilibrate mode coupling terms, such as $-r_{s0}^{-1}\partial _{r}\phi
_{1}^{(-1)}\partial _{\alpha }r_{s1}^{(1)}\partial _{r}U_{1}^{(1)}\sim
w^{-5}A^{3}$ coming from $\left[ \phi ,U\right] $ in the shear-Alfvén law (\[finsys\_1\]). The nonlinear growth rate derives from this balance. As $\kappa ^{(0)}(\tau )$ is no longer involved in those convective and mode coupling terms, there is no extra time-dependence in the dominant equations, so that the nonlinear growth rate is just equal, by continuity, to the growth rate of the $m=1$ mode when $A(\tau )$ becomes of order $\eta ^{1/2}$. Its value depends notably on the equilibrium $q$-profile as we shall see below. After some spatial averaging, a rough summary of the time evolution of the $m=1$ mode amplitude may be then finally written as $$\frac{dA}{dt}-\gamma \left( t\right) A+\frac{c}{\eta }A^{2}\left( \frac{dA}{dt}-\gamma \left( t_{NL}\right) A\right) =0, \label{balanceNL}$$ where the initial value of the growth rate $\gamma \left( 0\right) $ is $\gamma _{L}$ and where the early time dependence of $\gamma $ comes from the motion of the critical layer and is computed quantitatively below. In Eq. (\[balanceNL\]), $c$ is a constant of order one and $t_{NL}$ denotes the (magnitude of the) time at which $A$ becomes of order $\eta ^{1/2}$. Eq. (\[balanceNL\]) describes effectively the transition between two (almost) exponential stages. Because $\phi _{3}^{(1)}$and $\psi _{3}^{(1)}$ are zero at the onset of the third order regime, Eq. (\[balanceNL\]) remains valid during some stage even if the structure and scaling of the critical layer should substantially change as the generalized linear stage is left.
For the convective exponential stage to be fully valid, the overlap between the linear and instantaneous critical layers should be large enough. One expects then a qualitatively different late behavior of the $m=1$ dynamics if the x-point region is far away from the linear layer when $A(\tau )=\mathcal{O}\left( \eta ^{1/2}\right) $, that is, due to (\[rs\_1rst\_order\]), if $\eta ^{-1/6}\ggg 1$. This regime is extremely challenging to reach numerically but may be satisfied in tokamak plasmas.
We finally examine the early nonlinear effects on the growth rate of the $m=1 $ mode due to the motion of the critical layer. This amounts to solve the system of differential equations (\[lin\_1\])-(\[lin\_2\]) for $\kappa
_{0} $ replaced with $\kappa ^{(0)}\left( \tau \right) $, defined in (\[def-kappa-t\]). It can be checked that, as long as the order of magnitude of $A\left( \tau \right) $ is lower than $\eta ^{1/2}$, $\kappa ^{(0)}\left(
\tau \right) $ may be approximated by $\left( 2\pi \right)
^{-1}\int\nolimits_{0}^{2\pi }r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) ^{-1}\psi
_{0}^{\prime \prime }\left[ r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) \right] d\alpha
$ at leading order. This expression will be retained in the numerical computations. The time-dependent growth rate is defined as $\hat{\gamma}\left( \tau \right) \equiv d_{\tau }A/A.$ In this generalized linear system, there is one condition shared with the linear derivation: for a solution in separate variables $\tau $ and $x$, it is that $\hat{\gamma}\left( \tau
\right) /\kappa \left( \tau \right) $ be constant. This constant is then fixed by continuity with the linear solution at time zero giving $$\frac{\hat{\gamma}\left( \tau \right) }{\kappa ^{(0)}\left( \tau \right) }=\frac{\hat{\gamma}_{L}}{\kappa _{0}}=\kappa _{0}^{-1/3}. \label{relation-1}$$ Here one implicitly assumes that the spatial part of the linear eigenfunctions remains valid [@note3]. The instantaneous critical radius is $r_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) =r_{s0}+\eta ^{1/3}x_{s}\left( \alpha
,\tau \right) $ where $x_{s}(\alpha ,\tau )$ is given by the approximate expression $$x_{s}\left( \alpha ,\tau \right) =H^{-1}\left( -\frac{A(\tau )\kappa
_{0}^{1/3}\cos \alpha }{\eta ^{2/3}\sqrt{2}\psi _{0}^{\prime \prime }(r_{s0})}\right) . \label{expres-xs}$$ $H^{-1}$ denotes the inverse of the monotonously growing function defined by $H(x)\equiv x/g_{L}^{\prime }\left( \kappa _{0}^{1/3}x/\sqrt{2}\right) $. Due to the asymmetric nature of the $m=1$ resistive eigenfunctions (\[def-gL\]), $H^{-1}(x)$ is very asymmetric, grossly equal to $x$ below $x=0$ and exponentially small above. This confers a much more important weight on negative arguments of $H^{-1}$ than on positive ones in the averaging (\[def-kappa-t\]). The magnetic island has thus a higher effective contribution to the early nonlinear correction of the growth rate than the region of x-point. A rough estimate of the angular average of $x_{s} $ is given by $x_{s}^{(0)}(\tau )\simeq -\left( 2\pi \right) ^{-1}A\left( \tau \right)
\kappa _{0}^{1/3}/\left( \eta ^{2/3}\sqrt{2}\psi _{0}^{\prime \prime
}(r_{s0})\right) \int\nolimits_{-\pi /2}^{\pi /2}d\alpha \cos \alpha $. Eq. (\[relation-1\]) defines a first order differential equation in $A(\tau )$ that admits then the approximate form $\hat{\gamma}\left( \tau \right)
\simeq \hat{\gamma}_{L}+\eta ^{1/3}d_{r}\left[ r^{-1}\psi _{0}^{\prime
\prime }(r)\right] \left( r_{s0}\right) x_{s}^{(0)}(\tau )$. Going back to time $t$ and to $\gamma _{L}\equiv \eta ^{1/3}\hat{\gamma}_{L}$, this gives $$\frac{dA}{dt}\simeq \gamma _{L}A(t)-C_{0}A(t)^{2} \label{relat_2}$$ where $C_{0}=$ $\left( q_{0}^{\prime }+r_{s0}q_{0}^{\prime \prime
}-2r_{s0}q_{0}^{\prime 2}\right) /\left( \pi \sqrt{2}r_{s0}^{2}q_{0}^{\prime
2/3}\right) $ and the index $0$ denotes an evaluation at $r_{s0}$. Eq. (\[relat\_2\]) shows the first nonlinear contribution to the $m=1$ evolution. The early behavior of the $m=1$ growth rate is thus $\gamma (t)\simeq \gamma
_{L}-C_{0}A_{0}\exp \left( \gamma _{L}t\right)$. In order to check numerically these analytic predictions for the generalized linear stage, that brings the first nonlinear contributions to the growth rate, we used Aydemir’s initial conditions [@Aydemir97]. The safety profile is $q(r)=q_{m}\left\{ 1+r^{4}\left[ \left( q_{a}/q_{m}\right) ^{2}-1\right]
\right\} ^{1/2}$ with $q_{m}=0.9$, $q_{a}=3$, giving $C_{0}>0$. The differential equation (\[relation-1\]) was integrated numerically for $A_{0}=\sqrt{2}\times 10^{-5.5}$ corresponding to an initial kinetic energy in the $m=1$ mode of the order $10^{-11}$.
![Analytic nonlinear growth rate corresponding to the initial conditions used in Ref. [@Aydemir97] and resistivity $\protect\eta =10^{-7}$, neglecting third order convective effects coming into play when $A(t)$ becomes of order $\protect\eta ^{1/2}$. This occurs for $t\simeq 1000$.[]{data-label="gamma_NL_plot"}](FirpoFig2.eps){width="8cm"}
The nonlinear growth rate $\gamma \left( t\right) \equiv \eta ^{1/3}\hat{\gamma}(\tau )$ is plotted on Fig. \[gamma\_NL\_plot\] for $S=10^{7}$. This curve appears to be in fine agreement with the Figure 1 of Ref. [@Aydemir97] for times $t$ roughly below 1000 Alfvèn times.
Fig. \[gamma\_NL\_modif\] illustrates the influence of the $q$-profile around $r_{s0}$ on the time evolution of $\gamma$ due to (\[def-kappa-t\]). A sudden bump in the nonlinear growth could thus even be observed, before the onset of convective effects, for the special shape of $q$ chosen in Fig. \[gamma\_NL\_modif\]. Moreover, some $q$-profile may induce a saturation of $A$ below the convective threshold and lead to partial reconnection. Most importantly, the approach described here may be transposed to model the early nonlinear behavior of a variety of internal kinks such as two-fluid [@Aydemir92; @Rogers96; @Biskamp97] and/or collisionless [@Cafaro98] models.
![Analytic nonlinear growth rate for the same initial values as in Fig. \[gamma\_NL\_plot\] but with a modified equilibrium safety profile $q(r) $. Its behavior around $r_{s0}$ is plotted in the insert.[]{data-label="gamma_NL_modif"}](FirpoFig3.eps){width="8cm"}
1.5cm
Discussions with L. Sugiyama are gratefully acknowledged. MCF thanks A. Aydemir for several communications on his simulations. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy.
[99]{} B. Coppi *et al.*, FT/P2-10, 19th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Lyon (2002).
A. Oedblom *et al.*, Phys. Plasmas **9**, 155 (2002).
B. Coppi, R. Galvão, M. N. Rosenbluth, and P. H. Rutherford, Sov. J. Plasma Phys. **2**, 3276 (1976); G. Ara *et al.*, Ann. Physics **112**, 443 (1978).
B.B. Kadomtsev, Fiz. Plasmy **1**, 710 (1975) \[Sov. J. Plasma Phys. **1**, 389 (1975)\].
B.V. Waddell, M.N. Rosenbluth, D.A. Monticello, and R.B. White, Nucl. Fusion **16**, 3 (1976).
R.D. Hazeltine, J.D. Meiss, and P.J. Morrison, Phys. Fluids **29**, 1633 (1986).
F.L. Waelbroeck, Phys. Fluids B **1**, 2372 (1989).
D. Biskamp, Phys. Fluids B **3**, 3353 (1991).
A.Y. Aydemir, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 4406 (1997).
X. Wang and A. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Plasmas **6**, 1674 (1999).
M.-C. Firpo, to be published.
It can be checked that angular contributions in Laplacians are negligible in the critical layer for $A(\tau )\ll \eta ^{1/3}$.
The factor $1/2$ in the kinetic energy of the $m=1$ mode comes from the expression of the linear solution $\phi _{1}$ in (\[phi-1rst-order\]).
This is partly justified by the matching to the vanishing order one outer solution for $r\geq r_{s0}$.
A.Y. Aydemir, Phys. Fluids B **4**, 3469 (1992).
B. Rogers and L. Zakharov, Phys. Plasmas **3**, 2411 (1996).
D. Biskamp and T. Sato, Phys. Plasmas **4**, 1326 (1997).
E. Cafaro *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 4430 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Subhonmesh Bose, Dennice F. Gayme, K. Mani Chandy, and Steven H. Low, [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'PowerbibNew.bib'
title: Quadratically constrained quadratic programs on acyclic graphs with application to power flow
---
Optimal power flow, distribution circuits, radial networks, energy storage, SDP relaxation, minimum semidefinite rank.
[^1]: S. Bose is with the Department of Electrical Engineering; S. H. Low and K. M. Chandy are with the Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, all at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125. D. F. Gayme is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 [{boses, mani, slow}@caltech.edu, [email protected]]{}
[^2]: This work was supported by NSF through NetSE grant CNS 0911041, Southern California Edison, Cisco, and the Okawa Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'tensor.bib'
title: Melonic Dominance in Subchromatic Sextic Tensor Models
---
IFT-UAM/CSIC-19-127
\
[*[$^a$ Department of Physics and Computer Science, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra 282005, India]{}*]{}\
[*[$^b$ Instituto de Fisica Teorica IFT-UAM/CSIC, Cantoblanco 28049, Madrid. Spain]{}*]{}
Introduction and summary
========================
In addition to well-known adjoint/matrix model [@'tHooft:1973jz] and vector model large $N$ limits [@Moshe:2003xn], a new large $N$ limit dominated by melonic diagrams has attracted a great deal of attention recently [@Gurau:2009tw; @Gurau:2011aq; @Gurau:2011xq; @Bonzom:2011zz; @Tanasa:2011ur; @Bonzom:2012hw; @Carrozza:2015adg; @Witten:2016iux; @Klebanov:2016xxf]. The melonic limit was first observed in tensor models (see [@Gurau:2016cjo; @Delporte:2018iyf; @Klebanov:2018fzb; @Gurau:2019qag] for reviews), but interest in this limit grew due in large part to its appearance in the SYK model [@Sachdev:1992fk; @KitaevTalk; @Maldacena:2016hyu] which serves as a very educational toy model for quantum gravity [@Polchinski:2016xgd; @Maldacena:2016upp; @Engelsoy:2016xyb; @Jensen:2016pah; @Jevicki:2016bwu; @Garcia-Garcia:2016mno; @Cotler:2016fpe; @Nishinaka:2016nxg; @Narayan:2017qtw; @Garcia-Garcia:2017pzl; @Gross:2017hcz; @Das:2017pif; @Das:2017wae; @Das:2017hrt; @Mandal:2017thl; @Gao:2016bin; @Maldacena:2017axo; @Maldacena:2018lmt; @Kim:2019upg; @Rosenhaus:2019mfr].
Here we seek to better understand the entire range of models for which melonic diagrams dominate. While there are important dynamical differences between the SYK model and tensor models [@Choudhury:2017tax; @Bulycheva:2017ilt], tensor models provide a very natural context for understanding the diagrammatics of the melonic large $N$ limit, and its possible generalizations.
Motivated by [@Ferrari:2017jgw; @Gubser:2018yec; @GKPPT; @KPP], we consider the large $N$ limit of tensor models constructed out of rank-$r$ tensors which transform in a representation of $O(N)^r$, with order-$q$, i.e., $\phi^q$, interactions [@Klebanov:2018fzb]. Each index transforms in the fundamental representation of its corresponding $O(N)$ symmetry group.
It is natural to restrict our attention to interaction vertices that are *maximally-single-trace* (MST) [@KPP; @Ferrari:2017jgw]. (We review the definition of maximally-single-trace, and other basic features of these theories in section \[preliminaries\].) In the large $N$ limit, we expect that the maximally-single-trace interactions are the “most interesting” interactions, in the same sense that the tetrahedron is more interesting than the pillow and double-trace interactions for $q=4$ theories.[^1] We also remark that the restriction to maximally-single-trace operators reduces the number of interactions to a much more manageable number.
Let us discuss the large $N$ limit of theories based on such interactions. When $r=2$, these theories define the familiar bifundamental model [@Aharony:2008ug; @Gurucharan:2014cva], in the large $N$ limit, in which all planar diagrams survive. When $r=q-1$, these theories are dominated by melonic diagrams, as recently argued in [@KPP]. For interaction vertices with intermediate values of $r$, i.e., $2<r<q-1$, we can attempt to determine the set of diagrams which survive in the natural large $N$ limit on a case-by-case basis – these will certainly include melonic diagrams, but additional diagrams may also contribute. An example of this is the prismatic[^2] limit of [@GKPPT], where additional diagrams contribute compared to the $r=5$ sextic tensor model [@KPP], such as the one shown in Figure \[nonmelonicMaximal\]. Because $r$ determines the number of colours used in a multi-line ’t Hooft notation, we may also refer to $r$ as the number of “colours” of the model. We refer to models with $r<q-1$ as *subchromatic*[^3].
![A maximal Feynman diagram in a theory with prism interactions that is not a conventionally melonic Feynman diagram. The diagram is proportional to $g^3 N^{12}=\lambda^3 N^3$.[]{data-label="nonmelonicMaximal"}](images/diagram.png){height="1.8in"}
In this paper, we focus our attention on the case of $q=6$ with $O(N)$ interactions. This case is the smallest non-trivial case to consider. This case is also interesting because, in addition to studying quantum mechanical models in one dimension, one can hope to define quantum field theories with $\phi^6$ interactions in $d\leq 3$ dimensions.
While one might be concerned that a large number of subchromatic vertices exist for generic $q$, the set of maximally-single-trace subchromatic vertices for $q=6$ turns out to be very small, as we show in section \[sexticMSTvertices\]. For $r=3$, there are two interaction vertices – namely the prism and the wheel (which also corresponds to the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$) defined in [@GKPPT]; and for $r=4$, there is exactly one such interaction vertex, which corresponds to the graph of a regular octahedron. In section \[sexticMSTvertices\] we also discuss the discrete symmetries of these interactions.
In section \[subchromatic-general\] we then discuss basic features of the large $N$ limit of such theories: including the natural ’t Hooft coupling and the existence of loops passing through one or two vertices. These results apply to all subchromatic maximally-single-trace interactions.
In section \[melonic-dominance\], we use the results of section \[subchromatic-general\] to characterize the set of free energy diagrams which survive in the large $N$ limit for theories based on each of the three subchromatic maximally-single-trace interactions we identified in section \[sexticMSTvertices\]. We also consider theories based on rank-$3$ tensors that contain both prism and wheel interactions. In all cases we find the diagrams can be explicitly summed, and these theories are effectively melonic – although, the case of the prism [@GKPPT] might not be considered melonic in the conventional sense.
Let us point out[^4] that related work on sextic $U(N)^3$ and $U(N)^4$ theories appear in [@Lionni:2017xvn], where the melonic dominance of the wheel/$K_{3,3}$ interaction, is discussed following [@bonzom2015colored]. We believe our work is complementary to that of [@Lionni:2017xvn], as we consider $O(N)^r$ models, which allow for a larger number of maximally-single-trace interactions. In particular, we prove melonic dominance in the $r=4$ theory based on the octahedron and the $r=3$ theory involving both a prism and wheel interaction.
In section \[SD-section\] we briefly discuss the implications for bosonic and fermionic conformal field theories based on these interactions.
In section \[conclusion\], we present conclusions and several avenues for future work.
Preliminaries
=============
Rank-$3$ tensor models based on fields with $3$ indices[^5], $\phi^{a b c}$, that transform under the symmetry group $O(N)^3$ were introduced in [@Klebanov:2016xxf]. Here, $a=1, \ldots, N$, $b=1,\ldots, N$, and $c=1,\ldots, N$ are indices that transform in the fundamental representation of each $O(N)$ symmetry group. Similarly, theories based on rank-$r$ indices are constructed out of fields with $r$ indices that transform under the symmetry group $O(N)^r$.
The simplest theories on can define are based on a single tensor-field which is either bosonic or fermionic. Theories with quartic interactions of both types, as well as supersymmetric theories, were introduced, and subsequently studied and generalized in, e.g., [@Giombi:2017dtl; @Prakash:2017hwq; @BenGeloun:2017jbi; @Benedetti:2017fmp; @Peng:2016mxj; @Peng:2017spg; @Mironov:2017aqv; @Itoyama:2017xid; @Itoyama:2017wjb; @Benedetti:2018ghn; @Benedetti:2018goh; @Chang:2018sve; @Benedetti:2019eyl; @Chang:2019yug; @Popov:2019nja; @Ferrari:2019ogc]. In this paper, we focus primarily on sextic interactions, for which it is natural to consider bosonic theories in $d\leq 3$ dimensions, and fermionic theories in $d\leq 1$ (i.e., quantum mechanical models).
A variety of interactions for tensor models exist, which are obtained by contracting the indices in various ways. For example, the wheel interaction [@GKPPT] is represented by the following interaction term: $$\mathcal L_{\text{wheel}}=\int d^dx \frac{g_\text{wheel}}{6} \phi^{a_1 b_1 c_1} \phi^{a_2 b_1 c_2} \phi^{a_2 b_2 c_3} \phi^{a_3 b_2 c_1} \phi^{a_3 b_3 c_2} \phi^{a_1 b_3 c_3} .$$ We divide the coupling constant by $6$ because that is the size of the automorphism symmetry group of this interaction, as discussed in section \[discrete\].
One way of drawing Feynman diagrams for the rank-$3$ tensors is via a triple-line notation that is a straightforward generalization of ’t Hooft’s double-line notation. Each propagator $\langle \phi^{a_1 b_1 c_1} \phi^{a_2 b_2 c_2} \rangle \sim \delta^{a_1 a_2}\delta^{b_1 b_2} \delta^{c_1 c_2}$ is represented by three coloured lines, with different colours representing the different indices $a$, $b$ and $c$; as shown in Figure \[prop\]. The wheel interaction vertex is represented by the vertex shown in Figure \[wheel-fat-1\].
A two-loop correction to the propagator is shown in Figure \[wheel-melon-fig\]. As we will show in section \[subchromatic-general\], the natural ’t Hooft coupling for the wheel is $\lambda_\text{wheel}=g_\text{wheel} N^3$. In the large $N$ limit, with the ’t Hooft coupling fixed, this is a leading-order diagram proportional to $\lambda_\text{wheel}^2$. This diagram is also an elementary melon. In melonic theories, any leading-order diagrams can be obtained by repeatedly replacing propagators by elementary melons. We will discuss this in more detail in section \[MelonicSection\].
[0.4]{} ![Feynman diagrams in rank-$3$ tensor models, can be represented by an $3$-line notation, with the propagator and interaction vertex as shown above. Each colour corresponds to a different $O(N)$ symmetry group.[]{data-label="wheel-fat"}](images/3lines.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
[0.4]{} ![Feynman diagrams in rank-$3$ tensor models, can be represented by an $3$-line notation, with the propagator and interaction vertex as shown above. Each colour corresponds to a different $O(N)$ symmetry group.[]{data-label="wheel-fat"}](images/wheel-labels.png "fig:"){height="1.70in"}
![An order $g_\text{wheel}^2$ correction to the propagator in triple-line notation. This diagram is also an *elementary melon* and is proportional to $g_\text{wheel}^2 N^6 = \lambda_\text{wheel}^2$.[]{data-label="wheel-melon-fig"}](images/wheel-melon.png){width=".4\textwidth"}
For the purpose of systematically enumerating all possible interactions, it is more convenient to represent interactions by an *interaction graph*, as shown in Figure \[interaction-graph\]. Each vertex in the interaction graph represents a field. Each symmetry group corresponds to a different colour, and coloured edges denote contractions of the corresponding indices. We will refer to the vertices of the interaction graph as *field-vertices*, or simply fields, to avoid confusion with “interaction vertices" in Feynman diagrams.
![The wheel (or $K_{3,3}$) interaction vertex is represented by the above *labelled interaction graph*.[]{data-label="interaction-graph"}](images/wheel.png){height="2in"}
It is convenient to label the fields-vertices of an interaction graph by $i=1$, $2$, …$6$; where $p_i$ represent the momenta of each field, and are “dummy indices”, as can be seen from the momentum-space representation of the vertex: $$\int {\frac}{ d^dp_1 d^d p_2 d^d p_3 d^d p_4 d^d p_5 d^d p_6} {(2\pi)^{6d}} g \phi(p_1) \phi(p_2)\phi(p_3)\phi(p_4) \phi(p_5)\phi(p_6) \delta^d\left(\sum_i p_i\right).$$ Two *labelled interaction graphs* correspond to the same interaction if they can be made identical by a permutation of outgoing-field labels.
Each interaction will be presented with a conventional set of labels for its fields, such as the labels given in Figure \[interaction-graph\]. One advantage of using these labels is that one can unambiguously represent Feynman diagrams in single-line notation. The elementary melon of Figure \[wheel-melon-fig\] can also be represented in single-line notation, using field-labels, as shown in Figure \[wheel-melon-fig2\].
![The elementary melon of Figure \[wheel-melon-fig\] represented in single-line notation using the field-labels of Figure \[interaction-graph\] to specify the Wick contractions.[]{data-label="wheel-melon-fig2"}](images/elementary-melon-wheel.png){height="1.5in"}
An interaction graph representing an interaction of rank-$r$ tensors will involve edges of $r$ different colours. Given an interaction graph with $r$ colours, one can remove all edges of a given colour, to obtain an interaction graph with $r-1$ colours. For example, in Figure \[forget\], if we forget the green edges in the graph on the left, we obtain the $2$-colour interaction graph on the right. We call this process “forgetting” a colour. Given an interaction graph, it is convenient to sometimes forget all but $2$ colours. We call the resulting interaction graph a two-colour subgraph.
[0.3]{} ![If we “forget” the green edges in the $3$-colour interaction graph on the left, we obtain the $2$-colour interaction (sub)graph on the right.[]{data-label="forget"}](images/wheel.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![If we “forget” the green edges in the $3$-colour interaction graph on the left, we obtain the $2$-colour interaction (sub)graph on the right.[]{data-label="forget"}](images/red-blue-wheel-cycle.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
We say that an interaction vertex is *single-trace* if it is represented by a connected interaction graph. An interaction is *maximally-single-trace* (MST) if all its two-colour subgraphs are single-trace [@Ferrari:2017jgw; @KPP]. As an example, representatives for all the quartic interaction vertices are pictured in Figure \[MST-example\]. The tetrahedron vertex is maximally-single-trace; the pillow interaction is single-trace, but not maximally-single-trace; and the double-trace interaction is not single-trace.
[0.32]{} ![Representatives of all $r=3$, $q=4$ interaction vertices are pictured above. The first interaction on the left is not single-trace, as it is disconnected. The second interaction, the pillow, is single-trace but not maximally-single-trace, because forgetting the blue edges leaves us with a disconnected interaction graph. The last interaction, the tetrahedron, is maximally-single-trace. \[MST-example\]](images/doubletrace.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Representatives of all $r=3$, $q=4$ interaction vertices are pictured above. The first interaction on the left is not single-trace, as it is disconnected. The second interaction, the pillow, is single-trace but not maximally-single-trace, because forgetting the blue edges leaves us with a disconnected interaction graph. The last interaction, the tetrahedron, is maximally-single-trace. \[MST-example\]](images/pillow.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Representatives of all $r=3$, $q=4$ interaction vertices are pictured above. The first interaction on the left is not single-trace, as it is disconnected. The second interaction, the pillow, is single-trace but not maximally-single-trace, because forgetting the blue edges leaves us with a disconnected interaction graph. The last interaction, the tetrahedron, is maximally-single-trace. \[MST-example\]](images/tetrahedron.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
Sextic maximally-single-trace interactions {#sexticMSTvertices}
==========================================
The only quartic maximally-single-trace interaction is the tetrahedron. In this section, we enumerate all the sextic maximally-single-trace interactions and discuss their symmetries. Related discussion for tensor models of maximal rank appears in [@Ferrari:2017jgw; @KPP].
Constructing all sextic maximally-single-trace interactions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here we construct all maximally-single-trace sextic vertices for subchromatic tensor models. For $r=2$, there is one MST vertex, the usual single-trace interaction. Note that this must take form of a connected cyclic graph with edges of alternating colours, which we take to be red and green, as shown in Figure \[red-green-cyclic\].
![The unique maximally-single-trace interaction vertex for $r=2$ is represented by a cyclic graph. Any two-colour sub-graph of a Maximally-Single-Trace interaction must be a cyclic graph such as this.[]{data-label="red-green-cyclic"}](images/red-green-cycle.png){width="30.00000%"}
Let us now consider the $r=3$ MST interactions. Note that upon forgetting one colour from an $r=3$ MST interaction graph, we are left with the $r=2$ cyclic graph. To construct an $r=3$ MST interaction, we need to add three blue edges to the red-green cyclic graph of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\], such that the red-blue and green-blue subgraphs are also cyclic graphs. Note that, if we use a blue edge to connect two vertices that were already connected by a green edge, then the blue-green subgraph will consist of two or more disconnected components – hence there are not very many possibilities to consider for the locations of the blue edges. One can explicitly check all possibilities to see that there are exactly two ways to add blue edges which result in an MST interaction – these correspond to the *prism* and the *wheel* of [@GKPPT] shown in Figures \[prism-figure\] and \[wheel\].
The wheel interaction graph is also known as $K_{3,3}$ (the complete bipartite graph consisting of two sets of 3 vertices) in the graph theory literature, which is one of the two simplest non-planar graphs.
[0.3]{} ![The *prism* interaction vertex, (above-right) is a maximally-single-trace $r=3$ interaction that can be obtained from combining the red-green cycle of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\] with the blue-green cycle pictured on the above left. This graph corresponds to the skeleton graph of a triangular prism, as shown below.[]{data-label="prism-figure"}](images/red-blue-prism-cycle.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![The *prism* interaction vertex, (above-right) is a maximally-single-trace $r=3$ interaction that can be obtained from combining the red-green cycle of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\] with the blue-green cycle pictured on the above left. This graph corresponds to the skeleton graph of a triangular prism, as shown below.[]{data-label="prism-figure"}](images/prism.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.4]{} ![The *prism* interaction vertex, (above-right) is a maximally-single-trace $r=3$ interaction that can be obtained from combining the red-green cycle of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\] with the blue-green cycle pictured on the above left. This graph corresponds to the skeleton graph of a triangular prism, as shown below.[]{data-label="prism-figure"}](images/prism-3d.pdf "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![The *wheel* or $K_{3,3}$ interaction vertex, shown on the above right, is a maximally-single-trace $r=3$ interaction that can be obtained from combining the red-green cycle of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\] with the blue-red cycle pictured on the above left. The graph is the simplest non-planar graph, and can also be drawn as a 3-rung Möbius ladder, as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel"}](images/red-blue-wheel-cycle.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![The *wheel* or $K_{3,3}$ interaction vertex, shown on the above right, is a maximally-single-trace $r=3$ interaction that can be obtained from combining the red-green cycle of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\] with the blue-red cycle pictured on the above left. The graph is the simplest non-planar graph, and can also be drawn as a 3-rung Möbius ladder, as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel"}](images/wheel.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![The *wheel* or $K_{3,3}$ interaction vertex, shown on the above right, is a maximally-single-trace $r=3$ interaction that can be obtained from combining the red-green cycle of Figure \[red-green-cyclic\] with the blue-red cycle pictured on the above left. The graph is the simplest non-planar graph, and can also be drawn as a 3-rung Möbius ladder, as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel"}](images/moebius-ladder-3d.pdf "fig:"){height="2in"}
We will refer to the three colours of the $r=3$ interactions as $(r,g,b)$.
Let us now consider the case of $r=4$. When any one colour is forgotten, the $r=4$ MST interaction must reduce to a prism or wheel. As before, we consider all ways of adding (three) yellow edges to the prism or the wheel, such that the resulting interaction is MST. We find that there is no way of adding yellow edges to the wheel interaction while preserving the MST property; and there is exactly one way to add yellow edges to the prism interaction that preserves MST. Hence there is a unique $r=4$ MST vertex, depicted in Figure \[doublePrism\]. We will refer to the four colours of the $r=4$ interaction as $(r,g,b,y)$. If one redraws this graph in three-dimensions, one can see that it corresponds to a regular octahedron.[^6] Hence we refer to this as the *octahedron* interaction.
[0.3]{} ![The *octahedron* interaction vertex (above-right) is the unique maximally-single-trace $r=4$ interaction. It can be obtained from combining the $r=3$ prism interaction of Figure \[prism-figure\] with the yellow-red cycle pictured on the above-left. The graph can be redrawn as the vertices of a regular octahedron shown below.[]{data-label="doublePrism"}](images/yellow-red-prism-cycle.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![The *octahedron* interaction vertex (above-right) is the unique maximally-single-trace $r=4$ interaction. It can be obtained from combining the $r=3$ prism interaction of Figure \[prism-figure\] with the yellow-red cycle pictured on the above-left. The graph can be redrawn as the vertices of a regular octahedron shown below.[]{data-label="doublePrism"}](images/doublePrism.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.4]{} ![The *octahedron* interaction vertex (above-right) is the unique maximally-single-trace $r=4$ interaction. It can be obtained from combining the $r=3$ prism interaction of Figure \[prism-figure\] with the yellow-red cycle pictured on the above-left. The graph can be redrawn as the vertices of a regular octahedron shown below.[]{data-label="doublePrism"}](images/octahedron.pdf "fig:"){height="2in"}
It turns out that one can add a colour to the $r=4$ MST vertex while preserving the MST property. This gives rise to the unique $r=5$ MST vertex. This interaction contains the maximal number of colours for a sextic vertex, and gives rise to a traditionally melonic large $N$ limit, as discussed in [@KPP].
This recursive procedure of adding colours to subchromatic graphs can be repeated to enumerate all MST interactions for larger values of $q$ as well.
Automorphism and colour permutation symmetry {#discrete}
--------------------------------------------
All of the three MST interactions identified above have a discrete symmetry – they are symmetric under permutation of the $O(N)$ symmetry groups. In terms of the graphical representation of interactions, this is a discrete symmetry under permutation of the various colours in an interaction graph. The interactions may also posses a non-trivial automorphism symmetry group.
We represent symmetry operations by permutations of the field-vertices in the labelled interaction graph. If a field permutation $\hat{\sigma}$ gives rise to a labelled interaction graph isomorphic to the original, $\hat{\sigma}$ is an element of the *automorphism group* of the interaction vertex. If a field permutation $\hat{\sigma}$ gives rise to a labelled interaction graph isomorphic to the original graph, up to a permutation of colours, then $\hat{\sigma}$ is an element of the *colour permutation symmetry group*.
In order to show that an interaction is symmetric under all colour permutations, we require that, for each permutation of colours (i.e., relabelling of edges), there is a permutation of field-labels that leaves the labelled interaction graph unchanged. For rank-three interactions, we need to check that all colour permutations which are generated by the two generators $\sigma_{rg}=(r,g)$ and $\sigma_{gb}=(g,b)$, correspond to field-label permutations. For the rank-four interaction, the colour permutation group has 3 generators: $\sigma_{rg}$, $\sigma_{gb}$, and $\sigma_{by}$, and we need to verify that each of these generators corresponds to a permutation of field-labels.
Let us first consider the prism. We draw the prism interaction in two different ways in Figure \[prism1and2\], from which we can see that $\sigma_{rg}$ is equivalent to the field-vertex permutation $(6,4)(1,3)$, and $\sigma_{gb}$ is equivalent to the field-vertex permutation $(2,3)(5,4)$. We also see that the field-vertex permutation $(1,6)(2,5)(3,4)$ leaves all colours the same. Hence, the prism interaction should conventionally come with a factor of $1/2$ in the Lagrangian.
[0.3]{} ![Two ways of drawing the prism interaction graph that make its colour permutation symmetry manifest. Reflection across the dashed line interchanges two colours in each Figure. \[prism1and2\]](images/prism-1.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![Two ways of drawing the prism interaction graph that make its colour permutation symmetry manifest. Reflection across the dashed line interchanges two colours in each Figure. \[prism1and2\]](images/prism-2.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
We next consider the wheel (or $K_{33}$) interaction. We draw the wheel in two different ways in Figure \[wheel1and2\], from which we can see that $\sigma_{rg}$ is equivalent to the field-vertex permutation $(1,5)(2,4)$, and $\sigma_{gb}$ is equivalent to the field-vertex permutation $(1,5)(4,6)$. We see that the field-vertex permutations $(1,6)(2,5)(3,4)$ and $(1,2)(4,5)(3,6)$ leave all colours the same. Hence, the wheel (or $K_{33}$) interaction should conventionally come with a factor of $1/6$ in the Lagrangian.
[0.3]{} ![Two ways of drawing the wheel (or $K_{33}$) interaction graph. Reflection through the dashed line corresponds to an exchange of two colours.\[wheel1and2\]](images/wheel-1.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![Two ways of drawing the wheel (or $K_{33}$) interaction graph. Reflection through the dashed line corresponds to an exchange of two colours.\[wheel1and2\]](images/wheel-2.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
Finally, we consider the octahedron. We draw the octahedron in three different ways in Figure \[doublePrism12and3\], from which we can see that $\sigma_{rg}$ is equivalent to the field-vertex permutation $(1,4)(2,5)(3,6)$, $\sigma_{gb}=(1,6)(2,4)(3,5)$, and $\sigma_{by}=(1,2)(3,6)(4,5)$. There is no field-vertex permutation that leaves all colours the same, so the interaction comes with a factor of $1$ in the Lagrangian.
[0.3]{} ![Three ways of drawing the interaction graph for the $r=4$ octahedron interaction. Reflection through the dashed line corresponds to an exchange of two colours.\[doublePrism12and3\]](images/doublePrism-1.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![Three ways of drawing the interaction graph for the $r=4$ octahedron interaction. Reflection through the dashed line corresponds to an exchange of two colours.\[doublePrism12and3\]](images/doublePrism-2.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
[0.3]{} ![Three ways of drawing the interaction graph for the $r=4$ octahedron interaction. Reflection through the dashed line corresponds to an exchange of two colours.\[doublePrism12and3\]](images/doublePrism-3.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
Let us conclude this section with the observation that, if the automorphism symmetry group includes a field-vertex permutation that is odd, then, in a theory of Majorana fermions, the 1-dimensional fermionic interaction term based on that interaction vanishes due to anti-commutation of Grassmann variables.
In particular, as observed in [@Bulycheva:2017ilt], for the wheel: $$\begin{aligned}
L_\text{wheel} & = & \frac{g_{\text{wheel}} }{6}\int dt ~\psi^{a_1 b_1 c_1} \psi^{a_1 b_2 c_2}\psi^{a_2 b_2 c_3} \psi^{a_2 b_3 c_1} \psi^{a_3 b_3 c_2}\psi^{a_3 b_1 c_3} \\
& = & -\frac{g_{\text{wheel}} }{6} \int dt~ \psi^{a_3 b_1 c_3} \psi^{a_3 b_3 c_2} \psi^{a_2 b_3 c_1} \psi^{a_2 b_2 c_3}\psi^{a_1 b_2 c_2}\psi^{a_1 b_1 c_1} \\
& = & -L_\text{wheel}.\end{aligned}$$ In the second line, we applied the field permutation $(1,6)(2,5)(3,4)$. In the third line, because this is an automorphism, we are able to relabel the dummy indices $a_i$, $b_i$ and $c_i$ (via: $a_3 \leftrightarrow a_1$, $b_2 \leftrightarrow b_3$) to undo this permutation. Similarly, for the prism: $$\begin{aligned}
L_\text{prism} & = & \frac{g_{\text{prism}} }{2}\int dt ~\psi^{a_1 b_1 c_1} \psi^{a_1 b_2 c_2}\psi^{a_2 b_2 c_1} \psi^{a_2 b_3 c_3} \psi^{a_3 b_3 c_2}\psi^{a_3 b_1 c_3} \\
& = & -\frac{g_{\text{prism}} }{2} \int dt~ \psi^{a_3 b_1 c_3} \psi^{a_3 b_3 c_2} \psi^{a_2 b_3 c_3} \psi^{a_2 b_2 c_1}\psi^{a_1 b_2 c_2}\psi^{a_1 b_1 c_1} \\
& = & -L_\text{prism}.\end{aligned}$$ These arguments do not apply to complex fermions.[^7]
Let us also remark that, if we would like to define an theory with complex fields, and promote all the symmetry groups to $U(N)$, then we require the interaction graph to be bipartite. The wheel is bipartite, but the prism, the octahedron and the unique $r=5$ sextic MST interaction of [@KPP] are not bipartite. If we wish to promote some, but not all, of the symmetry groups to $U(N)$, this restriction does not apply.
In all cases, real bosonic versions of these theories can be defined, and can be thought of as special cases of the general sextic bosonic theory studied perturbatively in [@Osborn:2017ucf].
Large $N$ limit of subchromatic maximally-single-trace interactions {#subchromatic-general}
===================================================================
We now consider the large $N$ limit of the maximally-single-trace interaction vertices defined in the previous section. In this section we present results for an arbitrary maximally-single-trace interaction of any order $q$. We follow the approach outlined in [@Klebanov:2016xxf].
Large $N$ scaling of coupling constants
---------------------------------------
Let us first determine the natural scaling of the coupling constant with $N$, in the large $N$ limit, for an order-$q$ maximally-single-trace interaction with $r$ indices.
Consider a connected Feynman diagram with no external edges, i.e., one that contributes to the free energy of our theory. As shown in the previous sections, Feynman diagrams for fields based on rank-$r$ tensors can be drawn in a multi-line notation, using $r$ different colours. If we take any such diagram, and erase all but two of the colours, we obtain a *two-colour fat graph*, or simply *fat graph*. Since our multi-line propagator contains $r$ colours, we can generate $r(r-1)/2$ fat graphs – one for each pair of colours. We shall use the index $\alpha$, where $\alpha=1,\dots, r(r-1)/2$, to label each of these fat graphs. We denote the number of loops for each fat graph by $f_\alpha$. Then, summing over all such pairs of indices, we obtain, $$\sum_{\a=1}^{r(r-1)/2}f_\alpha = (r-1)f_{total},$$ where $f_{total}$ is the total number of loops in the graph and determines the power of $N$.
Because our interaction vertices are maximally-single-trace, each fat graph will consist of a single connected component. The Euler equation for each $\a$ can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
&f_\a + v - e = \chi_\a = 2-2g_\a \end{aligned}$$ where $v$ and $e$ refer to the number of vertices and edges in the graph (which are the same for all fat graphs) and $g_\a$ is the genus of the fat graph labelled by $\a$. We define *maximal* Feynman diagrams to be those with the largest $f_{total}$ for a given $v$. From the above formula, we see that maximal Feynman diagrams satisfy $g_\a=0$, i.e., maximal Feynman diagrams are those diagrams that give rise to only planar fat graphs.
Since our vertices are order-$q$, we have $2e=qv$. Placing this into the above equation, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
&f_\a + v\bigg(1-{\frac}{q}2\bigg)=2-2g_\a{\nonumber}\\
&f_\a + v\bigg(1-{\frac}{q}2\bigg)\leq 2\end{aligned}$$ Now, summing over all $\a$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\a=1}^{r(r-1)/2}f_\a + \sum_{\a=1}^{r(r-1)/2}v\bigg(1-{\frac}{q}2\bigg) & \leq 2\sum_{\a=1}^{r(r-1)/2} \\
(r-1)f_{tot} + {\frac}{r(r-1)}2 v\bigg(1-{\frac}{q}2\bigg) & \leq r(r-1){\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ which imply, $$f_{tot} \leq {\frac}{r}4(q-2)v+r.$$ Maximal Feynman diagrams saturate the above bound, and must satisfy: $$f_{tot}= {\frac}{r}4(q-2)v+r.
\label{ftot}$$
This relation tells us that we should define the large $N$ limit while keeping the ’t Hooft coupling $$\l=g N^{r(q-2)/4}, \label{tHooft}$$ fixed. Then, the free energy scales with $N$ as, $$N^r f(\l).\hspace{.2cm}$$
Existence of a loop passing through one or two vertices
-------------------------------------------------------
We now show that any connected maximal diagram contributing to the free energy contains a loop passing through exactly one vertex or a loop passing through exactly two vertices. Let us define $\mathcal F_s$ to be the number of loops passing through $s$ vertices [@Klebanov:2016xxf]. Clearly, $$\sum_{s=0}^\infty \mathcal F_s = f_{total}
\label{sum1}$$ Also, by considering the total number of coloured lines passing through a vertex in the multi-line notation, one can see that: $$\sum_{s=1}^\infty s \mathcal F_s = r q {\frac}{v}2
\label{sum2}.$$ Combining and , and eliminating $f_{total}$ using , we obtain $$\sum_s\bigg({\frac}{2q}{(q-2)} -s \bigg)\mathcal F{}_s ={\frac}{2q}{(q-2)}r.$$ When $q\geq 6$, one can separate the terms $\mathcal F_1$ and $\mathcal F_2$ from the sum, to obtain the following inequality: $$(q+2)\mathcal F_1 + 4 \mathcal F_2 \geq 2q r.
\label{f1-f2}$$ Thus, for any free energy graph, there is at least one loop passing through one vertex, or one loop passing through two vertices.[^8]
We refer to loops passing through one vertex as *1-cycles*. While 1-cycles may not contribute to a physical calculation, we will still keep the possibility of their existence open in what follows, as we are only interested in obtaining the restrictions that follow from purely combinatorial considerations.
We refer to a loop passing through two vertices as a *2-cycle*. The existence of a 2-cycle itself is not enough to guarantee a large $N$ limit dominated by only melonic diagrams.
Melonic dominance of subchromatic interaction vertices {#melonic-dominance}
======================================================
Here, we focus our attention on theories based on the sextic MST interactions obtained in section \[sexticMSTvertices\]. We can define a theory with $r=3$, to contain a wheel interaction, a prism interaction, or both. We can also define a theory with $r=4$ based on the octahedron interaction. The theory for $r=5$ was discussed in [@KPP] so we do not discuss it here.
General strategy
----------------
We wish to explicitly characterize and generate all the maximal Feynman diagrams that contribute to the free energy in any of the above theories. Our arguments are inspired by [@Ferrari:2017jgw; @Bonzom:2018jfo; @KPP]. Our strategy is as follows. In the previous section, we showed that any Feynman diagram contributing to the free energy that survives in the large $N$ limit must either:
1. Contain no vertices, in which case it is just the zeroth-order diagram.
2. Contain at least one 1-cycle.
3. Contain at least one 2-cycle.
These cases are illustrated in Figure \[cases\]. To enumerate all the maximal Feynman diagrams contributing to the free energy, we need to enumerate all the inequivalent 1-cycles and 2-cycles. For each inequivalent 2-cycle and 1-cycle, we draw each of its $r(r-1)/2$ fat graphs, and impose the restriction that each fat graph is planar.
When we draw a fat graph corresponding to a particular pair of colours, we must arrange the outgoing lines from each interaction vertex in a particular cyclic order, for the fat graph to be manifestly planar. For example, consider the wheel interaction, shown in Figure \[wheel-v\]. If we draw a blue red fat-graph, we must arrange the outgoing lines of each interaction vertex in the cyclic order $163254$ (or $145236$). If we instead draw a red-green fat-graph, we must arrange the outgoing lines of each interaction vertex in the cyclic order $123456$ (or $654321$).
[0.25 ]{} ![Any maximal Feynman diagram contributing to the free energy must be of one of the three types specified above. To obtain a recursive enumeration of all Feynman diagrams, we must place some constraints on the subgraph $G$.[]{data-label="cases"}](images/simple-loop.png "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
[0.35 ]{} ![Any maximal Feynman diagram contributing to the free energy must be of one of the three types specified above. To obtain a recursive enumeration of all Feynman diagrams, we must place some constraints on the subgraph $G$.[]{data-label="cases"}](images/F1loop.png "fig:"){width=".7\textwidth"}
[0.35 ]{} ![Any maximal Feynman diagram contributing to the free energy must be of one of the three types specified above. To obtain a recursive enumeration of all Feynman diagrams, we must place some constraints on the subgraph $G$.[]{data-label="cases"}](images/F2loop.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
For a given pair of colours, the requirement of fat-graph planarity might rule out a particular 2-cycle entirely, as is the case for the 2-cycle shown in Figure \[non-planar-2-cycle\]. Alternatively, the requirement of fat-graph planarity may “divide” the subgraph $G$ into two smaller disconnected components $G'$ and $G''$ as shown in Figure \[splitgraph\].
![A 2-cycle which contains a twist in and is therefore non-planar.[]{data-label="non-planar-2-cycle"}](images/fat-graph-twist.png){width="30.00000%"}
![We require each two-colour fat graph to be planar. For a given choice of two-colours, such as red and blue, planarity forces us to arrange the outgoing edges from each interaction vertex in a particular cyclic order. This means that the 2-cycle may split the subgraph $G$ from Figure \[2-cycle\] into two disconnected pieces, as shown above. If we consider all two-colour fat graphs, we hope to split the graph $G$ into four disconnected pieces as shown in Figure \[2-cycle-split\]. []{data-label="splitgraph"}](images/fat-graph-split.png){width=".3\textwidth"}
Suppose, for each inequivalent 1-cycle and 2-cycle consistent with fat-graph planarity, the requirement of fat-graph-planarity splits the subgraphs $G$ of Figure \[1-cycle\] and \[2-cycle\] into disconnected components, as shown in Figure \[2-cycle-split\]. Crucially, each of these sub-graphs in Figure \[2-cycle-split\] contains only two external edges. This fact allows us to use a cutting and sewing argument to isolate the graphs $G^{(i)}$, as illustrated in Figure \[cutandsew\]. Each of the cut-and-sewn subgraphs $G^{(i)}$ defines a maximal Feynman diagram contributing to the free energy, with fewer interaction vertices than the original diagram. The arguments of this section apply to the cut-and-sewn subgraph as well, so we obtain a recursive enumeration of all the Feynman diagrams contributing to the free energy.
[.45]{} ![If, for all possible 1-cycles and 2-cycles, the requirement that all two-colour fat graphs are planar splits up the subgraph $G$ from Figure \[1-cycle\] and \[2-cycle\] into disconnected components as shown above, then we can argue the theory is melonic the conventional sense, via the cutting and sewing argument in Figure \[cutandsew\].[]{data-label="2-cycle-split"}](images/F1loop-split.png "fig:"){width=".6\textwidth"}
[.45]{} ![If, for all possible 1-cycles and 2-cycles, the requirement that all two-colour fat graphs are planar splits up the subgraph $G$ from Figure \[1-cycle\] and \[2-cycle\] into disconnected components as shown above, then we can argue the theory is melonic the conventional sense, via the cutting and sewing argument in Figure \[cutandsew\].[]{data-label="2-cycle-split"}](images/melonic-split-f2loop.png "fig:"){width=".6\textwidth"}
[.8]{} ![The above two Figures illustrate a cutting and sewing argument that can be used to separate the graphs $G'$, $G''$, $G'''$ and $G''''$ from Figure \[2-cycle-split\]. Either these graphs contain no vertices, or they contain a 1-cycle or 2-cycle. One thus obtains a recursive characterization of all the leading order graphs.[]{data-label="cutandsew"}](images/index-structure.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
[.8]{} ![The above two Figures illustrate a cutting and sewing argument that can be used to separate the graphs $G'$, $G''$, $G'''$ and $G''''$ from Figure \[2-cycle-split\]. Either these graphs contain no vertices, or they contain a 1-cycle or 2-cycle. One thus obtains a recursive characterization of all the leading order graphs.[]{data-label="cutandsew"}](images/sew.png "fig:"){height="2in"}
### Melonic moves {#MelonicSection .unnumbered}
One can convince oneself that the set of maximally free energy diagrams enumerated by this recursive procedure above can also be obtained starting from the $0$-cycle by repeatedly replacing propagators by “elementary snails” or “elementary melons” as shown in Figure \[melonic-move\]. We refer to the diagrams obtained by this sort of recursive procedure as *melonic diagrams*.
The set of all elementary melons can be obtained from the list of maximal free-energy graphs containing a $2$-cycle: we first replace all subgraphs (shaded blobs) by free propagators, and then cut any one of the edges open to obtain an elementary melon such as the one shown in Figure \[melonic-move\]. The set of all elementary snails can be obtained from the list of maximal free energy graphs containing a $1$-cycle in a similar manner.
The act of replacing a propagator by an elementary snail or elementary melon is called a *melonic move*. It is easy to see that, in general, the act of replacing a propagator by an elementary melon causes $v\rightarrow v+2$ and $f_{tot}\rightarrow f_{tot} + {\frac}{r}2(q-2)$. We also have a similar result for the elementary snail. Hence, elementary melonic moves preserve , so all melonic graphs are maximal. However, to show that all maximal graphs are melonic requires us to carry out the argument given above; recursively enumerate all free-energy diagrams via analysis of $1$-cycles and $2$-cycles.
[0.8]{} ![The diagrams recursively enumerated via the argument in the text can also be generated by repeatedly replacing propagators with an elementary snail (above) or an elementary melon (below). The snail need not be present in all models,[]{data-label="melonic-move"}](images/elementary-melon-move-snail.png "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}
[0.8]{} ![The diagrams recursively enumerated via the argument in the text can also be generated by repeatedly replacing propagators with an elementary snail (above) or an elementary melon (below). The snail need not be present in all models,[]{data-label="melonic-move"}](images/elementary-melonic-move.png "fig:"){width="80.00000%"}
This translates into the following equation for the exact propagator shown in Figure \[exact-propagator\]. The snails may or may not be present depending on the interaction. As mentioned earlier, the snails are tadpoles, and would formally vanish in a quantum field theory due to dimensional regularization.
Let us conclude this section with the caveat that, while it is straightforward to obtain the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the exact propagator, if one wants to actually evaluate the free energy, one must also include the symmetry factors for each of these diagrams. As one can see from the diagrammatic expansion for the free energy in a vector model, e.g., [@Giombi:2011kc], these factors are generally non-trivial to obtain.
![The melonic moves give rise to the above schematic equation for the exact propagator. If one were to connect the two external lines together, the first term on the RHS is a 0-cycle, the second term is a 1-cycle, and the third term is a 2-cycle.[]{data-label="exact-propagator"}](images/gapEq.png){width="70.00000%"}
Wheel (or $K_{3,3}$) interaction
--------------------------------
In this section we demonstrate the melonic dominance of the wheel vertex, according to the general recipe above. The wheel vertex is shown in Figure \[wheel-v\], along with its three two-colour fat vertices.
[0.5]{} ![The wheel interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. For a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the labelled-fields in one of the two particular cyclic orders in order to maintain manifest planarity.[]{data-label="wheel-v"}](images/wheel-labels.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The wheel interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. For a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the labelled-fields in one of the two particular cyclic orders in order to maintain manifest planarity.[]{data-label="wheel-v"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The wheel interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. For a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the labelled-fields in one of the two particular cyclic orders in order to maintain manifest planarity.[]{data-label="wheel-v"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-blue-wheel.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The wheel interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. For a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the labelled-fields in one of the two particular cyclic orders in order to maintain manifest planarity.[]{data-label="wheel-v"}](images/labelled-vertex-green-blue-wheel.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
### Diagrams containing a 2-cycle {#diagrams-containing-a-2-cycle .unnumbered}
A 2-cycle is specified by two Wick contractions. We label the two interaction vertices $L$ and $R$; each Wick contraction must include one field from each interaction vertex. We thus specify the two Wick contractions that define the 2-cycle in the following notation: $( \langle X_L, Y_R \rangle, \langle Z_L, W_R \rangle)$, where $X$, $Y$, $Z$, and $W$ are integers between $1$ and $6$ corresponding to the field labels given in the labelled interaction graph of Figure \[wheel\]. The notation means that field from the left interaction vertex labelled by the number $X$ in the labelled interaction graph is contracted with the field labelled by the number $Y$ from the right interaction vertex. [@KPP]
*A priori* there are a large number of different 2-cycles that are possible. However, using the automorphism and colour permutation symmetries of the wheel interaction, we can reduce the total number of inequivalent 2-cycles to a very manageable number. The idea behind this is that if a particular 2-cycle $( \langle X_L, Y_R \rangle, \langle Z_L, W_R \rangle)$ induces only planar fat graphs, then the same must be true for any other 2-cycle $( \langle X_L', Y_R' \rangle, \langle Z_L', W_R' \rangle)$ obtained by a permutation of colours. Hence we do not need to check all different 2-cycles: we only need to check the subset of 2-cycles whose orbit under the colour permutation (and automorphism) symmetry group covers all 2-cycles. This is an elementary exercise in group theory, which, for the sake of clarity and completeness we spell out explicitly in the appendix.
As shown in the appendix, the inequivalent 2-cycles are
1. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, W_R \rangle )$,
2. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, W_R' \rangle )$,
where $W_R=2,~3$ or $4$, and $W'_R=2,~3$ or $5$.
If $W_R$ is odd, or if $W_R'$ is even, one can check that the red-green fat graph arising from this loop contains a twist, and hence is non-planar. Hence there are only four different 2-cycles to consider.
Let us first consider the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$. The three fat graphs for this loop are shown in Figure \[1122fatgraphs\]. Using these constraints we have two possibilities for the form of a free-energy diagram containing this 2-cycle, shown in Figure \[wheel-1122\].
[0.32 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two wheel interaction vertices. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that $4_L$ can be connected (via a subgraph) to one of $4_R$, $5_R$ or $5_L$. If $4_L$ is connected to $4_R$ or $5_R$, then we see from the red-green fat graph that $3_L$ must be connected to $3_R$, and $6_L$ must be connected to $6_R$. Then using the blue-green fat-graph, we see $4_L$ must be connected to $4_R$ and $5_L$ must be connected to $5_R$. This corresponds to the first graph on the left in Figure \[wheel-1122\]. If, instead, $4_L$ is connected to $5_L$, one can similarly work out that the connections must be as depicted in the second graph in Figure \[wheel-1122\]. []{data-label="1122fatgraphs"}](images/fat-graph-1122-wheel-redgreen.png "fig:"){height="1.56in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two wheel interaction vertices. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that $4_L$ can be connected (via a subgraph) to one of $4_R$, $5_R$ or $5_L$. If $4_L$ is connected to $4_R$ or $5_R$, then we see from the red-green fat graph that $3_L$ must be connected to $3_R$, and $6_L$ must be connected to $6_R$. Then using the blue-green fat-graph, we see $4_L$ must be connected to $4_R$ and $5_L$ must be connected to $5_R$. This corresponds to the first graph on the left in Figure \[wheel-1122\]. If, instead, $4_L$ is connected to $5_L$, one can similarly work out that the connections must be as depicted in the second graph in Figure \[wheel-1122\]. []{data-label="1122fatgraphs"}](images/fat-graph-1122-wheel-bluered.png "fig:"){height="1.56in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two wheel interaction vertices. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that $4_L$ can be connected (via a subgraph) to one of $4_R$, $5_R$ or $5_L$. If $4_L$ is connected to $4_R$ or $5_R$, then we see from the red-green fat graph that $3_L$ must be connected to $3_R$, and $6_L$ must be connected to $6_R$. Then using the blue-green fat-graph, we see $4_L$ must be connected to $4_R$ and $5_L$ must be connected to $5_R$. This corresponds to the first graph on the left in Figure \[wheel-1122\]. If, instead, $4_L$ is connected to $5_L$, one can similarly work out that the connections must be as depicted in the second graph in Figure \[wheel-1122\]. []{data-label="1122fatgraphs"}](images/fat-graph-1122-wheel-bluegreen.png "fig:"){height="1.56in"}
[0.4 ]{} ![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$, the constraint that all fat graphs are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected in one of the two above ways. The second possibility is a “double-snail" that originates from the insertion two elementary snails.[]{data-label="wheel-1122"}](images/wheel-1122-melon.png "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
[0.4 ]{} ![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$, the constraint that all fat graphs are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected in one of the two above ways. The second possibility is a “double-snail" that originates from the insertion two elementary snails.[]{data-label="wheel-1122"}](images/double-snail-1122-wheel.png "fig:"){height=".9in"}
Let us next consider the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, 3_R \rangle )$. The three fat graphs for this loop are shown in Figure \[wheel-1133\]. Using these constraints we have one possibility for the form of a free-energy diagram containing this 2-cycle, also depicted in Figure \[wheel-1133\].
We carry out a similar analysis for the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 4_R \rangle )$; the form of any free-energy diagram consistent with planarity of fat-graphs is shown in Figure \[wheel-1124\].
![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 4_R \rangle )$ connecting two wheel interaction vertices, the constraint that all fat graphs are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected as shown above.[]{data-label="wheel-1124"}](images/wheel-1124.png){height=".9in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, 3_R \rangle )$ connecting two wheel interaction vertices, the constraint that all fat graphs (shown above) are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel-1133"}](images/fat-graph-1133-wheel-redgreen.png "fig:"){height="1.56in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, 3_R \rangle )$ connecting two wheel interaction vertices, the constraint that all fat graphs (shown above) are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel-1133"}](images/fat-graph-1133-wheel-bluered.png "fig:"){height="1.56in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, 3_R \rangle )$ connecting two wheel interaction vertices, the constraint that all fat graphs (shown above) are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel-1133"}](images/fat-graph-1133-wheel-bluegreen.png "fig:"){height="1.56in"}
[0.4 ]{} ![For the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, 3_R \rangle )$ connecting two wheel interaction vertices, the constraint that all fat graphs (shown above) are planar means the interaction vertices must be connected as shown below.[]{data-label="wheel-1133"}](images/wheel-1133-melon.png "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
For the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, 5_R \rangle )$, we find there is no way to satisfy the constraints that all fat-graphs be planar.
### Diagrams containing a 1-cycle {#diagrams-containing-a-1-cycle .unnumbered}
A 1-cycle is formed by contracting two fields from the same interaction vertex, which we denote as $\langle X, Y \rangle$. Using the automorphism symmetry of the wheel interaction, we can always choose the first field $X=1$. Via colour permutation symmetry, the second field $Y$ can be chosen to be $2$ or $3$. There are thus two inequivalent 1-cycles: $\langle 1,2 \rangle$ and $\langle 1, 3 \rangle$.
The 1-cycle $\langle 1, 3 \rangle$ results in a non-planar red-green fat graph, so is non-maximal. The $\langle 1, 2 \rangle$ 1-cycle is constrained by planarity of the red-blue fat graph to be of the form in Figure \[121-cycle-wheel\].
![Any Feynman diagram containing a loop passing through one wheel vertex must be of this form, or related to this by permutation of colours.[]{data-label="121-cycle-wheel"}](images/wheel_12.png){height="1.5in"}
### Melonic Moves {#melonic-moves .unnumbered}
From the inequivalent $1$-cycles and $2$-cycles above, we can extract the elementary melon and elementary snail shown in Figure \[elementary-melons\].
[0.4]{} ![The maximal diagrams arising from the wheel interaction can also be generated by replacing propagators with the above elementary snail and elementary melon (or their colour permutations).[]{data-label="elementary-melons"}](images/elementary-melon-wheel.png "fig:"){height="1.0in"}
[0.4]{} ![The maximal diagrams arising from the wheel interaction can also be generated by replacing propagators with the above elementary snail and elementary melon (or their colour permutations).[]{data-label="elementary-melons"}](images/elementary-snail-wheel.png "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
Octahedron interaction
----------------------
Let us now consider the octahedron. (We present this case before the prism, because it also gives rise to a conventional melonic limit.) Its fat vertices are pictured in Figure \[double-prismV\].
[0.5]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-doubleprism "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-blue-prism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-green-blue-prism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-yellow-dprism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-blue-yellow-dprism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.32 ]{} ![The octahedron interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="double-prismV"}](images/labelled-vertex-green-yellow-dprism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
### Diagrams containing a 1-cycle {#diagrams-containing-a-1-cycle-1 .unnumbered}
One can check that, for the octahedron, there is no way of forming a 1-cycle such that all six fat-graphs are planar. Hence elementary snails are ruled out on purely combinatorial grounds.
### Diagrams containing a 2-cycle {#diagrams-containing-a-2-cycle-1 .unnumbered}
Let us enumerate all inequivalent 2-cycles: $({\langle}X_L, Y_R{\rangle}, {\langle}Z_L, W_R{\rangle})$ passing through two octahedron interaction vertices.
The octahedron has no automorphism symmetry. However, we can use the colour permutation symmetry to reduce the number of cases one has to check to ensure all fat-graphs are planar.
By permuting the colours in the Feynman diagram, any loop can be mapped to one in which $X=1$. This procedure does not use all the colour permutation symmetry, as the permutation $\sigma_{(gbyr)}$ corresponds to the field-vertex permutation $(2,3,4,6)$, which leaves the choice of $X=1$ invariant. In case $Y$ was chosen to be $3,~4$ or $6$, one could use the colour permutation $\sigma_{(gbyr)}$ to map it to an equivalent diagram where $Y=2$. We can thus set $Y=1,~5$ or $2$. If $Y=1,~5$, then the colour permutation symmetry still remains at our disposal to set $Z=1,~5$ or $2$. Finally, if $Z=1,~5$, the unused colour permutation symmetry can be used set $W=1,~5$ or $2$.
The inequivalent 2-cycles can thus be taken as:
1. $({\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}Z_L, W_R{\rangle})$
2. $({\langle}1_L, 5_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, W_R'{\rangle})$
3. $({\langle}1_L, 5_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 2_R{\rangle})$
4. $({\langle}1_L, 5_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 1_R{\rangle})$
5. $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, W_R''{\rangle})$
6. $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 5_R{\rangle})$
The condition of no twists for fat-graphs forces $W''=2$, $Z=2$, $W=1$. It also rules out case 2 and 3. We finally have only four possibly-planar inequivalent 2-cycles, which are:
- $({\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 1_R{\rangle})$
- $({\langle}1_L, 5_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 1_R{\rangle})$
- $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 2_R{\rangle})$
- $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 5_R{\rangle})$
Drawing all fat-graphs for each 2-cycle as we did for the wheel, we obtain the following results. We find that any free energy diagram containing the 2-cycle $({\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 1_R{\rangle})$, or $({\langle}1_L, 5_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 1_R{\rangle})$, gives rise to at least one non-planar fat graphs. Hence any free-energy diagram containing these cycles is non-maximal.
Next we consider free-energy diagrams containing the 2-cycle $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 5_R{\rangle})$. Requiring all fat graphs to be planar gives rise to a free energy diagram of the form shown in Figure \[doubleprism-1155\]. An identical result holds for free-energy diagrams containing the 2-cycle $({\langle}1_L,1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 2_R{\rangle})$.
![Requiring the 2-cycle $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 5_R{\rangle})$ to be maximal means it must take the above traditionally-melonic form. A similar result holds for $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 2_R{\rangle})$.[]{data-label="doubleprism-1155"}](images/double-prism-1155.png){height="1.7in"}
### Melonic moves {#melonic-moves-1 .unnumbered}
Putting all these results together, we find that this model is melonic in the conventional sense. All diagrams can be generated by replacing propagators by the elementary melon shown below in Figure \[elementary-melon\]. There is no elementary snail, unlike the case of the wheel.
![The theory based on the octahedron is traditionally melonic, with the above elementary melon (and its colour permutations).[]{data-label="elementary-melon"}](images/elementary-melon-wheel.png){height="1.5in"}
Prism interaction
-----------------
Let us now consider the prism interaction. The prism interaction and its two-colour fat vertices, are shown in Figure \[prismfatV\]. In [@GKPPT], it was shown that the leading order diagrams arising from the prism interaction can be explicitly summed by using an auxiliary field to convert it into a quartic tetrahedron interaction.
However, if we do not introduce this auxiliary field, and simply draw Feynman diagrams using the sextic prism vertex, we find that there are maximal diagrams which are not melonic in the sextic sense. In other words, the set of maximal Feynman diagrams in the prismatic theory includes diagrams that would not be maximal in a conventional melonic theory, such as a theory based on the octahedron or a theory based on the $r=5$ maximally-single-trace interaction studied in [@KPP]. An example of such a diagram is shown in Figure \[nonmelonicMaximal\].
Because the prism interaction gives rise to a large $N$ limit that is not conventionally melonic in this sense, it is interesting to see how the method of analysis given above can be modified to characterize all maximal diagrams.
[0.5]{} ![The prism interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="prismfatV"}](images/labelled-vertex-prism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The prism interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="prismfatV"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The prism interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="prismfatV"}](images/labelled-vertex-red-blue-prism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The prism interaction and its three two-colour fat-vertices are shown above. Note that, for a given choice of two-colours, we must arrange the fields in a particular cyclic order in order to maintain manifest planarity[]{data-label="prismfatV"}](images/labelled-vertex-green-blue-prism.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
### Diagrams containing a 1-cycle {#diagrams-containing-a-1-cycle-2 .unnumbered}
One can check that the only maximal free energy diagram containing a 1-cycle is $\langle 1, 6 \rangle$, or its colour permutations. It takes the form shown in Figure \[1-cycle-prism\].
![Any maximal Feynman diagram containing a loop passing through one prism vertex must be of this form, or related to this by permutation of colours.[]{data-label="1-cycle-prism"}](images/prism_16.png){height="1.4in"}
### Diagrams containing a 2-cycle {#diagrams-containing-a-2-cycle-2 .unnumbered}
Consider two prism interaction vertices, one denoted by $L$ and the other $R$. As before, we specify a 2-cycle, by the following contractions: $({\langle}X_L, Y_R{\rangle}, {\langle}Z_L, W_R{\rangle})$.
We can choose $X_L=1_L$ using the automorphism of the first interaction vertex and the colour permutation symmetry. The automorphism symmetry of the second vertex and the residual colour permutation symmetry group can be used to choose $Y_R=1_R$ or $2_R$. If $Y_R=1_R$ the residual colour permutation symmetry can be used to set $Z_L=2_L,~4_L,$ or $6_L$ Thus, we have the following inequivalent 2-cycles,
1. $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}Z_L, W_R{\rangle})$
2. $({\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}Z_L', W_R'{\rangle})$
where $Z=2,~4,~6$.
The condition of no-twists-in-fat-graphs then restricts the allowed 2-cycles to be:
1. $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 2_R{\rangle})$
2. $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}4_L, 4_R{\rangle})$
3. $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}6_L, 6_R{\rangle})$
4. $({\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 1_R{\rangle})$
5. $({\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 6_R{\rangle})$
Let us look at the structure of the constraints imposed by requiring fat graphs planarity for free-energy diagrams containing these cycles.
First, one can check that free energy diagrams containing the $2$-cycles ${\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}5_L, 6_R{\rangle}$ and ${\langle}1_L, 2_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 1_R{\rangle}$ always give rise to a non-planar fat graph, and are hence non-maximal.
Next consider the 2-cycle $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}4_L, 4_R{\rangle})$. Planarity of the fat graphs restricts any free energy diagram containing this cycle to be of the form shown in Figure \[1144\_prism\_fatgraphs\].
We then consider the case ${\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}6_L, 6_R{\rangle}$. Free energy diagrams containing this 2-cycle (not pictured) are either a conventional melonic diagram, or a double-snail.
[0.3 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 4_L, 4_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. We see that this gives rise to a conventional melonic structure shown below.[]{data-label="1144_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism_fat-graph-1144-red-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 4_L, 4_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. We see that this gives rise to a conventional melonic structure shown below.[]{data-label="1144_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism_fat-graph-1144-red-blue.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 4_L, 4_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. We see that this gives rise to a conventional melonic structure shown below.[]{data-label="1144_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism_fat-graph-1144-blue-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[.9 ]{} ![The fat graphs for the loop $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 4_L, 4_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. We see that this gives rise to a conventional melonic structure shown below.[]{data-label="1144_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism-1144.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
We finally consider free energy diagrams containing the 2-cycle $({\langle}1_L, 1_R{\rangle}, {\langle}2_L, 2_R{\rangle})$. We observe that the requirement of planar fat subgraphs, does not split the subgraph into 4 disconnected components, as it did for the other cases. Instead, as shown in Fig \[1122\_prism\_fatgraphs\], we are left with one subgraph with two external edges and one subgraph with six external edges.
[0.3 ]{} ![The three fat graphs for the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that the subgraph gets split into two parts. However, there are not enough constraints to separate the subgraph into 4 components, with two external edges each. Hence the theory is not melonic in a conventional sense.[]{data-label="1122_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism_fat-graph-1122-red-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The three fat graphs for the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that the subgraph gets split into two parts. However, there are not enough constraints to separate the subgraph into 4 components, with two external edges each. Hence the theory is not melonic in a conventional sense.[]{data-label="1122_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism_fat-graph-1122-red-blue.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.3 ]{} ![The three fat graphs for the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that the subgraph gets split into two parts. However, there are not enough constraints to separate the subgraph into 4 components, with two external edges each. Hence the theory is not melonic in a conventional sense.[]{data-label="1122_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism_fat-graph-1122-blue-green.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[.9 ]{} ![The three fat graphs for the 2-cycle $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, 2_R \rangle )$ involving two prism interaction vertices are shown above. From the blue-red fat-graph, we see that the subgraph gets split into two parts. However, there are not enough constraints to separate the subgraph into 4 components, with two external edges each. Hence the theory is not melonic in a conventional sense.[]{data-label="1122_prism_fatgraphs"}](images/prism-labels.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
### New melonic move {#new-melonic-move .unnumbered}
In order to obtain a recursive enumeration of diagrams in this case, we need to adapt the cutting and sewing rules given earlier to the subgraph containing 6 external lines. We show how this is done in Figure \[prism-cut-and-sew\]. By carefully following the index contractions, one can check that the diagram on the left in Figure 36 is maximal if and only if the diagram on the right is maximal.
[0.45 ]{} ![The graph on the left, which originates from the Figure \[1122\_prism\_fatgraphs\], is maximal if and only if the graph on the right is maximal. One can see this by tracing each of the index contractions for each of the three $O(N)$ symmetry groups. The graph on the right is a free energy graph and must be one of the forms enumerated in the previous subsection. The above relation also gives rise to a new elementary move: of replacing one vertex (right) by two vertices (left).[]{data-label="prism-cut-and-sew"}](images/prism-cutAndSew1.png "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.45 ]{} ![The graph on the left, which originates from the Figure \[1122\_prism\_fatgraphs\], is maximal if and only if the graph on the right is maximal. One can see this by tracing each of the index contractions for each of the three $O(N)$ symmetry groups. The graph on the right is a free energy graph and must be one of the forms enumerated in the previous subsection. The above relation also gives rise to a new elementary move: of replacing one vertex (right) by two vertices (left).[]{data-label="prism-cut-and-sew"}](images/prism-cutandsew.png "fig:"){height="1.7in"}
The diagram on the right in Figure \[prism-cut-and-sew\] (which contains one fewer interaction vertex than the original diagram) is a free energy graph that contains at least one vertex, so it must take one of the forms enumerated in the previous section. By cutting out one prism interaction vertex from any of these forms, we can determine all the possibilities for subgraph $G$ in Figure \[prism-cut-and-sew\]. We have thus formally obtained a recursive procedure for generating all free-energy graphs.
In practice, it is helpful to translate this enumeration into the language of melonic-moves. We note that, in addition to the usual melonic move of replacing a propagator by an elementary snail or melon, Figure \[prism-cut-and-sew\] requires us to introduce an additional move. From the possibility that the subgraph $G$ could be obtained from cutting out one interaction vertex from the non-melonid 2-cycle of Figure \[1122\_prism\_fatgraphs\] itself, we obtain the new “vertex-expansion” move of replacing an interaction vertex by two-interaction vertices contracted in a particular way, as shown in Figure \[post-melonic\].[^9] This vertex expansion move can be thought of as the “inverse” of the cutting and sewing rule of Figure \[prism-cut-and-sew\]. All maximal diagrams can be produced by application of this melonic move, along with the melonic moves of replacing a propagator by an elementary melon or elementary snail.
One can also check that under this move, $v\rightarrow v+1$ and $f_{tot}\rightarrow f_{tot}+r$, so the maximality condition is preserved, so all diagrams produced by this move are maximal.
It is easy to check that the diagrams produced by this melonic move are equivalent to those produced by the auxiliary field in [@GKPPT].
![A new melonic move, vertex expansion, is present in the prismatic model.[]{data-label="post-melonic"}](images/vertex-expansion.png){height="2in"}
Theory with both a prism and wheel
----------------------------------
Let us also consider a theory with both $r=3$ maximally-single-trace interactions, the prism and wheel. The allowed 1-cycles remain those from the prism and wheel theories respectively, but the 2-cycles now also include the possibility of a loop passing through one wheel vertex and one prism vertex. We analyze this case now.
Let us assume the $L$ vertex is a prism and the $R$ vertex is a wheel. As shown in the appendix, the inequivalent 2-cycles are:
1. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, W_R \rangle )$,
2. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 4_L, W_R' \rangle )$,
3. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 6_L, 2_R \rangle )$,
4. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 6_L, 3_R \rangle )$,
5. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 6_L, 6_R \rangle )$.
All of the 2-cycles of the form 1, 2 and 4 contain a twist in one of the two-colour fat graphs, and are non-maximal.
Case 3 and Case 5 allow for a double snail. There are no other possibilities. In particular there is no new elementary melon containing both a wheel and a prism vertex, and the elementary moves of the prism theory and the wheel theory generate all Feynman diagrams.
Comments on field-theories based on these interactions {#SD-section}
======================================================
In this section we discuss specific realizations of these theories. Let us focus our attention on obtaining IR fixed points with physics similar to the SYK model. A list of theories involving a single, real rank-$r$ tensor field that can be solved via the analysis given above includes:
1. A quantum-mechanical theory of rank-$4$ Majorana fermions based on the octahedron interaction.
2. A $d<3$ dimensional theory of rank-$4$ real bosons dominated by the octahedron interaction.
3. A $d<3$ dimensional theory of rank-$3$ real bosons dominated by the wheel interaction.
4. A $d<3$ dimensional theory of rank-$3$ real bosons dominated by the prism interaction.
5. A $d<3$ dimensional theory of rank-$3$ real bosons dominated by both the wheel and the prism interaction.
We have argued that $1d$ theory of real, rank-$4$, fermionic tensors based on the octahedron is dominated by melonic diagrams. Hence we expect its large $N$ saddle point solution will proceed exactly along the lines of [@KPP], and in particular we expect essentially the same spectrum as the $q=6$ SYK model. It might be interesting to study the theory more carefully, including numerical studies to compare its behaviour at finite $N$ to the rank-$5$ melonic tensor model studied in [@KPP] or other models [@Krishnan:2017ztz; @Krishnan:2017txw; @Krishnan:2018hhu; @Klebanov:2018nfp; @Krishnan:2018jsp; @Pakrouski:2018jcc], but we do not do this here.
The bosonic version of this theory, which can be defined for $d<3$, also dominated by melonic diagrams. Its large $N$ saddle point solution will proceed exactly along the lines of the $q=6$ bosonic theories discussed in [@Giombi:2017dtl]. We illustrate this explicitly in subsection \[double-prism-section\] below.
For the large $N$ solution of the theory of rank-$3$ real bosons with a wheel interaction, the only difference from the traditional melonic theory is the presence of the elementary snail. This elementary snail is a tadpole, so it does not appear to affect the results of the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the exact propagator. We, therefore, again expect the large $N$ solution to again proceed along the lines of the $q=6$ bosonic tensor models discussed in [@Giombi:2017dtl]. However, one slightly novel feature of the wheel interaction is that it allows us to define a theory of complex bosons with $U(N)^3$ symmetry group, as its interaction graph is bi-partite.
The large $N$ solution to the theory of rank-$3$ bosons with a prism interaction was discussed in [@GKPPT]. We now have the possibility of solving for the large $N$ limit of a theory of rank-$3$ bosons with both the wheel and prism interactions. We leave this for future work.
Real sextic bosonic theories with melonic dominance {#double-prism-section}
---------------------------------------------------
Let us first consider the rank-$4$ bosonic theory with the octahedron interaction. The Lagrangian for this theory is: $$L = \int d^d x ~\frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \phi\partial^\mu \phi+g
\phi^{a_1b_1c_1d_1}
\phi^{a_1b_2c_2d_2}
\phi^{a_2b_2c_1d_3}
\phi^{a_2b_3c_3d_1}
\phi^{a_3b_3c_2d_3}
\phi^{a_3b_1c_3d_2}.$$ The ’t Hooft coupling for this theory is $\lambda=gN^4$.
To write down the gap equation, we need to carefully count all the melonic Wick contractions that take the form of the elementary melon in Figure \[elementary-melon\]. Let us denote this number by $n_{\text{melon}}$. Here $n_{\text{melon}}=6$. The gap equation in the strong coupling limit takes the form: $$G^{-1}(x) = -\lambda^2 n_\text{melon} G(x)^6.$$
![The integration kernel for the four-point function[]{data-label="kernel"}](images/kernel.png){height="1in"}
Let us now write the integration kernel: $$K(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = n_{\text{kernel}} \lambda^2 G(x_{13}) G(x_{24}) G(x_{34})^4,$$ where $n_{\text{kernel}}$ is the number of melonic Wick contractions of the form given in Figure \[kernel\]. Clearly, for any melonic Wick contraction that takes the form of the elementary melon, one simply has to choose an internal line to cut, in order to obtain a melonic Wick contraction for the kernel, so $n_{\text{kernel}}=(q-1)n_{\text{melon}}$, where $q=6$ in our case. If we now absorb $n_{\text{melon}}$ into $\tilde{\lambda}^2=\lambda^2 n_\text{melon}$, our Schwinger-Dyson equations become: $$G^{-1}(x) = -\tilde{\lambda}^2 G(x)^6.$$ and $$K(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = (q-1) \tilde{\lambda}^2 G(x_{13}) G(x_{24}) G(x_{34})^4,$$ which are identical to those solved in [@Giombi:2017dtl].
An identical argument shows that the theory with only a wheel is also given by the solution in [@Giombi:2017dtl] for $q=6$, assuming here that the elementary snail, which is a tadpole, in the gap equation can be made to vanish, say via dimensional regularization.
Discussion {#conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we showed that any tensor model with maximally single-trace interactions admits a the natural large-$N$ ’t Hooft limit. We classified all real sextic subchromatic tensor models with maximally-single-trace interactions and found only three interactions with $r<5$: the wheel (or $K_{3,3}$) interaction, the prism, and the octahedron. We showed that the theory based on the $r=4$ octahedron is dominated by melomnic diagrams. We also showed that the theory based on the $r=3$ wheel (or $K_{3,3}$) interaction is dominated by melonic diagrams, with the addition of an elementary snail that should vanish in most situations. Finally, we showed that the prism is dominated by a superset of melonic diagrams that also include diagrams generated by an additional melonic (or post-melonic) move – vertex expansion. In all cases, these diagrams can be explicitly enumerated and summed.
We have essentially shown that all rank-$3$ sextic tensor models are solvable in the large $N$ limit by our analysis of maximal diagrams arising from the wheel interaction. For completeness, we should also explain how to handle the non-MST interactions of [@GKPPT]. It is easy to see that all the non-MST interactions can be reduced to quartic pillow and double-trace interactions by the introduction of an auxiliary field, as was done for the prism in [@GKPPT]. Hence, any sextic rank-$3$ tensor model without a wheel interaction is effectively a quartic-tensor model and is therefore solvable in the large $N$ limit by now-standard techniques. With the analysis in this paper, one can also include diagrams arising from the wheel. We postpone a detailed study of the most general $r=3$ sextic theory and its fixed points to future work.
One might ask whether all rank-$4$ sextic tensor models are solvable. This is evidently not the case – for example, the non-MST interaction shown in Figure \[nonMSTrank4\], is clearly equivalent to a rank-$2$ MST interaction, and gives rise to all planar diagrams. Such an interaction would exist for any theory based on tensors of even rank.
![This is a non-MST rank-$4$ interaction whose large $N$ limit gives rise to all planar diagrams. It is equivalent to the rank-$2$ MST interaction.[]{data-label="nonMSTrank4"}](images/nonMST.pdf){height="1.5in"}
It would also be straightforward, but potentially very interesting, to extend the analysis of this paper to higher-$q$ in attempts to find new solvable large $N$ limits, perhaps similar to the prismatic limit, that generalize the melonic large $N$ limit.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Adrian Tanasa and Victor Nador for discussions. We also thank Igor Klebanov for comments on a draft of this manuscript. RS would like to thank Bordeaux U., LPT, Orsay and IIT, Kanpur for hospitality during the course of this work. SP would like to thank IFT and ICTS, TIFR for hospitality. RS is partially supported by the Spanish Research Agency (Agencia Estatal de Investigación) through the grants IFT Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa SEV-2016-0597, FPA2015-65480-P and PGC2018-095976-B-C21. SP acknowledges the support of a DST INSPIRE faculty award, and DST-SERB grants: MTR/2018/0010077 and ECR/2017/001023.
Appendix: Finding inequivalent 2-cycles
=======================================
Here we illustrate a simple method for enumerating inequivalent 2-cycles. We discuss only the case of a 2-cycle passing through two wheel vertices and a 2 cycle passing through a wheel and a prism vertex. A very similar analysis applies for the other cases.
Wheel {#wheel .unnumbered}
-----
We represent the symmetry group as a group of permutations acting on the twelve labelled field-vertices $\{1_L,2_L, \ldots 6_L, 1_R, 2_R, \ldots, 6_R\}$. Colour permutations simultaneously act on both vertices, while automorphisms can act on each vertex independently. Hence the colour permutation generators act as $$\sigma_{rg}=(1_L,5_L)(2_L,4_L)(1_R,5_R)(2_R,4_R),$$ and $$\sigma_{gb}=(1_L,5_L)(4_L,6_L)(1_R,5_R)(4_R,6_R).$$ The automorphism symmetry group is generated by the permutations: $$(1_L,6_L)(2_L,5_L)(3_L,4_L),$$ $$(1_L,2_L)(4_L,5_L)(3_L,6_L),$$ $$(1_R,6_R)(2_R,5_R)(3_R,4_R)$$ and $$(1_R,2_R)(4_R,5_R)(3_R,6_R).$$
The combined symmetry group of colour permutations and automorphisms (which we are representing as a subgroup of $S_{12}$) has 216 elements.
To determine the inequivalent choices for $X_L$, we note that the orbit of $1_L$ under the combined symmetry group is $\{1_L, 2_L, 3_L, 4_L, 5_L, 6_L\}$. Hence, any choice of $X_L$ can be related to $X_L=1_L$ without loss of generality.
We are then left with a residual symmetry group: the stabilizer of $1_L$, which contains 36 elements. We find the orbit of $1_R$ in this residual symmetry group is $\{1_R, 2_R, 3_R, 4_R, 5_R, 6_R\}$. Hence we can take $Y_R=1_R$. We next consider the residual symmetry group that stabilizes both $1_L$ and $1_R$; this group contains $6$ elements. We find its orbits include $\{2_L, 4_L, 6_L\}$ and $\{3_L, 5_L\}$. Hence we can take $Z_L=2_L$ or $3_L$.
The inequivalent 2-cycles so far are thus:
1. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, W_R \rangle )$,
2. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 3_L, W_R' \rangle )$.
To determine the inequivalent choices for $W_R$, we again consider the residual symmetry group that stabilizes $1_L,~1_R,$ and $2_L$; this residual symmetry group contains two elements. The orbits of this symmetry group are $\{2_R\}$, $\{3_R, 5_R\}$, and $\{4_R,6_R\}$. Hence the inequivalent choices for $W_R$ are $2_R$, $3_R$ and $4_R$.
To consider the inequivalent choices for $W'_R$, we consider the residual symmetry group that stabilizes $1_L,~1_R,$ and $3_L$; this group contains 3 elements. Its orbits are: $\{3_R\}$, $\{5_R\}$, and $\{2_R, 4_R,6_R\}$. The inequivalent choices for $W'_R$ are thus $2_R, 3_R$ and $5_R$.
Prism and wheel {#prism-and-wheel .unnumbered}
---------------
Let us consider a 2-cycle which intersects one prism interaction vertex and one wheel interaction vertex. Let as assume the left ($L$) vertex is a prism and the right ($R$) vertex is a wheel.
The combined colour permutation and automorphism symmetry group contains $72$ elements. The orbit of $1_L$ under this group is $\{ 1_L, \ldots , 6_L \}$, so we can take $X_L=1_L$.
The residual symmetry group that stabilizes $1_L$ has $12$ elements. The orbit of $1_R$ under this residual symmetry group is $\{ 1_R, \ldots , 6_R \}$, so we can choose $Y_R=1_R$.
The residual symmetry group that stabilizes both $1_L$ and $1_R$ has $2$ elements. Its orbits include $\{2_L, 3_L\}$ and $\{ 4_L, 5_L\}$. Hence we can take $Z_L=2_L,~4_L,$ or $6_L$. If we choose $Z_L=6_L$, then there is still a residual symmetry group and we can take $W_R=2_R,~3_R$ or $6_R$.
The inequivalent 2-cycles are thus:
1. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 2_L, W_R \rangle )$,
2. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 4_L, W_R' \rangle )$,
3. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 6_L, 2_R \rangle )$,
4. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 6_L, 3_R \rangle )$,
5. $(\langle 1_L, 1_R \rangle, \langle 6_L, 6_R \rangle )$.
[^1]: To provide some justification for this expectation, we observe that all the sextic non-MST interactions in [@GKPPT] can be obtained from quartic pillow and double-trace interactions via an auxiliary field.
[^2]: The prismatic limit is solved by introducing an auxiliary field to rewrite the theory as a quartic tensor model with the familiar tetrahedron interaction [@GKPPT]. So one can argue that it is effectively still melonic. This limit can also be realized in a theory with random couplings, discussed in [@Murugan:2017eto].
[^3]: An alternative name for these models is *subvalent* as each field vertex in the interaction graphs described in the next section have submaximal valence.
[^4]: We thank Igor Klebanov for pointing out the reference [@Lionni:2017xvn].
[^5]: An alternative class of tensor models is defined using symmetric traceless or anti-symmetric representations of a single $O(N)$ symmetry group [@Klebanov:2017nlk; @Benedetti:2017qxl]. We do not consider such theories here.
[^6]: We thank Igor Klebanov and Martin Roček for pointing this out to us. Another name we used for this interaction is the *double-prism*, as both the $rgb$ and $rgy$ subgraphs of this interaction are prism interactions.
[^7]: We thank Igor Klebanov for discussions on this point.
[^8]: The above analysis assumed that the number of interaction vertices was greater than or equal to $1$. The trivial free-energy diagram which contains no interaction vertices, is also maximal.
[^9]: We would like to thank Adrian Tanasa and Victor Nador for discussions on this point
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We examine the existence of relativistic stars in $f(T)$ modified gravity and explicitly construct several classes of static perfect fluid solutions. We derive the conservation equation from the complete $f(T)$ gravity field equations and present the differences with its teleparallel counterpart. Firstly, we choose the tetrad field in the diagonal gauge and study the resulting field equations. Some exact solutions are explicitly constructed and it is noted that these solutions have to give a constant torsion scalar. Next, we choose a non diagonal tetrad field which results in field equations similar to those of general relativity. For specific models we are able to construct exact solutions of these field equations. Among those new classes of solutions, we find negative pressure solutions, and an interesting class of polynomial solutions.'
author:
- |
C. G. Böhmer[^1] , A. Mussa[^2] and N. Tamanini[^3]\
Department of Mathematics and Institute of Origins\
University College London\
Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
title: 'Existence of relativistic stars in $f(T)$ gravity'
---
Introduction
============
Modified theories of gravity have become very popular due to their ability to provide an alternative framework to understand dark energy. This is done by modifying the gravitational Lagrangian to become an arbitrary function of its original argument, for instance $f(R)$ instead of $R$ in the Einstein-Hilbert action, see [@Durrer:2008in; @DeFelice:2010aj]. In General Relativity and its modifications one uses the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and quantities derived from it to describe the gravitational field.
There exists an equivalent formulation of General Relativity based on the idea of parallelism. Initially, Einstein aimed to unify electromagnetism and gravity based on the notion of absolute parallelism [@Unzicker:2005in], this however failed. Much later, the theory received more attention as an alternative theory of gravity which we now call the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR), see [@tegr].
The idea behind this approach is to consider a more general manifold which contains in addition to curvature a quantity called torsion. The complete Riemann curvature tensor (part without torsion plus a contribution from torsion) is assumed to be zero and therefore one can in principle use either the torsion-free part or the torsion part to describe the gravitational field. The most convenient approach is to work with tetrad fields $e^i{}_{\mu}$ and a so-called Weitzenböck space, see [@wbock]. The tetrad fields represent fields of orthonormal bases which belong to the tangent space of the manifold. This tangent space is Minkowski space equipped with the metric $\eta_{ij}$ and can be defined at any given point on the manifold. Note that $e^i{}_{\mu}$ has 16 components while the metric has only 10. However, the tetrads are invariant under local Lorentz rotations.
Recently, modifications of TEGR have been studied mainly in the context of cosmology [@Ferraro:2006jd]. This theory is now known as $f(T)$ gravity and is constructed with a generalised Lagrangian [@Bengochea:2008gz]. When compared with $f(R)$ gravity, this modification is particularly appealing since its field equations are of second order and not of fourth order. Note that $f(R)$ modified gravity can also be viewed as a second order system of equations when using the Palatini approach, see again [@Durrer:2008in; @DeFelice:2010aj]. Most research on $f(T)$ gravity is devoted to the theory’s ability (or inability) to describe the observed accelerated expansion of the universe [@exp], or comparing theory with observational data [@ob]. In addition, it has been shown that certain $f(T)$ gravity models can provide us with a unification of early time inflation and late time accelerated expansion [@unif]. Models which allow the equation of state to cross the phantom divide have also been found [@pld]. Other lines of research have also been followed, see for instance [@ftothers].
In two recent papers, static and spherically symmetric solutions were considered [@Deliduman:2011ga; @Wang:2011xf] in the context of $f(T)$ gravity. In [@Deliduman:2011ga] it was claimed that relativistic stars in $f(T)$ do not exist, based on the general relativistic conservation equation. In this paper we derive the conservation equation from first principles and show that it agrees with equation (18) of [@Deliduman:2011ga]. However, this equation should not be compared with its general relativistic analogue. We find solutions with constant torsion scalar $T'=0$, similar to those found in [@Wang:2011xf]. We proceed to consider various simple forms of $g_{\mu\nu}$ to solve the complete set of field equations, thereby showing the existence of relativistic stars.
Teleparallel gravity and its modifications
==========================================
Basic equations and action
--------------------------
The basic variables in the teleparallel approach to general relativity are the tetrad fields $e^i{}_\mu$ where the Greek indices (holonomic) denote the coordinates of the manifold while the Latin indices (anholonomic) denotes the frame. By staggering the frame and the coordinate index, we can use the same symbol for the matrix $e^i{}_{\mu}$ and its inverse. We define $$\begin{aligned}
e^i{}_{\mu} e_i{}^\nu = \delta^\nu_\mu \,, \qquad
e^i{}_{\mu} e_j{}^\mu = \delta^i_j \,.\end{aligned}$$ We can define the metric via the tetrads by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{ij} e^i{}_{\mu} e^j{}_{\nu} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_{ij}=\text{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ is the tangent space metric, which is Minkowski space. Note that the determinant of the metric $g$ is related to the determinant of the tetrad $\sqrt{-g}=\det(e^i{}_{\mu})=e$. The metric $g$ is used to raise and lower coordinate indices and $\eta$ raises and lowers frame indices.
By assuming that the manifold is globally flat, the tetrad fields give rise to a connection defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu\nu} = e_i{}^{\sigma} \partial_\nu e^i{}_{\mu}
= -e^i{}_{\mu} \partial_\nu e_i{}^{\sigma}\,,
\label{Wbock}\end{aligned}$$ which is the so-called Weitzenböck connection. Note that this connection is not the Levi-Civita connection since it is defined so that its torsion is zero. Since our manifold is flat, the notion of parallelism holds globally and therefore one speaks of absolute parallelism which is a synonym of teleparallelism.
We define torsion and contortion by $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\sigma}{}_{\mu\nu} &= \Gamma^{\sigma}{}_{\mu\nu} - \Gamma^{\sigma}{}_{\nu\mu} =
e_i{}^{\sigma} (\partial_\mu e^i{}_{\nu}-\partial_\nu e^i{}_{\mu}) \,, \\
K^{\mu\nu}{}_{\sigma} &= -\frac{1}{2}
(T^{\mu\nu}{}_{\sigma}-T^{\nu\mu}{}_{\sigma}-T_{\sigma}{}^{\mu\nu})\,.\end{aligned}$$ The contortion tensor can also be defined in terms of the Weitzenböck and Levi-Civita connections. It turns out to be useful to define the tensor $S_{\sigma}{}^{\mu\nu}$ in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\sigma}{}^{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}(K^{\mu\nu}{}_{\sigma} +
\delta^\mu_\sigma T^{\rho \nu}{}_{\rho} - \delta_\sigma^\nu T^{\rho\mu}{}_{\rho})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now we can define a torsion scalar $T$ which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T = S_{\sigma}{}^{\mu\nu} T^{\sigma}{}_{\mu\nu}\,,
\label{eqn:torsions}\end{aligned}$$ whose importance becomes clear in a moment.
Due to the flatness of the manifold, we can express the Ricci scalar in the Einstein-Hilbert action in terms of the Weitzenböck connection, or equivalently torsion. This particular combination of torsion terms which appears in this context is the above mentioned $T$. It is thus rather natural to consider modifications of this action based on $f(T)$ where $f$ is an arbitrary function. Let us therefore consider the modified action (with geometrized units $c=G=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
S = S_{\rm gravity} + S_{\rm matter} =
\frac{1}{16\pi} \int e\, f(T) \, d^4x +
\int e\, L_{\rm matter} \, d^4x \,.
\label{eqn:action}\end{aligned}$$
Field equations and conservation equation
-----------------------------------------
Variations of the action (\[eqn:action\]) with respect to the tetrads $e^i{}_{\mu}$ gives the field equations of $f(T)$ modified gravity $$\begin{aligned}
S_i{}^{\mu\nu} f_{TT} \partial_\mu T + e^{-1} \partial_{\mu}(e S_i{}^{\mu\nu}) f_T
- T^{\sigma}{}_{\mu i} S_{\sigma}{}^{\nu\mu} f_T
+ \frac{1}{4}e_i{}^{\nu}f = 4\pi \mathcal{T}_{i}{}^{\nu}\,,
\label{eqn:field}\end{aligned}$$ where $S_i{}^{\mu\nu}=e_i{}^{\sigma} S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu}$, $f_T$ and $f_{TT}$ denote the first and second derivatives of $f$ with respect to $T$, see again [@Bengochea:2008gz]. $\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy momentum tensor. In what follows we assume $\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}$ to be an isotropic perfect fluid which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}= p g_{\mu\nu}-(\rho+p)u_\mu u_\nu\,,
\label{emtensor}\end{aligned}$$ Conservation of the energy momentum tensor is ensured by the field equations (\[eqn:field\]) which we show explicitly in the following. Firstly, we rewrite the field equation in the form $$\begin{gathered}
e\delta^\sigma_\rho S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu(T)f_{TT}+e^i{}_{\rho}\partial_\mu(e e_i{}^{\sigma}S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu})f_T \\-e\delta^\sigma_\rho T^\gamma{}_{\mu\sigma}S_\gamma{}^{\nu\mu}f_T+\frac{e}{4}\delta_\rho^\nu f = 4\pi e\delta^\sigma_\rho \mathcal{T}_\sigma{}^{\nu}\,.\end{gathered}$$
We introduce the quantity $j_i{}^{\nu}$ to which we refer to as a possible gauge current which represents the energy momentum of the gravitational field $$\begin{aligned}
j_i{}^{\nu}=-\frac{1}{4\pi}\left(e_i{}^{\sigma}S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu(T) f_{TT} -e_i{}^{\sigma}T^\gamma{}_{\mu\sigma}S_\gamma{}^{\nu\mu}f_T+\frac{1}{4}e_i{}^{\nu}f\right) \,.
\label{eqn:field1}\end{aligned}$$ If we set $f(T)=T$ then $j_i{}^{\nu}$ reduces to the well known gauge current in teleparallelism [@teleoview]. Using $j_i{}^{\nu}$, equation (\[eqn:field1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
e^i{}_{\rho} \partial_\mu( e e_i{}^{\sigma} S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu})f_T-4\pi e e^i{}_{\rho}j_i{}^{\nu}=4\pi e\delta^\sigma_\rho \mathcal{T}_\sigma{}^{\nu}\,,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\mu( ee_i{}^{\sigma}S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu})f_T-4\pi ej_i{}^{\nu}=4\pi ee_i{}^{\rho}\mathcal{T}_\rho{}^{\nu}\,.
\label{fieldj}\end{aligned}$$
Secondly, we now take the derivative of (\[fieldj\]) with respect to $x^\nu$. The antisymmetry of $S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu}$ (in the last pair of indices $S_\sigma{}^{\mu\nu}=-S_\sigma{}^{\nu\mu}$) implies the conservation equation $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi\partial_\nu(e(j_i^{\nu}+\mathcal{T}_i{}^{\nu})) = \partial_\mu(eS_i{}^{\mu\nu})\partial_\nu f_T\,.
\label{generalcons}\end{aligned}$$ We immediately observe a few interesting facts. The presence of $f(T)$ in the action affects the conservation equation in two different ways. On the one hand, the gauge current changes and on the other hand, also the right hand side is affected. When $f(T)=T$ we recover the well-known conservation equation of TEGR [@teleoview]. In the following section we discuss static and spherically symmetric solutions in $f(T)$ gravity and it will turn out that the contributions from the right-hand side term are crucial.
Solutions with diagonal tetrad
==============================
Field equations
---------------
Consider the static spherically symmetric metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = e^{a(r)} dt^2 - e^{b(r)} dr^2 -R(r)^2 d\Omega^2\,,
\label{metric1}\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Omega^2 = d\theta^2 + \sin^2\negmedspace\theta\, d\varphi^2$ and where $a$, $b$ and $R$ are three unknown functions. One possible tetrad field (we can make arbitrary Lorentz transformations to the tetrads without changing the metric) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
e^i{}_{\mu} = \text{diag}(e^{a(r)/2},e^{b(r)/2},R(r),R(r)\sin \theta)\,,
\label{tetrad1}\end{aligned}$$ to which we refer to as the diagonal gauge. The determinant of this diagonal matrix is the product of its elements so that we find $e=e^{(a+b)/2}R^2\sin\theta$. Based on this tetrad field, we can now write out explicitly the $f(T)$ field equations (\[eqn:field\]) in component form. To do so, we firstly compute the torsion scalar (\[eqn:torsions\]) and its derivative which become $$\begin{aligned}
T(r) &= 2e^{-b}\frac{R'}{R} \left(a'+\frac{R'}{R}\right)\,,
&\nonumber\\
T'(r) &=-2e^{-b}\left( -a''\frac{R'}{R} + a'\frac{R''}{R} - \frac{2R'R''}{R^2} + \frac{R'^3}{R^3}\right) - T \left( b'+\frac{R'}{R}\right) \,.
\label{Tscalar}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this and the components of the tensors $S$ and $T$ in to the diagonal components of the equation (\[eqn:field\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
4 \pi \rho&=e^{-b}\frac{R'}{R}T' f_{TT}+\left(T-\frac{ 1}{R^2}-e^{-b}\left((a'+b')\frac{R'}{R}-2\frac{R''}{R}\right)\right)\frac{f_T}{2}-\frac{f}{4} \,,
\label{field:t}\\
4\pi p&= \left(\frac{1}{R^2}-T\right)\frac{f_T}{2}+\frac{f}{4} \,,
\label{field:r}\\
4 \pi p&= -\frac{e^{-b}}{2}\left(\frac{a'}{2}+\frac{R'}{R}\right)T'f_{TT}\nonumber\\
&-\left( \frac{T}{2}+e^{-b}\left(\frac{R''}{ R}+\frac{a''}{2}+\left(\frac{a'}{4}+\frac{R'}{2 R}\right)(a'-b')\right)\right)\frac{f_T}{2} +\frac{f}{4}\,.
\label{field:theta}\end{aligned}$$ In General Relativity the off diagonal components of the field equations vanish, but in $f(T)$ gravity a diagonal tetrad field (\[tetrad1\]) gives rise to an extra equation[^4]. This is the $(r,\theta)$ component: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{e^{-\frac{3 b}{2}} \cot (\theta ) f_{TT}}{R^2}
\Bigl(-a' \frac{R''}{R} + (a'+b')\frac{R'^2}{R^2} \\ +
2 \frac{R'^3}{R^3} + \frac{R'}{R} \left(\left(a' b'-a''\right)-2 \frac{R''}{R}\right)\Bigr)=0\,,\end{gathered}$$ which can be written in terms of $T'$ and gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e^{-b/2}\cot\theta}{2R^2}T'f_{TT}=0\,.
\label{field:extra}\end{aligned}$$ This implies that all solutions satisfy either $f_{TT} = 0$ or $T'=0$, where the former reduces the theory to TEGR.
The above field equations (\[field:t\])–(\[field:extra\]) provide us with four independent equations for six unknown quantities, namely $a(r)$, $b(r)$, $R(r)$, $\rho(r)$, $p(r)$ and $f(T)$. Hence, this system of equations is under-determined, and in order to find solutions, we will need to make some reasonable assumptions to reduce the number of unknown functions to four.
The most physical approach would be to prescribe an equation of state $\rho=\rho(p)$ which relates the energy density and the pressure, and to prescribe the function $f(T)$. However, even in general relativity it turns out to be difficult to find explicit solutions for a realistic equation of state. Moreover, prescribing a possibly complicated function $f(T)$ will make the field equations even harder to solve as they would contain more nonlinear terms. Thus, it turns out to be best to follow alternative routes. We will either make assumptions about the metric functions, or we will choose useful combinations of terms which simplify the field equations.
Conservation equation II
------------------------
Based on the field equations (\[field:t\])–(\[field:extra\]), we will re-derive the conservation directly from them, without any reference to the previous results. In doing so, we will have two independent derivations of the conservation equation in the static and spherically symmetric setting based on a diagonal tetrad. Our approach here follows closely the well known derivation of the conservation equation in general relativity, see for instance [@Tolman:1939jz]. In order to avoid working in TEGR, let us assume $T'=0$ in what follows.
Differentiating (\[field:r\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p'(r) = -\frac{R'}{R^3}f_T\,.
\label{step1}\end{aligned}$$ An expression for $\rho+p$ can be obtained using (\[field:t\]) and (\[field:r\]) $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi(\rho+p) = -\frac{e^{-b}}{2R}\left(R'(a'+b')-2R''\right)f_T\,,
\label{step2a}\end{aligned}$$ while isotropy of the pressure implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{1}{2R^2}-\frac{T}{4}\right)f_T+\frac{e^{-b}}{2}\left(\frac{R''}{ R}+\frac{a''}{2}+\left(\frac{a'}{4}+\frac{R'}{2 R}\right)(a'-b')\right)f_T = 0\,.
\label{step3a}\end{aligned}$$ Let us multiply (\[step2a\]) by $a'/2$ and (\[step3a\]) by $2R'/R$ and subtract the two resulting equations. Since $T'=0$ we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
2\pi a'(\rho+p) =\frac{R'}{R^3}f_T\,.
\label{step4}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[step4\]) into (\[step1\]) leads to the $f(T)$ conservation equation in a static and spherically symmetric spacetime with a diagonal tetrad field $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p' + 2\pi a'(\rho+p) = 0 \,.
\label{ssscons}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the right-hand side of this equation always vanishes because of the off-diagonal equation (\[field:extra\]) which enforces $f_{TT}T'=0$. Thus in $f(T)$ gravity the static and spherically symmetric conservation equation in diagonal gauge coincides with its general relativistic counterpart, meaning that no physical differences can arise from it, compare with [@Deliduman:2011ga].
At this point we would like to recall the general conservation equation (\[generalcons\]) derived in the previous section $$\begin{aligned}
-\partial_\mu(eS_i{}^{\mu\nu})\partial_\nu(f_T)+4\pi \partial_\nu(e \mathcal{T}_i{}^{\nu})+4\pi \partial_\nu( e j_i{}^{\nu}) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, given the tetrad (\[tetrad1\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e^{a/2} \sin\theta T' f_{TT}}{2} - 4\pi e^{a/2} r^2\sin\theta
\left( p'+\frac{a'p}{2}+\frac{2p}{r}+\frac{a'\rho}{2}-\frac{2p}{r}\right)
&=0\,.\end{aligned}$$ By rearranging and inserting $T'=0$ we see that this agrees with the conservation equation (\[ssscons\]) derived above. We are now ready to construct perfect fluid solutions for a constant torsion scalar explicitly.
Solutions with $T=0$ {#sec:T=0diag}
--------------------
Let us start by analysing the probably simplest solution. Let us assume that $T=0$ and insert this into (\[Tscalar\]). This fixes the function $a(r)$ and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
a' &= -\frac{R'}{R} \,, \qquad a(r) = \ln(c_1/R(r))\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ is a constant of integration. Note that due to $T=0$, $f$ and its derivatives are now constants. Rewriting the field equations with this gives $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi\rho &= -\left(\frac{1}{2R^2} - \frac{e^{-b}}{2} \left( \frac{R'}{R}\left(\frac{R'}{R}+b'\right)+2\frac{R''}{R}\right)\right) f_T(0) - \frac{f(0)}{4}\,,
\label{t0rho}\\
4\pi p &= \frac{f_T(0)}{2R^2}+\frac{f(0)}{4}\,,
\label{t0p}\\
4\pi p &= -\frac{e^{-b}}{4}\left(\frac{R''}{R}+\frac{R'^2}{2R^2}-\frac{b'}{2}\frac{R'}{R}\right)f_T(0)+ \frac{f(0)}{4}\,,
\label{t0p2}\end{aligned}$$ while the conservation (\[ssscons\]) simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p' + \frac{2\pi R'}{R}(\rho+p) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Isotropy of the pressure implies that $b$ has to satisfy the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e^{-b}}{2}
\left(-\frac{b'}{2} \frac{R'}{R} + \frac{R''}{R} + \frac{R'^2}{2 R^2}\right)
+ \frac{1}{R^2} = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ We can solve for $b$ $$\begin{aligned}
b = -\ln \left(\frac{c_2-4R}{R R'^2}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_2$ is another constant of integration. Therefore, the metric coefficients are given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^{a}=\frac{c_1}{R}\,, \quad e^{b} = \frac{R R'^2}{c_2-4R}\,,
\label{006}\end{aligned}$$ and we arrive at the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= \frac{c_1}{R} dt^2 -\frac{R R'^2}{c_2-4R} dr^2 - R^2d\Omega^2\,.
\label{metricT=0}\end{aligned}$$ Having determined both metric functions, we can now attempt to solve the remaining equations. If we set $f_T(T=0)=0$, then the field equations simply imply $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_0=-p_0=\frac{f_0}{16 \pi}\,,\end{aligned}$$ thus we have found all unknown functions. Note that $f(T)$ is arbitrary in the sense that only its value at the origin (and of its derivative) is of importance. Note that this excludes those $f(T)$ which become singular as $T \rightarrow 0$. This solution yields a constant energy density $\rho_0$ and pressure $p_0$, obeying the dark energy equation of state. Notice that the metric (\[metricT=0\]) has a singularity when $R \rightarrow 0$. Moreover, we expect a coordinate singularity at $R=c_2/4$ and it might be interesting to study this surface in more detail.
Solutions with $T'=0$ {#solutions-with-t0}
---------------------
Rather than assuming $T=0$, we now assume $T'=0$ which is equivalent to assuming $T=\text{constant}$. These solutions are rather complicated but simplify substantially when considering the $R(r)=r$ case. Let $$\begin{aligned}
T(r)=T_0=\text{constant}\,,\end{aligned}$$ then the conservation equation (\[ssscons\]) is again given by $$\begin{aligned}
p'=-\frac{a'}{2}(\rho+p) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The field equation (\[field:r\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p=\frac{T_0}{2}f_T(T_0)-\frac{f(T_0)}{4}+\frac{f_T(T_0)}{2r^2} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $f(T_0)$ and $f_T(T_0)$ are constants. As $r\rightarrow\infty$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p_\infty = \frac{T_0}{2}f_T(T_0)-\frac{f(T_0)}{4} \,,
\label{diffp}\end{aligned}$$ with $p_\infty$ denoting the value of the pressure at infinity.
Once we fix $p_\infty$, (\[diffp\]) can be viewed as a differential equations for $f(T_0)$ whose general solution is $$\begin{aligned}
f(T_0) = \tilde{f} \sqrt{T_0} - 16\pi p_\infty \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{f}$ is a constant of integration. Note that in this model $p_\infty$ plays the role of a cosmological constant. However, though it represents a very simple spherically symmetric solution, it seems not to be of general interest in cosmology due to its incompatibility with standard teleparallel gravity.
Using the equation for $T$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_0=\frac{2e^{-b}}{r^2} \left(a'r+1\right) \,,
\label{007}\end{aligned}$$ in order to write $a'$ in terms of $b$ and comparing (\[field:t\]) and (\[field:r\]) we obtain the following differential equation for $b$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Y'}{2r}\left(1-\frac{1}{2Y}r^2T_0\right) +\frac{Y}{2r^2}\left(1+\frac{2}{Y^2}r^4T_0^2\right) +\frac{2}{r^2}\left(1+\frac{3}{4}r^2T_0\right) =0 \,,
\label{005}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y(r)\equiv e^{-b(r)}$. An analytical solution to this differential equation seems hard (if not impossible) to find. However under certain approximations we can arrive to some solutions.
First, consider the $r^2T_0\ll 1$ regime where (\[005\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Y'}{2r} +\frac{Y}{2r^2} +\frac{2}{r^2} =0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The solution is then $$\begin{aligned}
Y(r)=e^{-b(r)}=\frac{c_1}{r}-4 \,,\end{aligned}$$ which of course coincides with (\[006\]), the solution for $T=0$. To find also $a(r)$ we can use (\[007\]), which in the regime $r^2T_0\ll 1$ gives again the solution (\[006\]). Thus, at zeroth order in $r^2T_0$ the general solution matches the $T=0$ solution, as one would certainly expect.
On the other hand, we can analyze the opposite regime: $r^2T_0\gg 1$. Equation (\[005\]) becomes now $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{r}{4}Y' +\frac{3}{2}Y +r^2T_0 =0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ and the solution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y(r)=e^{b(r)}=\frac{k_1}{r^6}-\frac{T_0}{2}r^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_1$ is a constant. Again, to find $a(r)$ we go back to (\[007\]) which for $r^2T_0\gg 1$ reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
a'\simeq \frac{rT_0}{2e^{-b}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and gives $$\begin{aligned}
a(r)=-\frac{1}{8} \ln\left(\frac{r^8T_0-2k_1}{k_2}\right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $k_2$ another integration constant. Thus the metric in the regime $r^2T_0\gg 1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = \left(\frac{k_2}{T_0r^8-2k_1}\right)^{1/8} dt^2 - \frac{2k_1-T_0r^8}{2r^6} \,dr^2 -r^2 d\Omega^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ This metric is singular for $r\rightarrow 0$ and $r\rightarrow \infty$ and presents an horizon for $r=(2k_1/T_0)^{1/8}$.
Triviality of the Einstein static universe
------------------------------------------
Consider the case $R(r)=r$ and the metric (\[metric1\]) with $e^{a(r)}$ and $e^{b(r)}$ fixed such that $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= dt^2-\frac{1}{1-kr^2}dr^2-r^2d\Omega ^2\,,
\label{metric2}\end{aligned}$$ so that the corresponding diagonal tetrad field is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^i{}_{\mu}=\text{diag}\left(1,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-kr^2}},r,r\sin\theta\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Since we have now chosen three functions, the system of equations is closed. For this choice the torsion scalar reads $$\begin{aligned}
T=-\frac{2(1-kr^2)}{r^2}\,, \quad
T'=\frac{4}{r^3} \,,
\label{EstaticT}\end{aligned}$$ and the field equations (\[field:t\])–(\[field:theta\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi\rho_0 &= \frac{4(1-kr^2)}{r^4}f_{TT}+\left(\frac{1}{2r^2}-k\right)f_T+\frac{f}{4}\,,\\
4\pi p &= -\left(\frac{1}{2r^2}-k \right)f_T-\frac{f}{4}\,,\\
4\pi p &= -\frac{2(1-kr^2)}{r^4}f_{TT}-\left(\frac{1}{2r^2}-k \right)f_T-\frac{f}{4}\,,\\
0 &= \frac{e^{-b/2}\cot\theta}{2R^2}T'f_{TT}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The last field equation, and the isotropy of the pressure respectively imply $$\begin{aligned}
T'f_{TT}=0\,, \qquad -\frac{2(1-kr^2)}{r^4}f_{TT}=0\,.
\label{step1ES}\end{aligned}$$ Since $1-kr^2$ cannot be zero, this can only be satisfied if $f_{TT}=0$ which takes us back to TEGR. Note that we cannot achieve $T'=0$ due to (\[EstaticT\]).
Solutions with off diagonal tetrad
==================================
Field equations
---------------
Consider again the static spherically symmetric metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = e^{a(r)} dt^2 - e^{b(r)} dr^2 -R(r)^2 d\Omega^2\,,
\label{metric1off}\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Omega^2 = d\theta^2 + \sin^2\negmedspace\theta\, d\varphi^2$ and where $a$, $b$ and $R$ are three unknown functions. Another possible tetrad field can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
e^i{}_{\mu} = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{a/2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{b/2} \sin\theta\cos\phi & R\cos \theta\cos\phi & -R\sin \theta\sin \phi \\
0 & e^{b/2} \sin\theta\sin\phi & R\cos \theta\sin\phi& R\sin\theta \cos\phi \\
0 & e^{b/2} \cos \theta & -R \sin\theta & 0
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\label{tetradoff}\end{aligned}$$ see for instance [@teleoview]. The determinant of $e^i{}_\mu$ is $e=e^{(a+b)/2}R(r)^2\sin\theta$. The torsion scalar and its derivative are $$\begin{aligned}
T(r) = \frac{2 e^{-b} \left(e^{b/2}-R'\right)\left(e^{b/2}-R'-R a '\right)}{R^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
T'(r) = -\frac{e^{-b/2}}{R^2}\left(4 R''+2R'\left(a'-b'\right)+R \left(2a''-a'b'\right)\right) \\
+\frac{2e^{-b}}{R^2}\left(R R''a'+R'^2 \left(a'-b'\right)+R' \left(2 R''+R\left(a''-a'b'\right)\right)\right)-\frac{2R'T}{R}\,.
\label{Tscalaroff}\end{gathered}$$ Inserting this and the components of the tensors $S$ and $T$ into the equation (\[eqn:field\]) yields $$\begin{gathered}
4\pi\rho = \frac{e^{-b/2}}{R}(R'e^{-b/2}-1) T'f_{TT}+\left(\frac{T}{4}-\frac{1}{2R^2}\right)f_T \\
+\frac{e^{-b}}{2 R^2} \left(2 RR''-R R'b '+R'^2\right)f_T-\frac{f}{4}\,,
\label{field:toff}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p =\left( \frac{1}{2R^2}-\frac{T}{4}-\frac{e^{-b}}{2R^2} R'(R'+Ra')\right)f_T+\frac{f}{4}\,,\mbox{\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\mbox{}}
\label{field:roff}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
4\pi p = -\frac{e^{-b}}{2}\left(\frac{a'}{2}+\frac{R'}{R}-\frac{e^{b/2}}{R}\right)T' f_{TT} \\
-f_T\left( \frac{T}{4}+\frac{e^{-b}}{2 R} \left(R''+\left(\frac{R'}{2}+\frac{Ra'}{4}\right) \left(a'-b'\right)+\frac{Ra''}{2}\right)\right)+\frac{f}{4}\,.
\label{field:thetaoff}\end{gathered}$$
The above field equations (\[field:toff\])–(\[field:thetaoff\]) give three independent equations for our six unknown quantities. As before, this system of equations is under-determined, we will reduce the number of unknown functions by assuming suitable conditions. Note that there is no equation enforcing the constancy of the torsion scalar in this non diagonal gauge.
Conservation equation III
-------------------------
We will derive the conservation equation one more time, now for the off diagonal tetrad. Taking the derivative of (\[field:roff\]) gives $$\begin{gathered}
4\pi p'(r)= \frac{e^{-b}}{2 R^2}\left(2 R' \left(e^{b/2}-Ra'-R'\right)+Ra' e^{b/2}\right)T'f_{TT}-\frac{R'}{R^3}f_T \\
-\frac{e^{-b}}{2R}\left(\frac{R'}{R} \left(R'(a'+b')-2 R''\right)+\left(a'\left(b'R'-R''\right)-a'' R'\right)+\frac{2R'^3}{R^2}\right)f_T \,.
\label{step1off}\end{gathered}$$ Next, we take a combination of the field equations (\[field:toff\]) and (\[field:roff\]) to obtain $$\begin{gathered}
4\pi(\rho+p)=\frac{e^{-b/2}}{R}\left(R'e^{-b/2}-1\right)T'f_{TT}-\frac{R'e^{-b}}{2R^2}\left(R'+Ra'\right)f_T\\
+\frac{e^{-b}}{2 R^2} \left(2 RR''-R R'b '+R'^2\right)f_T \,.
\label{step2off}\end{gathered}$$ Isotropy of pressure allows us to write $$\begin{gathered}
-\frac{e^{-b}}{2}\left(\frac{a'}{2}+\frac{R'}{R}-\frac{e^{b/2}}{R}\right)T' f_{TT}+\frac{R'e^{-b}}{2R^2}(R'+Ra')f_T\\
-\frac{e^{-b}}{2 R} \left(R''+\left(\frac{R'}{2}+\frac{Ra'}{4}\right) \left(a'-b'\right)+\frac{Ra''}{2}\right)f_T-\frac{1}{2R^2}f_T=0 \,.
\label{step3off}\end{gathered}$$ We now multiply (\[step2off\]) by $a'/2$ and (\[step3off\]) by $2R'/R$ and subtract the two resulting equations $$\begin{gathered}
2\pi a'(\rho+p)=-\frac{e^{-b}}{2R^2}\left(2R'\left( e^{b/2}-Ra'-R'\right)+Ra'e^{b/2} \right)T'f_{TT}+\frac{R'}{R^3}f_T\\
+\frac{e^{-b}}{2R}\left(\frac{R'}{R} \left(R'(a'+b')-2 R''\right)+\left(a'\left(b'R'-R''\right)-a'' R'\right)+\frac{2R'^3}{R^2}\right)f_T\,,\end{gathered}$$ comparing this with equation (\[step1off\]), we obtain the conservation equation for the off diagonal tetrad field (\[tetradoff\]) $$\begin{aligned}
p' + \frac{a'}{2}(\rho+p) = 0\,.\label{sssconoff}\end{aligned}$$ It is surprising that one recovers the general relativistic conservation equation directly in this approach. This seems to indicate that the non diagonal tetrad (\[tetradoff\]) is a very good starting point to study static and spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions in $f(T)$ gravity. It also eliminate the problematic field equation in diagonal gauge which posed stringent constraints on the possible solutions.
Solutions with $b=0$
--------------------
Consider our metric (\[metric1off\]) and tetrad field (\[tetradoff\]) with $b(r)=0$ and $R(r)=r$, then we have the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=e^{a(r)}dt^2-dr^2-r^2d\Omega^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ and for all values of $a$ and $R$ the torsion scalar is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T(r)=0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Again, since we have a vanishing torsion scalar, $f$ and its derivatives are constant. The field equations simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi \rho&=-\frac{f(0)}{4} \,,\\
4\pi p &=-\frac{a'}{2r}f_T(0)+\frac{f(0)}{4} \,,\\
4\pi p&=-\left(\frac{a''}{4}+\frac{a'}{4}\left(\frac{a'}{2}+\frac{1}{r}\right)\right)f_T(0) +\frac{f(0)}{4}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Isotropy of the pressure yields $$\begin{aligned}
a'' + \frac{a'^2}{2} - \frac{a'}{r} = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ which we can solve for $a$ and find $$\begin{aligned}
a = 2\ln(r^2+c_1)+\ln c_2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants of integration. Thus we arrive at the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= c_2 (r^2 + c_1)^2 dt^2- dr^2- r^2d\Omega^2\,.
\label{metricb0}\end{aligned}$$ Since $f$ and $f_T$ are constants we can label $f(0)=f_1$ and $f_T(0)=f_2$. Using this and the metric coefficient $a$, we can write the field equations more explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi \rho&=-\frac{f_1}{4} \,,\label{fieldb1}\\
4\pi p &=-\frac{2}{r^2+c_1}f_2+\frac{f_1}{4} \,,\label{fieldb2}\\
4\pi p&=-\frac{2}{r^2+c_1}f_2 +\frac{f_1}{4}\label{fieldb3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Immediately, we see that $\rho$ and $p$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_0 &= -\frac{f_1}{16\pi} \,,\\
p & =-\frac{1}{2\pi(r^2+c_1)}f_2+\frac{f_1}{16\pi} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the pressure is regular everywhere provided that $c_1 > 0$.
Solutions with $f_T(T=0)=0$ {#sec:f'(0)=0 solutions}
---------------------------
We now build a class of solutions for $R(r)=r$. Constraining the metric function $b$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
b=2\ln\left(1+r\,a'\right)\,,
\label{009}\end{aligned}$$ leads to $T=0$ for all $a$. The field equations (\[field:toff\])-(\[field:thetaoff\]) reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
4 \pi \rho &=\frac{f_T(0) \left(2 r a''+a' \left(r a' \left(r a'+3\right)+4\right)\right)}{2 r \left(r a'+1\right)^3}-\frac{f(0)}{4} \,,\label{010}\\
4 \pi p &=\frac{a' f_T(0)}{2 \left(r^2 a'+r\right)}+\frac{f(0)}{4} \,,\label{011}\\
4\pi p &=-\frac{f_T(0) \left(a' \left(r a'-1\right) \left(r a'+2\right)-2 r a''\right)}{8 r \left(r a'+1\right)^3}+\frac{f(0)}{4} \,.\label{012}\end{aligned}$$ If we further assume $f_T(0)=0$, so that we only consider particular $f(T)$ models, these field equations imply $$\begin{aligned}
p=-\rho =\frac{f(0)}{16\pi} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The constraint $f_T(0)=0$ is satisfied by a large amount of $f(T)$ models. For example, we can take $f(T)=T^n$ (with $n\neq 1$) or $f(T)=\cos(kT)$. The first gives $p=\rho=0$, while the second gives $p=-\rho=1/(16\pi)$. For all these models we have an infinite class of solutions given by choosing an arbitrary form for $a(r)$ and constraining $b(r)$ with the condition (\[009\]). For instance, considering a Schwarzschild form for $a(r)$, $$\begin{aligned}
a(r)=\ln\left(1-K/r\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
b(r)=-2\ln\left(1-K/r\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $K$ being a constant. The metric becomes $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= \left(1-K/r\right)dt^2-\left(1-K/r\right)^{-2}dr^2-r^2d\Omega^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ which is very similar, but not equal, to the Schwarzschild solution.
We can compare these solutions with the ones we found in Sec. (\[sec:T=0diag\]) with a diagonal tetrad. We notice that assuming $f_T(0)=0$ implies a Dark Energy equation of state in both cases. This suggests that, for these models, such a characteristic does not depend upon the choice of the tetrad.
A negative pressure solution
----------------------------
Following the route of Sec. (\[sec:f’(0)=0 solutions\]) we now build a new interesting solution which applies to every $f(T)$ model. We still assume $R(r)=r$ and $b(r)$ as in (\[009\]) which again gives $T=0$. As a particular form for $a(r)$ we consider $$\begin{aligned}
a(r)=-\frac{4}{5}\ln(k\,r) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is a constant. This implies $b(r)=-2\ln 5$, corresponding to the following metric, $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= (k\,r)^{-4/5}dt^2-\frac{1}{25}dr^2-r^2d\Omega^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the factor $1/25$ in front of $dr^2$ is physically unimportant. This is a special solution inasmuch as it renders both the field equations (\[011\]) and (\[012\]) equal to $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi p=\frac{1}{4}f(0)-\frac{2}{r^2}f_T(0) \,,\end{aligned}$$ without considering any constraint on $f(T)$, which means that it works for all the $f(T)$ models. The field equation (\[010\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi\rho=-\frac{1}{4}f(0)+\frac{12}{r^2}f_T(0) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if we require $\rho$ to be positive everywhere we must have $f(0)<0$ and $f_T(0)>0$. This implies that $p$ has to be negative for every $r$ meaning that this is in general a negative pressure solution. Solutions of this type might be interesting in the context of dark energy or may have applications for wormhole like solutions.
Solutions with $T'=0$ {#solutions-with-t0-1}
---------------------
So far we found only solution having $T=0$ everywhere. In this section we show that a solution with constant $T$ can be built for some specific $f(T)$ models. Again we restrict the analysis to the $R(r)=r$ case. Let us consider $$\begin{aligned}
a(r)=\ln(k\,r)-T_0\,r^2\,, \qquad b(r)=\ln 4 \,,
\label{013}\end{aligned}$$ with $k$ and $T_0$ constants, corresponding to the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= k\,r\,e^{-T_0r^2} dt^2 - 4 dr^2 - r^2d\Omega^2\,.
\label{014}\end{aligned}$$ Again we notice that the factor in front of $dr^2$ is not of physical importance. The solution (\[013\]) immediately implies $T=T_0$. The field equations (\[field:toff\])-(\[field:thetaoff\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi\rho &= -\frac{1}{4}f(T_0)+\left(\frac{T_0}{4}-\frac{3}{8r^2}\right)f_T(T_0) \,,\\
4\pi p &= \frac{1}{4}f(T_0)+\frac{1}{4r^2}f_T(T_0) \,,\\
4\pi p &= \frac{1}{4}f(T_0)-\frac{(1-2T_0\,r^2)^2}{32r^2}f_T(T_0)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In order to satisfy the last two of these equations, we must require $f_T(T_0)=0$. This is a constraint over all the possible $f(T)$ models which implies that only some specific models among these allow the solution (\[014\]). From the field equations we obtain constant energy density and pressure, $$\begin{aligned}
p=-\rho=\frac{f(T_0)}{4} \,.\end{aligned}$$
As an example of a $f(T)$ model which allows for this solution we consider probably the simplest one: $$\begin{aligned}
f(T)=T-\frac{T^2}{2T_0} \,.\end{aligned}$$ One can easily verify that $f_T(T_0)=0$. For this model the energy density and pressure become $p=-\rho=T_0/8$. Note that requiring a positive energy density constrains $T_0<0$, while in the approximation $T\ll T_0$ standard teleparallel gravity (TEGR) is recovered.
Polynomial Solutions
--------------------
Finally, we present a class of solutions which involves a non constant $T$ and works for every model of the form $f(T)=T^N/N$. As before, we perform the analysis with $R(r)=r$.
Consider the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= (k\,r)^mdt^2-\frac{1}{n^2}dr^2-r^2d\Omega^2\,,
\label{016}\end{aligned}$$ with $n$ and $m$ (real) numbers and $k$ a constant of dimension 1/length. The factor $1/n^2$ in front of $dr^2$ is physically unimportant. Metric (\[016\]) corresponds to choosing the two functions $$\begin{aligned}
a(r)=m\ln(k\,r)\,, \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad b(r)=2\ln n \,,\end{aligned}$$ which yield the non constant tensor scalar $$\begin{aligned}
T=\frac{2 (n-1) (-m+n-1)}{n^2 r^2} \,.
\label{015}\end{aligned}$$ Of course, we have to constrain $n\neq 0$, $n\neq 1$ and $n\neq m+1$ in order to obtain a non-zero and regular $T$. Subtracting field equations (\[011\]) and (\[012\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(n-1) (m-2n+2) (m-n+1)}{n^4 r^4} f_{TT} +
\frac{\left(m^2-4 m+4 n^2-4\right) f_T}{8 n^2 r^2}=0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ At this point we use expression (\[015\]) in order to replace $r^2$ with $T$ in this last equation. In this manner we obtain a relatively simple differential equation for the function $f(T)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left(m^2-4 m+4 n^2-4\right)f_T-4(m-2n+2)\,T\,f_{TT}=0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ If $m\neq 2n+2$ the solution is $$\begin{aligned}
f(T)=\gamma+\frac{\xi}{N}T^N \,, \qquad\mbox{with}\qquad N = \frac{m^2+4(n-1)^2}{4(2+m-2n)} \,,
\label{017}\end{aligned}$$ and $\gamma$, $\xi$ constants. Thus, for all these $f(T)$ models metric (\[016\]) represents a spherically symmetric solution. Note that TEGR is recovered when $N=1$, which can happen for a wide choice of the parameters $n$ and $m$. For example, setting $n=\sqrt 2$ and $m=2$ gives $N=1$.
Finally, from the field equations we can read off the expressions for the energy density and pressure $$\begin{aligned}
16 \pi\rho &= -\gamma+\xi\,h_1(n,m) \left(\frac{2(n-1) (-m+n-1)}{n^2 r^2}\right)^N \,,\\
16 \pi p &=\gamma+\xi\, h_2(n,m) \left(\frac{2(n-1) (-m+n-1)}{n^2 r^2}\right)^N \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are two constants, depending on the parameters $n$ and $m$ in a complicated manner. If $N>0$ when $r\rightarrow\infty$ we have $p=-\rho=\gamma$, while if $N<0$ this happens at $r=0$. The explicit forms of $\rho$ and $p$ do depend upon the choice of $n$ and $m$. In general, we can state that a necessary condition to have both pressure and energy density positive everywhere is to set $\gamma=0$.
Thus, we were able to build a class of solutions presenting a non-constant $T$, allowed by a large number of $f(T)$ models of the form (\[017\]). These models are of general interest in cosmology and astrophysics since their study could lead to a better understanding of specific problems.
Conclusions
===========
The objective of this paper was to show that relativistic stars exist in $f(T)$ modified gravity and to derive some static and spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions explicitly. Our starting point was a careful study of the field equations and the resulting conservation equations for two choices of the tetrad. We showed that the conservation equation of $f(T)$ conceptually differs from those of General Relativity and its teleparallel equivalent. In doing so we also suggested a natural gauge current for $f(T)$ modified gravity. We derive the energy-momentum conservation equation by using two different approaches and both these results agree.
To begin with the study of exact solutions, we firstly studied some very simple models using a diagonal tetrad, by considering a constant torsion scalar $T'=0$. Next, we examined some well known solutions of General Relativity, including Schwarzschild type solutions and the Einstein static universe. It turns out that the $f(T)$ field equations for a Schwarzschild type ansatz of the metric are very difficult to solve and we were not able to make progress in this direction. We also found that the Einstein static universe with the usual assumptions of constant energy density and pressure only exists for the trivial $f(T)=T$, which made it necessary to look for generalisations. A diagonal tetrad, though appealing, poses stringent constraints on possible solutions.
We thus considered a non diagonal tetrad adapted to spherically symmetry. For this choice of the tetrad, the conservation equation turns out to be equivalent to that of general relativity. We were able to construct a variety of exact solutions by making simplifying assumptions on the free functions. Among those solutions, we found one type of solution with a close resemblance to the Schwarzschild solution, we also found solutions with negative pressure. Finally, we derived new classes of solutions which we call polynomial solutions. This particular class of solutions has some very interesting properties.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Franco Fiorini for the useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. We would also like to thank Francisco Lobo for comments. AM is grateful to the organisers of PASCOS 2011 where parts of this work were presented.
[99]{}
R. Durrer, R. Maartens, Published in Dark energy: Observational and theoretical approaches, ed. P Ruiz-Lapuente (Cambridge UP), (2010). \[arXiv:0811.4132 \[astro-ph\]\].
A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. [**13** ]{} (2010) 3. \[arXiv:1002.4928 \[gr-qc\]\]; T. P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82** ]{} (2010) 451-497. \[arXiv:0805.1726 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Einstein, Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1928) 217-221; A. Unzicker, T. Case, \[physics/0503046\].
C. Möller, Mat. Fys. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. [**1**]{} (1961) no. 10; C. Pellegrini and J. Plebanski, Mat. Fys. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. [**2**]{} (1963) no. 4; K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, Phys. Rev. [**D19**]{} (1979) 3524-3553.
R. Weitzenböck, Noordhoff, Groningen; (1923) Chap. XIII, Sec 7.
R. Ferraro, F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. [**D75** ]{} (2007) 084031. \[gr-qc/0610067\]; R. Ferraro, F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. [**D78** ]{} (2008) 124019. \[arXiv:0812.1981 \[gr-qc\]\].
G. R. Bengochea, R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. [**D79** ]{} (2009) 124019. \[arXiv: 0812.1205 \[astro-ph\]\]; E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. [**D81** ]{} (2010) 127301. \[arXiv:1005.3039 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
K. K. Yerzhanov, S. .R. Myrzakul, I. I. Kulnazarov, R. Myrzakulov, \[arXiv:1006.3879 \[gr-qc\]\]; P. Wu, H. W. Yu, Phys. Lett. [**B692** ]{} (2010) 176-179. \[arXiv:1007.2348 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; R. -J. Yang, \[arXiv:1007.3571 \[gr-qc\]\]; P. Y. .Tsyba, I. I. Kulnazarov, K. K. Yerzhanov, R. Myrzakulov, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**50** ]{} (2011) 1876-1886. \[arXiv:1008.0779 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; R. Myrzakulov, \[arXiv:1008.4486 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, JCAP [**1101** ]{} (2011) 009. \[arXiv:1010.2215 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; S. -H. Chen, J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. [**D83** ]{} (2011) 023508. \[arXiv:1008.1250 \[astro-ph.CO\]\];
R. Zheng, Q. -G. Huang, JCAP [**1103** ]{} (2011) 002. \[arXiv:1010.3512 \[gr-qc\]\]; T. P. Sotiriou, B. Li, J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. [**D83** ]{} (2011) 104030. \[arXiv:1012.4039 \[gr-qc\]\]; B. Li, T. P. Sotiriou, J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. [**D83** ]{} (2011) 104017. \[arXiv:1103.2786 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; S. Chattopadhyay, U. Debnath, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**D20** ]{} (2011) 1135-1152. \[arXiv:1105.1091 \[gr-qc\]\]; M. Sharif, S. Rani, \[arXiv:1105.6228 \[gr-qc\]\]; R. Ferraro, F. Fiorini, \[arXiv:1103.0824 \[gr-qc\]\].
G. R. Bengochea, Phys. Lett. [**B695** ]{} (2011) 405-411. \[arXiv:1008.3188 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; P. Wu, H. W. Yu, Phys. Lett. [**B693** ]{} (2010) 415-420. \[arXiv:1006.0674 \[gr-qc\]\] R. -J. Yang, Europhys. Lett. [**93** ]{} (2011) 60001. \[arXiv:1010.1376 \[gr-qc\]\]; Y. -F. Cai, S. -H. Chen, J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, \[arXiv:1104.4349 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; H. Wei, X. -P. Ma, H. -Y. Qi, \[arXiv:1106.0102 \[gr-qc\]\]; Y. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Gong, Z. -H. Zhu, JCAP [**1107** ]{} (2011) 015. \[arXiv:1103.0719 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
R. Myrzakulov, \[arXiv:1006.1120 \[gr-qc\]\]; B. Li, T. P. Sotiriou, J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. [**D83** ]{} (2011) 064035. \[arXiv:1010.1041 \[gr-qc\]\].
P. Wu, H. W. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. [**C71** ]{} (2011) 1552. \[arXiv:1008.3669 \[gr-qc\]\]; K. Karami, A. Abdolmaleki, \[arXiv:1009.2459 \[gr-qc\]\]; K. Karami, A. Abdolmaleki, \[arXiv:1009.3587 \[physics.gen-ph\]\]; K. Bamba, C. -Q. Geng, C. -C. Lee, L. -W. Luo, JCAP [**1101** ]{} (2011) 021. \[arXiv:1011.0508 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
M. Li, R. -X. Miao, Y. -G. Miao, JHEP [**1107** ]{} (2011) 108. \[arXiv:1105.5934 \[hep-th\]\]; R. -X. Miao, M. Li, Y. -G. Miao, \[arXiv:1107.0515 \[hep-th\]\]; X. -h. Meng, Y. -b. Wang, \[arXiv:1107.0629 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. Deliduman, B. Yapiskan, \[arXiv:1103.2225 \[gr-qc\]\].
T. Wang, \[arXiv:1102.4410 \[gr-qc\]\].
V. C. De Andrade, L. C. T. Guillen, J. G. Pereira, \[gr-qc/0011087\]; R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, An Introduction to Teleparallel Gravity. unpublished coursenotes. *www.ift.unesp.br/gcg/tele.pdf*
R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. [**55** ]{} (1939) 364-373; J. R. Oppenheimer, G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. [**55** ]{} (1939) 374-381.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: We are deeply indebted to Franco Fiorini for pointing this out to us and thereby correcting our previously incomplete field equations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the Fock representation, we construct matrix product states (MPS) for one-dimensional gapped phases for $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermions. From the analysis of irreducibility of MPS, we classify all possible gapped phases of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermions without extra symmetry other than $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ charge symmetry, including topological phases, spontaneous symmetry breaking phases and a trivial phase. For all phases, we find the irreducible forms of local matrices of MPS, which span different kinds of graded algebras. The topological phases are characterized by the non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebras with the characteristic graded centers, yielding the degeneracies of the full transfer matrix spectra uniquely. But the spontaneous symmetry breaking phases correspond to the trivial semisimple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded algebras, which can be further reduced to the trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded algebras, where $n$ is the divisor of $p$. So the present results provide the complete classification of the parafermionic gapped phases and deepen our understanding of topological phases in one dimension.'
author:
- 'Wen-Tao Xu$^{1}$ and Guang-Ming Zhang$^{1,2}$'
title: Classifying parafermionic gapped phases using matrix product states
---
Introduction
============
Much of the extensive research in the last few years has focused on topological phases of matter and their classifications[Schnyder2008,Kitaev2009,Ryu2010]{}. A prime example is the one-dimensional topological superconducting phase of paired fermions, which is characterized by Majorana zero modes at the edges[@Kitaev2001]. Such zero modes actually resemble the ones found in the cores of vortices in two-dimensional topological superconductors[@ReadGreen], and have been shown useful for quantum information processing[@AliceaRPP]. However, it has been argued that one-dimensional fermion systems with interactions and no extra symmetry than the intrinsic fermion parity can only realize two topologically distinct phases[@Fidkowski2011; @Turner2011]. In order to search for a universal quantum computation platform and fully understand topological excitations in strongly interacting electron systems, more exotic parafermion excitations have been investigated in an effectively one-dimensional system[@Fendley2012; @Pollmann2013; @AliceaFendley], which exists at the edges of a two-dimensional fractionalized topological state and cannot be realized in a strictly one-dimensional system[Lindner,Clarke,Cheng]{}.
For various correlated low-dimensional gapped systems, it has been known that matrix product states[@FannesWerner1992] (MPS) and their high dimensional generalizations, tensor network states or projective entangled pair states[@VerstraeteCirac] (PEPS), have been proven increasingly successful. The framework of MPS and PEPS naturally provides an efficient method to classify topologically ordered phases[@Schuch2013; @Haegeman2015], symmetry protected topological phases[Chen-Gu-Wen-2011,Schuch,chen-gu-liu-wen]{}, and the long-range ordered phases with spontaneous symmetry breaking[@Chen-Gu-Wen-2011; @Rispler2015]. However, it is not straight forward to extend the MPS representation to the one-dimensional parafermion systems. Recently, the fermionic MPS have been successfully constructed by using the language of super vector space, and all possible topological phases with additional symmetries in terms of Majorana fermions have been classified within the matrix product representation[@Bultinck2017; @Kapustin2016]. By generalizing the concepts of fermion parity and associated Fock space, the present authors have proposed a general framework to construct the MPS of $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermions in the Fock representation, and the corresponding parent Hamiltonians have been also derived[@XuZhang]. Therefore, the road has been cleared to classify all possible $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermion gapped phases within the framework of the MPS.
In this paper, we first review the Fock space of parafermions and then construct the parafermionic MPS. From the analysis of irreducibility of these parafermionic MPS, we provide the complete classification of all possible gapped phases without extra symmetry, compared to the previous classification based on the edge fractionalization[@Pollmann2013; @Quella]. More importantly, we find that the various irreducible forms for local matrices of MPS spanned different kinds of graded algebras characterize distinct parafermionic gapped phases. The local matrices of MPS describing topological phases span the non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebras with characteristic centers, resulting in the degeneracies of the full transfer matrix spectra and entanglement spectra in the thermodynamic limit. Meanwhile, the spontaneous symmetry breaking phases correspond to the trivial semisimple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded algebras ($n$ is a divisor of $p $), which can be further reduced to the trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded algebras. The trivial phase corresponds to trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebra without non-trivial center. Furthermore, we also found that the topological order is closely related to the non-trivial center of the graded algebra, giving rise to the degeneracy of the full transfer matrix spectrum and the existence of parafermion edge zero modes.
In Sec. II, we briefly review the Fock space of parafermions and present the construction of the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermionic MPS. Then, we outline the general classification framework and the detailed classifications for $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$, $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$, $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$, and $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ parafermionic gapped phases are considered separately in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, the general irreducible forms for various phases of the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermions are summarized, and the topological order in the form of MPS is discussed. Conclusion and outlook are given in Sec. V. The related concepts used in the classification scheme are listed in the appendix.
Parafermionic MPS
=================
Fock space of parafermions
--------------------------
In order to keep our discussion self-contained, we first briefly review the parafermions and their Fock space. It has been known that, from the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ spin degrees of freedom of the clock models, the parafermions are defined by a generalized Jordan-Wigner transformation as[FradkinKadonoff,AlcarazKoberle]{} $$\chi _{2l-1}=\left( \prod_{k<l}\tau _{k}\right) \sigma _{l},\quad \chi
_{2l}=-e^{i\pi /p}\left( \prod_{k\leq l}\tau _{k}\right) \sigma _{l},$$where the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ spin operators satisfy the following relations $$\sigma _{l}^{p}=\tau _{l}^{p}=1,\quad \sigma _{l}\tau _{m}=\omega
_{p}^{\delta _{l,m}}\tau _{m}\sigma _{l},$$with $\omega _{p}=e^{i2\pi /p}$. So the algebras of the parafermions are $$\chi _{l}^{p}=1,\quad \chi _{l}^{p-1}=\chi _{l}^{\dagger },\quad \chi
_{l}\chi _{m}=\omega _{p}\chi _{m}\chi _{l},$$for $l<m$. These are the generalized Clifford $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebras, and the parafermions are referred to as the Weyl parafermions, because it was first introduced by Weyl[@Weyl1950]. It has been noticed that the second quantized description of the Weyl parafermions is given by the Fock parafermions[@CobaneraOrtiz]. So the basis of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ Fock parafermions can be assumed as $|i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{L}\rangle $, where $i_{1}$, $i_{2}$, $\cdots $, $i_{L}$ $\in \mathbb{Z}_{p}\equiv \left\{
0,1,2,\cdots ,p-1\right\} $ are the respective occupation numbers of the single particle orbitals. The general structure of the Fock space is defined by $$\mathbb{V}_{F}=\bigoplus_{M=0}^{L(p-1)}\text{Span}\left\{ |i_{1}i_{2}\cdots
i_{L}\rangle ,|\sum_{l=1}^{L}i_{l}=M\right\} .$$In the following the abbreviated notation $|i_{l}\rangle =|0\cdots
i_{l}\cdots 0\rangle $ denotes the single-particle states. In order to encode the parafermion statistics into the Fock space, the graded tensor product $\otimes _{g}$ building many-body states is introduced as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{L}| &=&\langle i_{L}|\otimes _{g}\cdots \otimes
_{g}\langle i_{2}|\otimes _{g}\langle i_{1}|, \notag \\
|i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{L}\rangle &=&|i_{1}\rangle \otimes _{g}|i_{2}\rangle
\otimes _{g}\cdots \otimes _{g}|i_{L}\rangle ,\end{aligned}$$which describes the graded structure of Hilbert space mathematically. The crucial ingredient of the graded tensor product is the following isomorphism mapping $\mathcal{F}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(|i_{l}\rangle \otimes _{g}|j_{m}\rangle ) &\equiv &\omega
_{p}^{ij}|j_{m}\rangle \otimes _{g}|i_{l}\rangle , \notag \\
\mathcal{F}(\langle i_{l}|\otimes _{g}|j_{m}\rangle ) &\equiv &\bar{\omega}_{p}^{ij}|j_{m}\rangle \otimes _{g}\langle i_{l}|,\end{aligned}$$for $l<m$. The isomorphism $\mathcal{F}$ exchanges two nearby local Fock states, and the whole Fock space is a graded vector space, which is a generalization of super vector space of the fermions[@Bultinck2017]. Thus parafermion statistics is encoded into the Fock space by the isomorphism, which becomes crucial for the construction of the MPS wave functions.
Since a contraction is necessary for tensor networks, the homomorphism $\mathcal{C}$ has to be defined via a mapping $\mathbb{V}_{F}^{\ast }\otimes
_{g}\mathbb{V}_{F}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$: $$\mathcal{C}\left( \langle i_{l}|\otimes _{g}|j_{l}\rangle \right) =\langle
i_{l}|j_{l}\rangle =\delta _{i_{l},j_{l}},$$which is nothing but the inner product and orthonormal. From the above propositions, the $p$-exclusion principle can be derived as $$(|i_{l}=1\rangle )^{\otimes _{g}p}\equiv |i_{l}=p\rangle =0.$$So the dimension of the Fock space of parafermions is determined as $p^{L}$. The creation and annihilation operators of Fock space can also be introduced, and their commutation relations have been derived[CobaneraOrtiz]{}.
Furthermore, the local charge operator can be defined by $\mathbf{Q}_{l}=-e^{i\pi /p}\chi _{2l-1}^{\dagger }\chi _{2l}$, and the global one is accordingly given by $\mathbf{Q}=\prod_{l}\mathbf{Q}_{l}$, determining the charge of the Fock basis as[@XuZhang] $$\mathbf{Q}|I\rangle =\mathbf{Q}|i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{L}\rangle =\omega
_{p}^{\sum_{i_{l}=1}^{L}i_{l}}|i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{L}\rangle .$$Then the charge of the Fock state $|I\rangle $ can be calculated as $|I|=(\sum_{i_{l}=1}^{L}i_{l}$) $\bmod$ $p$, while the charge of the bar $\langle I|$ is given by $-|I|$. It should be emphasized that only the many-body states which are superpositions of the Fock states with the same charge have well-defined charges.
MPS for $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermions
-------------------------------------
To construct the MPS with physical degrees of freedom of dimension $d$, we have to introduce two auxiliary virtual degrees of freedom of dimension $D$. Two virtual degrees of freedom form a maximally entangled state on the neighboring sites, while the virtual degrees of freedom on the same site are mapped to the physical degree of freedom. In the Fock space of parafermions, we can write down the local tensor as $$\mathbf{A}[l]=\sum_{\alpha \beta i}A[l]_{\alpha \beta }^{[i]}|\alpha
_{l})\otimes _{g}|i_{l}\rangle \otimes _{g}(\beta _{l+1}|,
\label{LocalTensor}$$where $\mathbf{A}[l]\in \mathbb{V}_{l}\otimes _{g}\mathbb{H}_{l}\otimes _{g}\mathbb{V}_{l+1}^{\ast }$, $l$ denotes the site index, $|i_{l}\rangle $ stands for the physical state with the charge $|i|\in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$, and $|\alpha _{l})$, $(\beta _{l+1}|$ stand for the virtual states with the charges $|\alpha |$, $-|\beta |\in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ respectively.
Since the charge symmetry acts locally on the tensor networks, we impose the constraint that all the local tensors $\mathbf{A}[l]$ must have well-defined charges. This enforces that the local matrices $\mathbf{A}^{[i]}[l]$ as the components of local tensors have well-defined charges as well. Then we choose the simplest convention that all local tensors $\mathbf{A}[l]$ are charge-0, so that the different orders of the tensors $\mathbf{A}[l]$ does not induce any phases and the total charges of the tensor networks are independent of the system size[@XuZhang]. The charges of the local matrices $\mathbf{A}^{[i]}=\sum_{\alpha \beta }A_{\alpha \beta
}^{[i]}|\alpha _{l})\otimes _{g}(\beta _{l+1}|$ are given by $(\alpha -\beta
)$ $\mathrm{mod}$ $p$, shown in Table. \[table1\]. To ensure that the local tensors are charge-0, the matrices $A^{[i]}$ must have the following block structures under the basis with the well-defined $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ charges: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{standradform}
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_{2}^{[i]} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & a_{p-1}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0; \notag \label{block} \\
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{p-1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1; \notag \\
&\vdots &\quad \notag \\
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & a_{2}^{[i]} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_{p-1}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=p-1,\end{aligned}$$where $a_{r}^{[i]}$ with $r\in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ are matrices in the sub-blocks with smaller virtual dimensions. Actually the structures of the local matrices are determined by the fact that the Fock space is a graded vector space. Moreover, the charges of the local matrices can be revealed by the representation of charge operator $Q_{p}=$ diag$\left( 1,\omega
_{p},\omega _{p}^{2},\cdots ,\omega _{p}^{p-1}\right) $ as $$\left( Q_{p}\otimes \mathbbm{1}\right) ^{-1}A^{[i]}\left( Q_{p}\otimes \mathbbm{1}\right) =\omega _{p}^{|i|}A^{[i]}.$$For the later discussion, it is useful to introduce another $p\times p$ matrix $$Y_{p}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] , \label{Y}$$as the regular representation of generator of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ symmetry. It will be frequently used and played a significant role in the following classification.
[|C[2cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|]{} & 0 & $p-1$& $p-2$ &$p-3$ &$\cdots$& 1\
0 & 0 & $p-1$& $p-2$ &$p-3$ &$\cdots$&1\
1 & 1 & 0 & $p-1$&$p-2$ &$\cdots$ &2\
2 & 2 & 1 & 0&$p-1$ & $\cdots$&3\
3 & 3 & 2 & 1&$0$ & $\cdots$&4\
$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\ddots$&\
$p-1$ & $p-1$ & $p-2$ & $p-3$&$p-4$&$\cdots$&0\
So the parafermionic MPS can be constructed by taking graded tensor product of local tensors and contracting the virtual bonds between nearby local tensors with the homomorphism $\mathcal{C}$. The contraction does not affect the charges of the tensor networks, because the charge of $|\alpha
_{l})\otimes _{g}(\alpha _{l}|$ is zero. Therefore, the general parafermionic MPS is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi \rangle &=&\mathcal{C}(\mathbf{C}_{a}\otimes _{g}\mathbf{A}[1]\otimes
_{g}\mathbf{A}[2]\otimes _{g}\cdots \otimes _{g}\mathbf{A}[L]) \notag \\
&=&\sum_{i_{1}..i_{N}}\left( C_{a}^{T}A^{[i_{1}]}\cdots A^{[i_{L}]}\right)
|i_{1}\cdots i_{L}\rangle ,\end{aligned}$$where $\mathbf{C}_{a}=\sum_{\gamma \delta }C_{a,\gamma \delta }(\gamma
_{1}|\otimes _{g}|\delta _{L})$ is the closure tensor and different choices of $\mathbf{C}_{a}$ just result in the different charges of the closed MPS wave functions[@XuZhang]. It should be emphasized that, unlike the Majorana fermion chains, the periodic boundary condition can not reconcile with the algebras of parafermions, so the periodic boundary condition for parafermion chains does not exist. How to define the Hamiltonian for closed boundary conditions has been specifically discussed[XuZhang,Alexandradinata]{}.
Classification of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermionic MPS with irreducibility
========================================================================
Irreducibility is the most important property for a general MPS, because the irreducible MPS determines the major physical properties of the system. Irreducible forms of bosonic and fermionic MPS have been constructed, the concept of irreducibility of fermionic MPS is quite different from that of bosonic MPS. For the fermionic MPS, there are two types of irreducible fermionic MPS[@Bultinck2017; @Fidkowski2011], one is called even type with the local matrices with the block structures: $$A^{[i]}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & a_{1}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0;\text{ }A^{[i]}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1, \label{evenZ2}$$where the sub-block matrices can *not* be equal under gauge transformations. These irreducible matrices span the even type simple $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded matrix algebra with the center consisting of multiples of the identity. So it is as simple as the ungraded algebra. While the other is called the odd type which can be gauge transformed into $$A^{[i]}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & a^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0;\text{ }A^{[i]}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & a^{[i]} \\
a^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1. \label{oddZ2}$$Then we can be further expressed into a more compact form: $$A^{[i]}=Y_{2}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]},\text{ }|i|=0,1,$$where $Y_{2}$ has been defined in Eq. (\[Y\]). Thus $A^{[i]}$ of irreducible MPS span an odd type simple $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded algebra with the center consisting of multiples of $\mathbbm{1}$ and $Y_{2}$, characterizing the non-trivial topological phase with unpaired Majorana zero modes at the edges of one-dimensional systems. These two types of irreducible MPS represent the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ classification of one-dimensional interacting fermionic systems[@Fidkowski2011; @Turner2011].
Expanding the analysis of irreducibility, we can derive all irreducible $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermionic MPS, and the different algebras spanned by the local matrices correspond to distinct gapped phases. Therefore, we can establish a complete classification of all one-dimensional parafermionic gapped phases, including the topological phases and conventional spontaneous symmetry breaking phases. The symmetry protected topological phases are not included, because no extra symmetry than the parafermionic charge is involved and $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ symmetry is not sufficient to support symmetry protected topological phases. The general method is as follows. We first assume that all $A^{[i]}$ have an irreducible invariant subspace with the corresponding orthogonal projector $P_{0}$. Then we analyze all the commutation relations between the operators $P_{0}$ and $Q_{p}^{r}$, where $r $ is a positive integer. $P_{0}$ and $Q_{p}^{r}$ generate a space which contains all $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ charge sectors. Finally, by using the invariant subspace projectors containing all charge sectors, we can determine the irreducible structures of $A^{[i]}$ and the corresponding algebras spanned by them. The different algebras associate with different gapped phases. In the following, several important cases are carried out in detail.
Irreducibility of $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion MPS
--------------------------------------------------
Now we first derive two types of irreducible MPS for $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion chains[@XuZhang]. Without the lost of generality, we assume that there is an irreducible invariant subspace projector $P_{0}$ of local matrices $A^{[i]}$, i.e. $$A^{[i]}P_{0}=P_{0}A^{[i]}P_{0}.$$Because $A^{[i]}$ have a definite charge, $Q_{3}^{-1}A^{[i]}Q_{3}=\omega
^{|i|}A^{[i]}$, where $Q_{3}$ is the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ charge matrix, we can further derive $$A^{[i]}P_{1}=P_{1}A^{[i]}P_{1},A^{[i]}P_{2}=P_{2}A^{[i]}P_{2}, \notag$$where $P_{1}=Q_{3}P_{0}Q_{3}^{-1}$ and $P_{2}=Q_{3}^{-1}P_{0}Q_{3}$ are also invariant subspace projectors. Since $P_{0}$ is already associated with an irreducible invariant space, $P_{0}$, $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ must be either the same or mutually orthogonal, otherwise it will contradict with the fact that $P_{0}$ is already associated with an irreducible invariant space. So there are two different situations, we discuss them separately.
1\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{3}\right] =0$
It can be simply determined that $P_{0}=P_{1}=P_{2}$, and $P_{0}$ contains all three charge sectors, indicating that $A^{[i]}$ in $P_{0}$ irreducible invariant subspace preserve the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ charge symmetry. Thus all $A^{[i]}$ in this invariant subspace will have the initial structures shown in Eq. (\[block\]) and span a trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra.
2\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{3}\right] \neq 0$
In this situation, $P_{0}$, $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ are mutually orthogonal projectors, the corresponding invariant subspaces do not contain all $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ charge sectors. For the parafermionic MPS, the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ charge symmetry can never be broken and the MPS can not be reduced, since the invariant spaces do not contain all charge sectors. The reduced matrices also break the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded structures of local matrices and no longer span a $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra. Thus, the concept of irreducibility should be reformulated. Notice that $[P_{0}+P_{1}+P_{2},Q_{3}]=0$, and the total invariant space is the complete, leading to $P_{0}+P_{1}+P_{2}=\mathbbm{1}$. The idempotency requires $P_{0}^{2}=P_{0}$, $P_{1}^{2}=P_{1}$ and $P_{2}^{2}=P_{2}$. From these constraints, the invariant subspace projectors can be derived as $$P_{0}=\frac{1}{3}\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbbm{1} & U_{1} & U_{1}U_{2} \\
U_{1}^{\dagger } & \mathbbm{1} & U_{2} \\
U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{\dagger } & U_{2}^{\dagger } & \mathbbm{1}\end{array}\right] ,$$where $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ are unitary block matrices with the same dimensions. Since $A^{[i]}P_{j}=P_{j}A^{[i]}P_{j}$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & U_{1}^{\dagger }a_{0}^{[i]}U_{1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{\dagger }a_{0}^{[i]}U_{1}U_{2}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0; \notag \label{Z3nontrivial} \\
\text{ }A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & U_{1}^{\dagger }a_{0}^{[i]}U_{2} \\
U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{\dagger }a_{0}^{[i]}U_{1}^{\dagger } & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1; \notag \\
\text{ }A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
U_{1}^{\dagger }a_{0}^{[i]}U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{\dagger } & 0 & 0 \\
0 & U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{\dagger }a_{0}^{[i]]}U_{2}^{\dagger } & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=2.\text{ } \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$The gauge transformation $G=\mathbbm{1}\oplus U_{1}\oplus \left(
U_{1}U_{2}\right) $ can be used to rewrite them in the standard forms. After substituting $a^{[i]}$ for $a_{0}^{[i]}$ if $|i|=0$, $a_{0}^{i}U_{1}^{\dagger }$ if $|i|=1$, and $a_{0}^{i}U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{\dagger }$ if $|i|=2$, we can express the local matrices into more compact form: $$A^{[i]}=Y_{3}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]}.$$
To obtain the irreducible MPS, it should be guaranteed that $A^{[i]}$ must have no irreducible invariant subspace commuting with $Q_{3}$. If there was such an invariant subspace corresponding to the projector $\tilde{P}$, it should have the form $\tilde{P}=\text{diag}(\tilde{P}_{0},\tilde{P}_{1},\tilde{P}_{2})$. According to $A^{[i]}\tilde{P}=\tilde{P}A^{[i]}\tilde{P}$, it further satisfies $$a^{[i]}\tilde{P}_{0}=\tilde{P}_{0}a^{[i]}\tilde{P}_{0},a^{[i]}\tilde{P}_{1}=\tilde{P}_{1}a^{[i]}\tilde{P}_{1},a^{[i]}\tilde{P}_{2}=\tilde{P}_{2}a^{[i]}\tilde{P}_{2},$$for $\forall |i|=0$. To exclude such a situation, we must impose the necessary condition that the charge-0subalgebra spanned by all $\{a^{[i_{1}]}\cdots a^{[i_{p}]}\}$ with $\forall
p\in \mathbb{N}$ and $\sum_{l=1}^{p}|i_{l}|=0$ is simple. In the following, when we mention the charge-0subalgebra, it has the same definition, but it is the simple matrix algebra with different dimension.
So the local matrices $A^{[i]}$ are irreducible if $A^{[i]}$ can be gauge transformed into $Y_{3}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]}$ and the charge-0 sub-algebra is a simple matrix algebra. These conditions imply that $A^{[i]}$ span a non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra. The graded center consists of multiples of $\mathbbm{1},Y_{3} $, and $Y_{3}^{2}$. Taking the trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra of MPS into consideration, we obtain the conclusion that a $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion MPS is irreducible iff $A^{[i]}$ span a simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra.
Topological order in $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion MPS
-----------------------------------------------------
The characteristic properties of the parafermionic MPS can be found in the transfer matrix $$\mathbb{E}=\sum_{i}A^{[i]}\otimes \bar{A}^{[i]}.$$For the trivial algebra MPS, the irreducible matrices $A^{[i]}$ span a simple algebra. The corresponding transfer matrix forms a completely positive map[@CPmap], whose eigenvalue spectrum is real and non-negative, and the largest eigenvalue is non-degenerate.
However, for the non-trivial type algebra MPS, the transfer matrix can be expressed as $$\mathbb{E}=\sum_{i}\left[ Y_{3}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]}\right] \otimes \left[
Y_{3}^{|i|}\otimes \bar{a}^{[i]}\right] .$$By supposing $\tilde{\sigma}_{R}$ as the right eigenvector of the sub-block transfer matrix $\tilde{\mathbb{E}}=\sum_{i}a^{[i]}\otimes \bar{a}^{[i]}$ with the real eigenvalue $\lambda $, i.e. $\sum_{i}a^{[i]}\tilde{\sigma}_{R}a^{[i]\dagger }=\lambda \tilde{\sigma}_{R}$, it can be easily verified that $\sigma _{R,j}=Y_{3}^{|j|}\otimes \tilde{\sigma}_{R}$ with $|j|=0,1,2$ are three eigenvectors of the transfer matrix $\mathbb{E}$ with the same eigenvalue $\lambda $. It can be further proved that all eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $\mathbb{E}$ have at least three-fold degeneracy. The details are given in the Sec. IV.B. The largest eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvectors stem from the sub-block transfer matrix $\tilde{\mathbb{E}}$, so the three-fold degeneracy of the transfer matrix spectrum reflects the existence of unpaired parafermion edge zero modes, characterizing the topological order in one dimension. In contrast, the largest eigenvalue of the transfer matrix of a symmetry protected topological state is non-degenerate.
Moreover, according to the holographic principle, the left and right dominant eigenvectors of the transfer operator determine the reduced density matrix in the thermodynamic limit[@Bultinck2017; @ESofPEPS]. We can study the entanglement spectrum via a bipartition of the parafermionic MPS. Here we merely consider the non-trivial MPS. Supposing that the left and right dominant eigenvectors of the sub-block transfer matrix $\tilde{\mathbb{E}}$ are given by $\tilde{\sigma}_{L}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_{R}$, the transfer matrix $\mathbb{E}$ has three left and three right dominant eigenvectors $\sigma _{L,j}=Y_{3}^{|j|}\otimes \tilde{\sigma}_{L}$ and $\sigma
_{R,j}=Y_{3}^{|j|}\otimes \tilde{\sigma}_{R}$, respectively, displayed in Fig. \[figure1\](a) and Fig. \[figure1\](b). Notice that the tensors $v_{R}\otimes v_{R}^{T}$ and $v_{L}^{T}\otimes v_{L}$ fixing the double layer tensor network must be charge zero, where $v_{R}$ and $v_{L}$ are the right and left boundary vectors of MPS, respectively, as shown in \[figure1\](c). The entanglement Hamiltonian $H_{E}$ in the thermodynamic limit is thus determined by the left and right charge zero fixed-points as $$e^{H_{E}}=(\mathbbm{1}\otimes \tilde{\sigma}_{L}^{\ast })(\mathbbm{1}\otimes
\tilde{\sigma}_{R})=\mathbbm{1}\otimes \tilde{\sigma}_{L}^{\ast }\tilde{\sigma}_{R},$$Hence the entanglement spectrum have at least three-fold degeneracy, fully determined by the structure of $A^{[i]}$.
![(a) The left dominant eigenvectors of the transfer matrix $\mathbb{E}$ give rise to the left fixed points $\protect\sigma _{L,j}=Y_{3}^{|j|}\otimes \tilde{\protect\sigma}_{L}$. (b) The right dominant eigenvectors produce the right fixed points $\protect\sigma _{R,j}=Y_{3}^{|j|}\otimes
\tilde{\protect\sigma}_{R}$ (c) Bipartition of the MPS via partially contracting the physical degrees of freedom. The red dots are the vectors fixing the boundaries of MPS.[]{data-label="figure1"}](figure1.eps){width="8.7cm"}
To summarize, there are only two types of irreducible $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermionic MPS. One type corresponds to the local matrices spanning a trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra, so the dominant eigenvector of the transfer matrix is unique and the entanglement spectrum is not necessarily degenerate. The other type corresponds to the non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra spanned by local matrices. The full transfer matrix spectrum has at least three-fold degenerate eigenvalues, and so does the entanglement spectrum in the thermodynamic limit. The degeneracy of the transfer matrix spectrum implies the existence of the unpaired $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion zero modes. Actually such analysis can be generalized to all $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermionic MPS for topological phases, and the necessary degeneracy of the transfer matrix spectrum as well as the degeneracy of the entanglement spectrum in thermodynamic limit just depend on the structure of $A^{[i]}$.
Irreducibility of $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ parafermion MPS
--------------------------------------------------
Beside the topological and the trivial phases, there is a spontaneous symmetry breaking phase in the classification of $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ parafermion chains. The non-trivial orthogonal projectors of the invariant subspaces are still given by $P_{i}=Q_{4}^{i}P_{0}Q_{4}^{-i}$ with $i=0,1,2,3 $, where each of $P_{i}$ is associated with an irreducible invariant subspace. The discussion is divided into three different situations.
1\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{4}\right] =0$
Since the irreducible invariant subspace projector $P_{0}$ contains four different charge sectors, the forms of the local matrices $A^{[i]}$ are given by Eq. (\[block\]), and the irreducible $A^{[i]}$ span a trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ graded algebra. Both the transfer matrix spectrum and the entanglement spectrum are not necessarily degenerate.
2\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{4}\right] \neq 0$ but $\left[ P_{0},Q_{4}^{2}\right] =0$
In this case we have only two orthogonal projectors $P_{0}$ and $P_{1}$ for two irreducible invariant subspaces. According to $Q_{4}P_{0}Q_{4}^{-1}+P_{0}=$ $\mathbbm{1}$ and $P_{0}^{2}=P_{0}$, $P_{0}$ can be determined as $$P_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathbbm{1} & 0 & U_{1} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & U_{2} \\
U_{1}^{\dagger } & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 \\
0 & U_{2}^{\dagger } & 0 & \mathbbm{1}\end{array}\right] ,$$where $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ are unitary block matrices and both the charge-0 and charge-1 sectors have the same dimension as the charge-2 and charge-3 sectors. The relation $A^{[i]}P_{j}=P_{j}A^{[i]}P_{j}$ and the gauge transformation $G=\mathbbm{1}\oplus \mathbbm{1}\oplus U_{1}\oplus U_{2}$ lead to $$A^{[i]}=\text{diag}\left(
a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]}\right) \times \left(
Y_{4}^{|i|}\otimes \mathbbm{1}\right)$$where we have substituted $a_{1}^{[i]}$ for $a_{1}^{[i]}U_{1}^{\dagger }$ if $|i|=1$, $a_{0}^{[i]}$ for $a_{0}^{[i]}U_{1}^{\dagger }$, $a_{1}^{[i]}$ for $a_{1}^{[i]}U_{2}^{\dagger }$ if $|i|=2$, and $a_{0}^{[i]}$ for $a_{0}^{[i]}U_{2}^{\dagger }$ if $|i|=3$. It is further required that the dimensions of the four charge sectors are the same. Then, by permuting the order of basis, $(0,1,2,3)\rightarrow (0,2,1,3)$, these local matrices can display an even $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded structure: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_{1}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0; \notag \label{Z4matrices} \\
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 \\
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1; \notag \\
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 \\
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_{1}^{[i]} \\
0 & 0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=2; \notag \\
A^{i} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
0 & 0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=3.\end{aligned}$$
Since we have $\left[ P_{0},Q_{4}^{2}\right] =0$, the invariant subspace $P_{0}$ contains the even and odd $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ parity sectors. In addition, $A^{[i]}$ must not contain an invariant subspace whose projector commutes with the operator $Q_{4}$. Similar to the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ case, it is necessary that the charge-zerosubalgebras of matrix algebras spanned by $a_{0}^{[i]}$ and $a_{1}^{[i]}$ are simple, respectively. Then the local matrices $A^{[i]}$ span a simple algebra in the $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ graded sense, but it is semisimple in the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded sense[@Fidkowski2011]. Because the semisimple algebra can split into irreducible ones, we can reduce the local matrices and break the $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ symmetry down to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry. To make it explicit, another gauge transformation $$G^{\prime }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & -\mathbbm{1} \\
i\mathbbm{1} & 0 & -i\mathbbm{1} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & \mathbbm{1} \\
\mathbbm{1} & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0\end{array}\right] ,$$changes the local matrices into the canonical form: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&\omega _{4}^{|i|}d^{[i]}\oplus d^{[i]}, \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & a_{0}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0,2; \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & a_{1}^{[i]} \\
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1,3.\end{aligned}$$The block diagonal form of $A^{[i]}$ represents a spontaneous symmetry breaking phase[@Chen-Gu-Wen-2011]. One may question why it is not a topological phase? The answer is that it is impossible to transform $A^{[i]}$ into $Y_{2}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}$, which is required in the topological phase. The reducing process actually mixes the charge-0 and charge-2 sectors, as well as the charge-1 and charge-3 sectors. In this sense, the $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ symmetry breaks down to the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry. After reducing, the sub-block matrices $d^{[i]}$ span an even type simple $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded algebra, shown in Eq. (\[evenZ2\]). So there is no Majorana zero edge modes. The two degenerate ground states are purely resulted from the spontaneous symmetry breaking, and can be transformed into each other via the representation of the $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ charge symmetry generator $U_{4}=\text{diag}(\mathbbm{1},\omega \mathbbm{1},\omega ^{2}\mathbbm{1},\omega ^{3}\mathbbm{1})$. Therefore, the two parts in the direct sum are connected by $\sum_{i}U_{ij}d^{[j]}=\omega ^{|i|}d^{[i]}$. Moreover, the parafermions $\chi _{i}$ can form bosons $\chi _{i}^{2}$ and its anti-particles $\chi _{i}^{3}$. But the Majorana fermions can not be obtained from $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ parafermions, so there is no non-trivial topological phase with Majorana edge zero modes in this classification.
3\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{4}\right] \neq 0$ and $\left[ P,Q_{4}^{2}\right] \neq 0$
Following the general procedure of deriving the irreducible MPS, the standard form of the local matrices can be written as $$A^{[i]}=Y_{4}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]},|i|=0,1,2,3,$$where the charge-zero sub-algebra is a simple matrix algebra and the local matrices span a non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ graded algebra with the non-trivial center consisting of multiples of $\mathbbm{1}$, $Y_{4}$, $Y_{4}^{2}$ and $Y_{4}^{3}$. So the minimal four-fold degeneracy of the transfer matrix spectrum and the entanglement spectrum can be found, implying the existence of $\mathbb{Z}_{4} $ parafermion edge zero modes. Thus, this kind of irreducible MPS corresponds to the non-trivial topological phase.
Classification of $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ parafermion MPS
--------------------------------------------------
In this case, there exist more than one topological phases, exhibiting a richer physics than $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ parafermions. From the irreducibility of $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ parafermion MPS, we first assume that there is an irreducible invariant subspace projector $P_{0}$, and then divide the discussion into four different situations.
1\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}\right] =0$
This means that the irreducible invariant subspace $P_{0}$ contains all six charge sectors. The matrices in the invariant subspace $P_{0}$ span the trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ graded algebra, corresponding to the trivial phase.
2\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}\right] \neq 0$ but $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}^{2}\right] =0$
The above two relations automatically lead to $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}^{3}\right]
\neq 0$. Considering the constraints $P_{0}+Q_{6}P_{0}Q_{6}^{-1}=\mathbbm{1}$ and $P_{0}^{2}=P_{0}$, we can express $$P_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & U_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & U_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & U_{3} \\
U_{1}^{\dagger } & 0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & U_{2}^{\dagger } & 0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & U_{3}^{\dagger } & 0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1}\end{array}\right] ,$$where $U_{1}$, $U_{2}$ and $U_{3}$ are unitary matrices required by the idemponency. Applying $P_{0}$ to $A^{[i]}$, we obtain $$A^{[i]}=\text{diag}\left(
a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},a_{2}^{[i]},a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},a_{2}^{[i]}\right) \times \left( Y_{6}^{|i|}\otimes \mathbbm{1}\right)$$with some redefinitions. Via permuting the basis $(0,1,2,3,4,5,6)\rightarrow
(0,2,4,1,3,5)$, we can rewrite $A^{[i]}$ into the standard form on the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ parity basis: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
d^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & U^{\dagger }d^{[i]}U\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0,2,4; \notag \\
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & d^{[i]} \\
U^{\dagger }d^{[i]}U^{\dagger } & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1,3,5,\end{aligned}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
U &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1} \\
\mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] , \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_{2}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_{1}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0,1; \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_{2}^{[i]} \\
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=2,3; \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
a_{2}^{[i]} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_{1}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=4,5.\end{aligned}$$Note that the dimensions of the six charge sectors must be the same. Such a form of $A^{[i]}$ actually satisfies the odd type $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded algebra shown in Eq. (\[oddZ2\]), so these matrices can be further transformed via the gauge transformation $\mathbb{I}\oplus U$ into the standard form $$A^{[i]}=Y_{2}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}. \label{6-2}$$Since $[P_{0},Q_{6}^{2}]=0$ means that $P_{0}$ containing three $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ charge sectors is irreducible, $d^{[i]}$ span a trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra. Moreover, it should be emphasized that there exists no invariant subspace whose projector commutes with the operator $Q_{6}$. To guarantee such a situation, all the charge-zero subalgebras of matrix algebras spanned by $a_{0}^{[i]}$, $a_{1}^{[i]}$ and $a_{2}^{[i]}$ should be simple, respectively. This determines $A^{[i]}$ to span a type of the simple $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ graded algebra, which is the similar to the odd-type $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded algebra. The graded center of this non-trivial algebra consists of multiples of $\mathbbm{1}$ and $Y_{2}$.
Because the $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ symmetry can not be broken for $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ parafermions, the $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ graded structure can not be removed, and the local matrices are not reduced. From Eq. (\[6-2\]), we can show that the full transfer matrix spectrum have two-fold degeneracy, implying that the entanglement spectrum is at least two-fold degeneracy in the thermodynamic limit and there exist unpaired Majorana zero edge modes. Thus, this phase is a $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ symmetric non-trivial topological phase without any symmetry breaking, but it shares the same property as the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ non-trivial topological phase.
3\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}\right] \neq 0$ and $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}^{2}\right]
\neq 0$ but $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}^{3}\right] =0$
Similar to the above case, the standard form of $A^{[i]}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&Y_{3}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}, \notag \label{6-3} \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & a_{1}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0,1,2; \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=3,4,5.\end{aligned}$$Provided that the charge-zerosub-algebras spanned by $a_{0}^{[i]}$ and $a_{1}^{[i]}$ are simple, $A^{[i]}$ will span a type of simple $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ graded algebra, which is the same as the non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ graded algebra with the non-trivial center. Eq.(\[6-3\]) determines that the eigenvalue spectrum of the transfer matrix have at least three-fold degeneracy, indicating that there are three-fold degenerate entanglement spectrum in the thermodynamic limit and unpaired $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion edge zero modes. Thus, the resulting MPS represents another $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ symmetric non-trivial topological phase with the same property as the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ non-trivial topological phase.
4\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}\right] \neq 0$, $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}^{2}\right] \neq 0$ and $\left[ P_{0},Q_{6}^{3}\right] \neq 0$
In this case, the form of matrices $A^{[i]}$ can be expressed as the standard form $$A^{[i]}=Y_{6}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]},$$which span another type of non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ graded algebra provided the charge zerosub-algebra spanned by $a^{[i]}$ is simple. The graded center consists of multiples of the regular representation of $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ group. Because of the six-fold degeneracy of the transfer matrix spectrum, this case corresponds to a topological non-trivial phase with $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ parafermion edge zero modes, yielding six-fold degeneracy of the entanglement spectrum in the thermodynamic limit.
To summarize, there exist three topologically distinct phases and one trivial phase. Their local matrices of the irreducible MPS form different types of simple $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ graded algebra with the distinct centers. These topological phases are characterized by the Majorana zero modes, $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ parafermion zero modes, and $\mathbb{Z}_{6}$ parafermion zeros modes at the edges of systems, respectively.
Classification of $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ parafermion MPS
--------------------------------------------------
The reason why we are interested in this case is that it is alleged that there exist two distinct spontaneous symmetry breaking phases from the $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ to $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ symmetry: one has a two-fold ground state degeneracy purely due to the symmetry breaking, and another has a four-fold ground state degeneracy resulting from both spontaneous symmetry breaking and topological order[@Quella]. Here we can carefully examine these results from the irreducibility perspective of the MPS. To gain more information about related phases, especially the symmetry breaking phases, we divide our discussion into four situations.
1\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}\right] =0$
The matrices associated to the irreducible invariant subspace projector $P_{0}$ contain eight $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ charge sectors, corresponding a trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ graded algebra and thus a trivial phase.
2\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}\right] \neq 0$ but $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}^{2}\right] =0$
It implies that the invariant subspace denoted by the projector $P_{0}$ does not contain all eight $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ charge sectors, but it contains only four $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ charge sectors. The commutation relation $[P_{0},Q_{8}^{4}]=0$ indicates that $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ parity sectors are also contained in $P_{0}$ as well. Then the resulting MPS is trivial from both $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry point of view. Since the $P_{0} $ invariant space is irreducible, we can not break the symmetry down to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$. The local matrices span a type of simple $\mathbb{Z}_{8}
$ graded algebra which is the same as the trivial semisimple $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ graded algebra, provided that the charge-0 subalgebras are simple. Hence it is reducible and the $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ symmetry spontaneously breaks down to $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$, attributing a two-fold degeneracy. Because the trivial graded algebra has no nontrivial graded center, the corresponding MPS describes a pure symmetry breaking phase. Actually the spontaneous symmetry breaking is related to the phenomenon of boson condensation, since we have $[\chi _{i}^{4},\chi _{j}^{4}]=0$.
3\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}\right] \neq 0$ and $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}^{2}\right]
\neq 0$ but $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}^{4}\right] =0$
Then the invariant subspace denoted by the projector $P_{0}$ contains neither eight $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ charge sectors nor four $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ charge sectors, but it only contains two $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ charge sectors, leading to a trivial MPS from the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry point of view. Since $P_{0}^{2}=P_{0}$ and $$P_{0}+Q_{8}P_{0}Q_{8}^{-1}+Q_{8}^{2}P_{0}Q_{8}^{-2}+Q_{8}^{3}P_{0}Q_{8}^{-3}=\mathbbm{1},$$we can find that $P_{0}$ is $$\frac{1}{4}\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\mathbbm{1} & 0 & U_{1} & 0 & U_{2} & 0 & U_{3} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & U_{4} & 0 & U_{5} & 0 & U_{6} \\
U_{1}^{\dagger } & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & U_{1}^{\dagger }U_{2} & 0 &
U_{1}^{\dagger }U_{3} & 0 \\
0 & U_{4}^{\dagger } & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 & U_{4}^{\dagger }U_{5} & 0 &
U_{4}^{\dagger }U_{6} \\
U_{2}^{\dagger } & 0 & U_{1}^{\dagger }U_{2} & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 &
U_{2}^{\dagger }U_{3} & 0 \\
0 & U_{5}^{\dagger } & 0 & U_{5}^{\dagger }U_{4} & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & 0 &
U_{5}^{\dagger }U_{6} \\
U_{3}^{\dagger } & 0 & U_{3}^{\dagger }U_{1} & 0 & U_{3}^{\dagger }U_{2} & 0
& \mathbbm{1} & 0 \\
0 & U_{6}^{\dagger } & 0 & U_{6}^{\dagger }U_{4} & 0 & U_{6}^{\dagger }U_{5}
& 0 & \mathbbm{1}\end{array}\right] , \notag$$where $U_{i}$ are unitary matrices with the same dimension. According to $A^{[i]}P_{j}=P_{j}A^{[i]}P_{j}$ and with some proper substitutions, we can express the local matrices as $$A^{[i]}=\text{diag}(a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]})\times (Y_{8}^{|i|}\otimes \mathbbm{1}).$$By permuting the basis, $(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7)\rightarrow (0,2,4,6,1,3,5,7)$, we can explicitly show that the matrices $A^{[i]}$ have an even $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded structure as$$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
Y_{4}^{|i|/2}\otimes a_{0}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & Y_{4}^{|i|/2}\otimes a_{1}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0,2,4,6; \notag \label{40} \\
A^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & Y_{4}^{(|i|-1)/2}\otimes a_{0}^{[i]} \\
Y_{4}^{(|i|+1)/2}\otimes a_{1}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1,3,5,7, \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$These matrices span a simple $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ graded algebra, which is the same as a trivial semisimple $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded algebra, provided that the charge-zero sub-algebras are simple. From above equation one can exclude the possibility of existence of topological order. Since there are no non-trivial graded center but four irreducible invariant spaces, we can reduce the simple $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ graded algebra to the even-type simple $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ graded algebras, and the $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ symmetry is broken down to the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry, attributing four-fold degenerate ground states. Then Eq. (\[40\]) can be transformed into a direct sum of four sets of even simple algebra $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ matrices via the gauge transformation $$G=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mathbbm{1} & \mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & \mathbbm{1} \\
-i\mathbbm{1} & i\mathbbm{1} & -i\mathbbm{1} & i\mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & -i\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & i\mathbbm{1} \\
\omega _{8}\mathbbm{1} & \omega _{8}^{7}\mathbbm{1} & \omega _{8}^{5}\mathbbm{1} & \omega _{8}^{3}\mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \mathbbm{1} & i\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & -i\mathbbm{1} \\
\omega _{8}^{3}\mathbbm{1} & \omega _{8}^{5}\mathbbm{1} & \omega _{8}^{7}\mathbbm{1} & \omega _{8}\mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} \\
-\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & -\mathbbm{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] ,$$which mixes the even $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ charge sectors $(0,2,4,6)$ as well as the odd $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ charge sectors $(1,3,5,7)$, separately. After this transformation, the local matrices are rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&\left( \omega _{8}^{2|i|}d^{[i]}\right) \oplus \left( \omega
_{8}^{|i|}d^{[i]}\right) \oplus \left( {\omega _{8}}^{3|i|}d^{[i]}\right)
\oplus d^{[i]}, \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{1}^{[i]} & 0 \\
0 & a_{0}^{[i]}\end{array}\right] ,|i|=0,2,4,6; \notag \\
d^{[i]} &=&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & a_{1}^{[i]} \\
a_{0}^{[i]} & 0\end{array}\right] ,|i|=1,3,5,7.\end{aligned}$$Notice that the four-fold degeneracy is only contributed by the spontaneous symmetry breaking, and there exists no topological order.
4\. $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}\right] \neq 0$, $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}^{2}\right] \neq 0$ and $\left[ P_{0},Q_{8}^{4}\right] \neq 0$
In this case, the irreducible invariant subspace $P_{0}$ only contains one charge sector. The irreducible matrices is given by $$A^{[i]}=Y_{8}^{|i|}\otimes a^{[i]},$$which span a non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ graded algebra with the non-trivial center consisting of multiples of regular representation of $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$, provided the charge-zero sub-algebra is a simple algebra. The transfer matrix spectrum has eight-fold degeneracy and entanglement spectrum in the thermodynamic limit should have at least eight-fold degeneracy, corresponding to the $\mathbb{Z}_{8}$ symmetric topological phase. Hence there is only one topological phase.
General Results for $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermion MPS
====================================================
Irreducibility and classification
---------------------------------
Summarizing the above several examples, we can obtain the general classification for all $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermion phases. First we assume an irreducible invariant subspace projector $P_{0}$ for all matrices $A^{[i]} $. Then we consider the commutation relations between $Q_{p}^{r}$ and $P_{0}$, where $r$ is the divisor of $p$. It can be proved that the number of different cases denoted by commutation relations between $Q_{p}^{r} $ and $P_{0}$ is the number of divisor $p$. Each case is labelled by the smallest divisor $n\in \{r\}$ such that $[Q_{p}^{n},P_{0}]=0$. Together with the idempotency constrain, the structures of all irreducible invariant subspace projectors as well as that of $A^{[i]}$ can be determined.
Actually, Eq. (\[standradform\]) can be written in a more concise form: $$A^{[i]}=\text{diag}\left( a_{0}^{[i]},a_{1}^{[i]},\cdots
,a_{p-1}^{[i]}\right) \times \left( Y_{p}^{|i|}\otimes \mathbbm{1}\right) .
\label{trivial}$$For the case $[P_{0},Q_{p}]=0$, $a_{s}^{[i]}$ with $s\in \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ are not equal for all $i$ under gauge transformations and redefinitions, and all $A^{[i]}$ span the trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebra. The MPS generated by the matrices of Eq. (\[trivial\]) belong to the trivial phase.
However, for the case $[P_{0},Q_{p}^{r}]\neq 0$ with $r<n$ and $[P_{0},Q_{p}^{n}]=0$, the relation $a_{s}^{[i]}=a_{(s+p/n)\bmod p}^{[i]}$ satisfies under gauge transformations and redefinitions. There exist $p/n$ unequal sub-block matrices $a_{s}^{[i]}$ ($s\in \mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$). Then, there are two different situations, depending on whether $n$ and $p/n$ are mutually prime or not. If $n$ and $p/n$ are mutually prime, by using a charge-preserving gauge transformation represented by a permutation matrix, the local matrices can be transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
A^{[i]} &=&Y_{n}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}, \notag \label{non-trivial2} \\
d^{[i]} &=&\text{diag}\left( a_{0}^{[i]},\cdots ,a_{p/n-1}^{[i]}\right)
\times \left( Y_{p/n}^{|i|}\otimes \mathbbm{1}\right) .\end{aligned}$$Under the condition that the charge-0sub-algebras are simple, all $A^{[i]}$ are irreducible and span a non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebra with a non-trivial center. The MPS generated by Eq.(\[non-trivial2\]) indicate a $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ symmetric topological phase with unpaired $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ parafermion zero edge modes. This topological phase is characterized by the $n$-fold degenerate transfer matrix spectrum and entanglement spectrum.
In the case where $n$ and $p/n$ are not mutually prime, it is impossible that the local matrices can be transformed into the form of Eq. ([non-trivial2]{}). The reason is that we can write $Y_{p}\sim Y_{p/n}\otimes
Y_{n}$ only if $n$ and $p/n$ are mutually prime. Actually, we can express $Y_{p}\sim \tilde{Q}_{p/n}\otimes Y_{n}$, where $\tilde{Q}_{p/n}=\text{diag}\left( 1,\omega _{p}^{1},\omega _{p}^{2},\cdots ,\omega _{p}^{n-1}\right) $, so the local matrices can be transformed via a gauge transformation into $$A^{[i]}=\tilde{Q}_{p/n}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}. \label{SSBform}$$However, the gauge transformation breaks the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ charge symmetry but preserves the $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ charge symmetry. Provided that the charge-0 sub-algebras are simple, all $A^{[i]}$ span a simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebra, which is the same as the trivial semisimple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded algebra. And it can be reduced into the trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded algebra. So this situation corresponds to the phases where the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ symmetry is spontaneously broken down to $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$.
So a conclusion can be drawn that the number of phases is equal to the number of divisors of $p$, and every divisor $n$ uniquely labels a different gapped phase[@Pollmann2013; @Quella]. The topological phases including the trivial phase are labeled by $n$ satisfying that $n$ and $p/n$ are mutually prime. The different parafermion gapped phases have one-to-one correspondence to the different $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebras. A more concise summary is shown in Table. \[table2\].
[|C[2.5cm]{}|C[4.5cm]{}|C[5cm]{}|C[4.5cm]{}|]{} **Phase** & **Topological** & **Symmetry breaking** & **Trivial**\
Label $n$ & $n$ and $p/n$ are coprime & $n$ and $p/n$ are not coprime & $n=1$\
Transfer matrix spectrum& $n$-fold degenerate spectrum& $n$-fold degenerate real part of spectrum(for whole ground space)& Non-degenerate largest eigenvalue\
Algebra& Non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded& Trivial semisimple $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ graded& Trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded\
Degeneracy of transfer matrix spectrum
--------------------------------------
For the symmetry breaking phases, the degenerate ground states can be transformed with each other by acting the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ symmetry generator $U=\text{diag}\left( \mathbb{I},\omega \mathbbm{1},\omega ^{2}\mathbbm{1},\text{...},\omega ^{p-1}\mathbbm{1}\right) $ several times, i.e., $\sum_{i}U_{ij}d^{[j]}=\omega ^{|i|}d^{[i]}$. If we act the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ charge operator $n$ times, we will go back to the original state, since it is $\mathbb{Z}_{p/n}$ symmetric. Thus the local matrices is shown in Eq.(\[SSBform\]). Therefore, the transfer matrices for the whole ground state subspace of symmetry breaking phases are given by $$\mathbb{E}=\sum_{i}\left[ \left( \bigoplus\limits_{r=0}^{n-1}\omega
_{p}^{|i|r}d^{[i]}\right) \otimes \left( \bigoplus\limits_{r=0}^{n-1}\bar{\omega}_{p}^{|i|r}\bar{d}^{[i]}\right) \right] .$$
Actually, because all $Y_{n}^{r}$ with $r\in \mathbb{Z}_{n}$ can be diagonalized simultaneously, $A^{[i]}=Y_{n}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}\sim
Q_{n}^{|i|}\otimes d^{[i]}$, the transfer matrices for topological phases can be transformed into $$\mathbb{E}^{\prime }=\sum_{i}\left[ \left(
\bigoplus\limits_{r=0}^{n-1}\omega _{n}^{|i|r}d^{[i]}\right) \otimes \left(
\bigoplus\limits_{r=0}^{n-1}\bar{\omega}_{n}^{|i|r}\bar{d}^{[i]}\right) \right] .$$These two expressions are very similar but the phase factors are different. Their eigenvalue spectra are equivalent to those of the following matrices[@Chen-Gu-Wen-2011] $$\bigoplus\limits_{r,r^{\prime }=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i}\omega _{p}^{|i|(r-r^{\prime
})}d^{[i]}\otimes \bar{d}^{[i]},\text{ }\bigoplus\limits_{r,r^{\prime
}=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i}\omega _{n}^{|i|(r-r^{\prime })}d^{[i]}\otimes \bar{d}^{[i]}.$$When $r=r^{\prime }$, $\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}\left( r,r\right)
=\sum_{i}d^{[i]}\otimes \bar{d}^{[i]}$ defines a block transfer matrix, whose largest eigenvalue is non-degenerate and the spectrum is real and non-negative. Thus the real eigenvalues are $n$-fold degenerate for both cases. On the other hand, $\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}(r,r^{\prime
})=\sum_{i}\omega _{p}^{|i|(r-r^{\prime })}d^{[i]}\otimes \bar{d}^{[i]}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^{\prime }\left( r,r^{\prime }\right) =\sum_{i}\omega
_{n}^{|i|(r-r^{\prime })}d^{[i]}\otimes \bar{d}^{[i]}$ for $r\neq r^{\prime }
$ denote mixed transfer matrices[@SSB-MPS], and their eigenvalues are complex, and the magnitudes of eigenvalues are smaller than unity[MPSrep]{}.
However, for topological phases, taking the advantage of the fact that $r\in
\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ and the periodicity of $\omega _{n}$ is also $n$, there are $n$ possible values of $\{r,r^{\prime }\}$ for a fixed value of $r-r^{\prime }
$. While for the symmetry breaking phases, $\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^{\prime
}(r,r^{\prime })$ does not have such a property. Therefore, the complex eigenvalues of the transfer matrix are also $n$-fold degenerate for topological phases, while the complex eigenvalues of the transfer matrix of the symmetry breaking phase are not necessarily $n$-fold degenerate. Different from those features displayed in the spontaneous symmetry breaking phases, the degeneracy of the full transfer matrix spectrum is the unique characteristic property for topological phases. This degeneracy is a clear evidence of the existence of parafermion zero edge modes. In contrast, the degeneracy of entanglement spectrum can appear for both the topological order phases and the symmetry protected topological phases.
Understanding topological order in MPS formalism
------------------------------------------------
It is known that all one-dimensional bosonic gapped systems can support short-range entanglement without any intrinsic topological order. However, the one-dimensional fermion and parafermion systems can probably have the topological order. Actually, since the statistics is not well-defined in one dimension, the parafermion chains only emerge at the edges of a two-dimensional fractionalized topological states[@Lindner; @Clarke; @Cheng], and the topological order is inherited from the bulk of fractional topological insulators. So these phases are distinct from the symmetry protected topological phases, and it is more appropriate to recognize them as invertible topological order[@zoo].
Previously such a topological order is characterized by strong zero edge modes. A strong zero edge mode carrying the $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ charge is defined by an operator localized at the edges, which commutes with the model Hamiltonian[@Fendley2012; @Majorana; @doubling]. But such a strong zero edge mode can be easily washed away when an arbitrary small perturbation is introduced into the fixed point model Hamiltonian[Fendley2012,Jermyn,Fernando]{}. Nevertheless, even in the absence of the strong zero edge modes, the gapped phases still display topological nature, and the weak edge modes commuting with the ground state subspace exist. It is more proper describing the topological order from the ground state wave functions rather than the model Hamiltonians.
In the view point of the fermionic/parafermionic MPS, we have understood that different topological phases correspond to the non-trivial simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebras with different non-trivial centers. The matrix $Y_{n}$ features the non-trivial graded structure and acts as the fractionalized charge operators, characterizing the topological order. In fact the matrix $Y_{n}$ has more profound indications. It can also be regarded as the gauge symmetry of the local tensors, namely, $(Y_{n}\otimes \mathbbm{1})A^{[i]}(Y_{n}\otimes \mathbbm{1})^{-1}=A^{[i]}$, which plays a crucial role and becomes the necessary condition of the topological order. It can be further verified that the non-trivial algebra MPS are the G-injective MPS[@PEPS-Deg-Topo]. Actually, the properties of the topological order in fermionic/parafermionic MPS are similar to those found in PEPS in two dimensional systems. We believe that our formalism provides the proper way to describe the topological order in one dimension.
Conclusion and Outlook
======================
Using the graded tensor product, we have encoded the parafermion statistics into the Fock space, and identified it as a graded vector space. Then, based on the Fock space, we have constructed the general MPS for all one-dimensional gapped phases for $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ parafermions without extra symmetry. We have also investigated several specific examples, covering all possible gapped phases. From the analysis of irreducibility of MPS, it has been found that all parafermion gapped phases can be classified by MPS. By identifying algebras spanned by the irreducible local matrices, we also find different phases have one-to one correspondence to different simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebras. We have further analyzed the properties of the corresponding transfer matrix spectra and entanglement spectra. The topological phases can be identified by the unique property that the full transfer matrix spectra are $n$-fold degenerate ($n\leq p$).
Our formalism can be easily generalized to the classification with extra symmetries, including the general on-site symmetries[@Pollmann2013] and time-reversal symmetry[@Meidan]. Moreover, some exact solvable models can also be designed within our MPS formalism and the characteristic properties of various phases can be more easily calculated[@Fernando]. And the renormalization group of fermionic/parafermionic MPS can be developed as well. Finally, our present formulation may be useful to investigate the fermionic/parafermionic PEPS in more than one spatial dimension[@Gu-Verstraete-Wen; @Eisert; @VerstraeteMPO]. Thus the present theoretical framework and forthcoming results will greatly enrich our understanding of low-dimensional strongly correlated many-body systems.
*Acknowledgment.-* The authors would like to thank Guo-Yi Zhu and Zi-Qi Wang for their stimulating discussion and acknowledges the support of National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2017YFA0302902).
**Appendix: Some useful concepts**\
In the content of our paper, we frequently mention the graded algebra, irreducibility, simplicity and semisimplicity. In this appendix, we will list the definitions of these concepts, which are summarized from the literature[@Clliford; @MPDO; @Fidkowski2011].
**Graded algebra**. An algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is said to be $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded if there is a decomposition of the underlying vector space $\mathcal{A}=\oplus _{n=0}^{p}\mathcal{A}^{n}$ such that $\mathcal{A}^{n}\mathcal{A}^{m}=\mathcal{A}^{n+m}$. If $A\in \mathcal{A}^{n}$, then $A$ is said to be homogeneous of degree $n$.
**Irreducibility**. If the local tensor has a block upper triangular form:. $$A^{[i]}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{1}^{[i]} & a_{0}^{[i]} \\
0 & a_{2}^{[i]}\end{array}\right) .$$The MPS generated by $A^{[i]}$ doesn’t depend on $a_{0}^{[i]}$. In fact, there exist a subspace $S_{1}$ which is invariant under the action, $A^{[i]}S_{1}\in S_{1}$. Then we can choose $a_{0}^{[i]}=0$ and assume $S_{1}$ doesn’t contain any other invariant subspace. Denoting $P_{1}(Q_{1}=\mathbbm{1}-P_{1})$ as the orthogonal projector onto $S_{1}(S_{1}^{\perp })$, we have $$A^{[i]}P_{1}=P_{1}A^{[i]}P_{1},\quad Q_{1}A^{[i]}=Q_{1}A^{[i]}Q_{1}.$$Then $P_{1}A^{[i]}P_{1}$ generates the irreducible MPS. Actually, any MPS can be gauge-transformed into a direct sum of irreducible MPS. For parafermion systems, the irreducibility is different. The invariant subspace must be a graded vector space, projected by $P_{1}$ commutating with charge matrix. If it contain other subspaces which is not a graded vector space, we can not reduce it.
**Simplicity and semisimplicity**. The simplicity and semisimplicity are usually defined in terms of (finite-dimensional) representations, i.e., the vector spaces over the field on which the algebra acts linearly. An algebra is called semisimple if any representation of a subgroup has a complementary representation. Any representation of a semisimple algebra splits into irreducible ones. A semisimple algebra is called simple if it has a unique irreducible representation. Any semisimple algebra is a direct sum of simple algebras. For example, the group algebra splits as a direct sum of algebra spanned by its irreducible representations. Actually, the algebra spanned by local matrices for topological and symmetry breaking phases is the simple $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ graded algebra, but they are semisimple without $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ grading, corresponding to the interpretation for phases of clock spin chains.
[99]{} A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 195125 (2008).
A. Kitaev, AIP Conf. Proc. **1134**, 22 (2009).
S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, New J. Phys. **12**, 065010 (2010).
A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi **44**, no. 10S, 131 (2001).
N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 10267 (2000).
J. Alicea, Rep. Prog. Phys. **75**, 076501 (2012).
L. Fidkowshi, A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 075103 (2011).
A. M. Turner, F. Pollman, and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 075102 (2011).
P. Fendley, J. Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2012, P11020.
J. Motruk, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 085115 (2013).
J. Alicea and P. Fendley, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics **7**, 119-139 (2016).
N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, G. Refael, and A. Stern, Phys. Rev. X **2**, 041002 (2012).
D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, and K. Shtengel, Nature Commun. **4**, 1348 (2013).
M. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 195126 (2012).
M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Commun. Math. Phys. **144**, 443 (1992).
F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 094423 (2006).
N. Schuch, D. Poiblanc, J. I. Cirac, and D. Peres-Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 090501 (2013).
J. Haegeman, V. Zauner, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Nature Commun. **6**, 8284 (2015).
X. Chen, Z. C. Gu and X. G. Wen, [Phys. Rev. B]{} **83**, 035107 (2011); *ibid* **84**, 235128 (2011).
N. Schuch, D. Perez-Garcia and I. Cirac, [Phys. Rev. B]{} **84**, 165139 (2011).
X. Chen, Z. C. Gu, Z. X. Liu and X. G. Wen, [Phys. Rev. B]{} **87**, 155114 (2013).
M. Rispler, K. Duivenvoorden, and N. Schuch, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 155133 (2015).
N. Bultinck, D. J. Williamson, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B **95**, 075108 (2017).
A. Kapustin, A. Turzillo, and M. You, arXiv:1610:10075 (2016).
W. T. Xu and G. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B **95**, 195122 (2017).
B. Roberto and T. Quella, J. Stat. Phys. (2013) P10024.
E. Fradkin and L. P. Kadanoff, Nucl. Phys. B **170**, 1 (1980).
F. C. Alcaraz and R. Koberle, Phys. Rev. D **24**, 1562 (1981).
H. Weyl, *The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics* (Dover, New York, 1950).
E. Cobanera and G. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. A **89**, 012328 (2014).
A. Alexandradinata, N. Regnault, C. Fang, M. J. Gilbert, B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B **94**, 125103 (2016).
D. E. Evans and E. Hoegh-Krohn, J. London Math. Soc. **17**, 345-355 (1978).
J. I. Cirac, D. Poilblanc, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 245134 (2011).
V. Zauner-Stauber, F. Verstraete, New J. Phys. **18**, 113033 (2016).
D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, Quantum Inf. Comput. **7**, 401 (2007).
X. G. Wen. Rev. Mod. Phys. **89**, 041004 (2017).
J. Lee, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 226402 (2013).
A. S. Jermyn, R. S. K. Mong, J. Alicea, P. Fendley, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 165106 (2014).
F. Iemini, C. Mora, L. Mazza, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 170402 (2017).
N. Schuch, J. I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, Ann. Phys. **325**, 2153 (2010).
D. Meidan, E. Berg, A. Stern, arXiv: 1701.01133v1 (2017).
Z. C. Gu, F. Verstraete, X. G. Wen, arXiv:1004.2563.
C. Wille, O. Buerschaper and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. B. **95**, 245127 (2017).
D. J. Williamson, N. Bultinck, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, arXiv:1609.02897 (2016).
A Trautman, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, 2006, 49(4): 518-530.
J. I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, Ann. Phys. **378**, 100 (2017).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Noncommutative analysis and quantum physics**]{}\
[**I. Quantities, ensembles and states**]{}
*[**Arnold Neumaier**]{}*
*Institut für Mathematik, Universität Wien*
*Strudlhofgasse 4, A-1090 Wien, Austria*
*email: [email protected]*
*WWW: http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/neum/*
In this sequence of papers, noncommutative analysis is used to give a consistent axiomatic approach to a unified conceptual foundation of classical and quantum physics, free of undefined terms. The present Part I defines the concepts of quantities, ensembles, and states, clarifies the logical relations and operations for them, and shows how they give rise to probabilities and dynamics. The stochastic and the deterministic features of quantum physics are separated in a clear way by consistently distinguishing between ensembles (representing stochastic elements) and states (representing realistic elements). Ensembles are defined by extending the ‘probability via expectation’ approach of Whittle to noncommuting quantities. This approach carries no connotations of unlimited repeatability; hence it can be applied to unique systems such as the universe. Precise concepts and traditional results about complementarity, uncertainty and nonlocality follow with a minimum of technicalities. Probabilities are introduced in a generality supporting so-called effects (i.e., fuzzy events). States are defined as partial mappings that provide reference values for certain quantities. An analysis of sharpness properties yields well-known no-go theorems for hidden variables. By dropping the sharpness requirement, hidden variable theories such as Bohmian mechanics can be accommodated, but so-called ensemble states turn out to be a more natural realization of a realistic state concept. The weak law of large numbers explains the emergence of classical properties for macroscopic systems. Dynamics is introduced via a one-parameter group of automorphisms. A detailed conceptual analysis of the dynamics in terms of Poisson algebras will follow in the second part of this series. The paper realizes a strong formal implementation of Bohr’s correspondence principle. In all instances, classical and quantum concepts are fully parallel: a single common theory has a classical realization and a quantum realization.
[**Keywords**]{}: axiomatization of physics, Bell inequality, Bohmian mechanics, complementarity, correspondence principle, deterministic, effect, elements of physical reality, ensemble, event, expectation, flow of truth, foundations of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg picture, hidden variables, ideal measurement, nonlocality, foundations of probability, preparation of states, quantities, quantum correlations, quantum logic, quantum probability, reference value, Schrödinger picture, sharpness spin, state, state of the universe, uncertainty relation, weak law of large numbers, Young measure
[**E-print Archive No.**]{}: quant-ph/0001096 : 03.65.Bz, 05.30.Ch : primary 81P10, secondary 81S05
Introduction {#intro}
============
This paper is the first one of a series of papers designed to give a mathematically elementary and philosophically consistent axiomatic foundation of modern theoretical physics, free of undefined terms. It is an attempt to reconsider, from the point of view of noncommutative analysis, [Hilbert]{}’s [@Hil] sixth problem, the [*axiomatization of theoretical physics*]{}. (It is an attempt only since at the present stage of development, I have not yet tried to achieve full mathematical rigor everywhere. However, the present Part I is completely rigorous, and in later parts the few places where the standard of rigor is relaxed will be explicitly mentioned.)
The purpose is to provide precise mathematical concepts that match all concepts that physicists use to describe their experiments and their theory, in sufficiently close correspondence to reproduce at least that part of physics that is amenable to numerical verification.
One of the basic premises of this work is that the split between classical physics and quantum physics should be as small as possible. Except in the examples, the formalism never distinguishes between the classical and the quantum situation. Thus it can be considered as a consequent implementation of [Bohr]{}’s [*correspondence principle*]{}. This also has didactical advantages for teaching: Students can be trained to be acquainted with the formalism by means of intuitive, primarily classical examples at first. Later, without having to unlearn anything, they can apply the same formalism to quantum phenomena.
The present Part I is concerned with giving (more carefully than usual, and without reference to measurement) a concise foundation by defining the concepts of quantities, ensembles, and states, clarifying the logical relations and operations for them, and showing how they give rise to the traditional postulates of quantum mechanics, including probabilities and dynamics.
The stochastic and the deterministic features of quantum physics are separated in a clear way by consistently distinguishing between ensembles (representing stochastic elements) and states (representing realistic elements).
Most of what is done here is common wisdom in quantum mechanics; see, e.g., [Jammer]{} [@Jam1; @Jam2], [Jauch]{} [@Jau], [Messiah]{} [@Mes], [von Neumann]{} [@vNeu].
However, the new interpretation slightly shifts the meaning of the concept of a state, fixing it in a way that allows to embed and analyze different interpretations of the quantum mechanical formalism, including both orthodox views such as the Copenhagen interpretation and hidden-variable theories such as Bohmian mechanics.
To motivate the conceptual foundation and to place it into context, I found it useful to embed the formalism into my philosophy of physics, while [*strictly separating the mathematics by using a formal definition-example-theorem-proof exposition style*]{}. Though I present my view generally without using subjunctive formulations or qualifying phrases, I do not claim that this is the only way to understand physics. However, I did attempt to integrate different points of view. And I believe that my philosophical view is consistent with the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and accommodates naturally a number of puzzling questions about the nature of the world.
The stochastic contents of quantum theory is determined by the restrictions noncommutativity places upon the preparation of experiments. Since the information going into the preparation is always extrapolated from finitely many observations in the past, it can only be described in a statistical way, i.e., by ensembles.
Ensembles are defined by extending to noncommuting quantities [Whittle]{}’s [@Whi] elegant expectation approach to classical probability theory. This approach carries no connotations of unlimited repeatability; hence it can be applied to unique systems such as the universe. The weak law of large numbers relates abstract ensembles and concrete mean values over many instances of quantities with the same stochastic behavior within a single system.
Precise concepts and traditional results about complementarity, uncertainty and nonlocality follow with a minimum of technicalities. In particular, nonlocal correlations predicted by [Bell]{} [@Bel] and first detected by [Aspect]{} [@Asp] are shown to be already consequences of the nature of quantum mechanical ensembles and do not depend on hidden variables or on counterfactual reasoning.
The concept of probability itself is derived from that of an ensemble by means of a formula motivated from classical ensembles that can be described as a finite weighted mean of properties of finitely many elementary events. Probabilities are introduced in a generality supporting so-called effects, a sort of fuzzy events (related to POV measures that play a significant role in measurement theory; see [Busch]{} et al. [@BusGL; @BusLM], [Davies]{} [@Dav], [Peres]{} [@Per3]). The weak law of large numbers provides the relation to the frequency interpretation of probability. As a special case of the definition, one gets without any effort the well-known squared probability amplitude formula for transition probabilities.
States are defined as partial mappings that provide objective reference values for certain quantities. Sharpness of quantities is defined in terms of laws for the reference values, in particular the squaring law that requires the value of a squared sharp quantity $f$ to be equal to the squared value of $f$. It is shown that the values of sharp quantities must belong to their spectrum, and that requiring all quantities to be sharp produces contradictions over Hilbert spaces of dimension $>3$. This is related to well-known no-go theorems for hidden variables. (However, recent constructive results by [Clifton & Kent]{} [@CliK] show that in the finite-dimensional case there are states with a dense set of sharp quantities.)
An analysis of a well-known macroscopic reference value, the center of mass, leads us to reject the sharpness requirement. Without universal sharpness, hidden variable theories such as Bohmian mechanics ([Bohm]{} [@Boh]; cf. [Holland]{} [@Hol]) can be accommodated. However, the Bohmian states violate monotony, and so-called ensemble states turn out to be a more natural realization of a realistic state concept.
With ensemble states, quantum objects are intrinsically extended, real objects; e.g., the reference radius of a hydrogen atom in the ground state is 1.5 times the Bohr radius. Moreover, in ensemble states, the weak law of large numbers explains the emergence of classical properties for macroscopic systems.
Thus ensemble states provide an elegant solution to the reality problem, confirming the insistence of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation on that there is nothing but ensembles, while avoiding their elusive reality picture.
Finally, it is outlined how dynamical properties fit into the present setting. Dynamics is introduced via a one-parameter group of automorphisms. A detailed conceptual analysis of the dynamics in terms of a differential calculus based on Poisson algebras will follow in the second part of this series.
Subsequent parts of this sequence of papers will present the calculus of integration and its application to equilibrium thermodynamics, a theory of measurement, a relativistic covariant Hamiltonian multiparticle theory, and its application to nonequilibrium thermodynamics and field theory.
As in this first paper, each topic will be presented in a uniform way, classical and quantum versions being only special cases of a single theory.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} I’d like to thank Waltraud Huyer, Willem de Muynck, Hermann Schichl, Tapio Schneider, Victor Stenger, Karl Svozil and Roderich Tumulka for useful discussions of an earlier version of this manuscript.
Quantities
==========
All our scientific knowledge is based on past observation, and only gives rise to conjectures about the future. Mathematical consistency requires that our choices are constrained by some formal laws. When we want to predict something, the true answer depends on knowledge we do not have. We can calculate at best approximations whose accuracy can be estimated using statistical techniques (assuming that the quality of our models is good).
This implies that we must distinguish between [*quantities*]{} (formal concepts of what can possibly be measured or calculated) and [*numbers*]{} (the results of measurements and calculations themselves); those quantities that are constant by the nature of the concept considered behave just like numbers.
Physicists are used to calculating with quantities that they may add and multiply without restrictions; if the quantities are complex, the complex conjugate can also be formed. It must also be possible to compare quantities, at least in certain cases.
Therefore we take as primitive objects of our treatment a set $\Ez$ of quantities, such that the sum and the product of quantities is again a quantity, and there is an operation generalizing complex conjugation. Moreover, we assume that there is an ordering relation that allows us to compare two quantities.
Operations on quantities and their comparison are required to satisfy a few simple rules; they are called [**axioms**]{} since we take them as a formal starting point without making any further demands on the nature of the symbols we are using. Our axioms are motivated by the wish to be as general as possible while still preserving the ability to manipulate quantities in the manner familiar from matrix algebra. (Similar axioms for quantities have been proposed, e.g., by [Dirac]{} [@Dir].)
\(i) $\Ez$ denotes a set whose elements are called [**quantities**]{}. For any two quantities $f,g\in\Ez$, the [**sum**]{} $f+g$, the [**product**]{} $fg$, and the [**conjugate**]{} $f^*$ are also quantities. It is also specified for which pairs of quantities the relation $f\geq g$ holds.
The following axioms (Q1)–(Q8) are assumed to hold for all complex numbers $\alpha\in\Cz$ and all quantities $f,g,h\in\Ez$.
(Q1) $\Cz \subseteq \Ez$, i.e., complex numbers are special quantities, where addition, multiplication and conjugation have their traditional meaning.
(Q2) [$(fg)h=f(gh)$, $\alpha f=f\alpha $, $0f=0$, $1f=f$.]{}
(Q3) [$(f+g)+h=f+(g+h)$, $f(g+h)=fg+fh$, $f+0=f$.]{}
(Q4) [$f^{**}=f$, $(fg)^* =g^* f^* $, $(f+g)^* =f^* +g^*$.]{}
(Q5) [$f^* f =0 \implies f =0$.]{}
(Q6) $\geq$ is a partial order, i.e., it is reflexive ($f\geq f$), antisymmetric ($f\geq g \geq f \Rightarrow f=g$) and transitive ($f\geq g \geq h \Rightarrow f \geq h)$.
(Q7) [$f\geq g \implies f+h\geq g+h$.]{}
(Q8) [$f\geq 0 \implies f=f^*$ and $g^*fg\geq 0$.]{}
(Q9) $1 \geq 0$.
If (Q1)–(Q9) are satisfied we say that $\Ez$ is a [**Q-algebra**]{}.
\(ii) We introduce the traditional notation $$f \leq g :\Leftrightarrow g\geq f,$$ $$-f:=(-1)f,~~ f-g:=f+(-g), ~~~[f,g]:=fg-gf,$$ $$f^0:=1,~~ f^l:=f^{l-1}f~~~ (l=1,2,\dots ),$$ $$\re f = \half(f+f^*),~~~\im f = \frac{1}{2i}(f-f^*),$$ $$\|f\|=\inf\{\alpha\in\Rz \mid f^*f \leq \alpha^2, \alpha\geq0 \}.$$ (The infimum of the empty set is taken to be $\infty$.) $[f,g]$ is called the [**commutator**]{} of $f$ and $g$, $\re f$, $\im f$ and $\|f\|$ are referred to as the [**real part**]{}, the [**imaginary part**]{}, and the [**(spectral) norm**]{} of $f$, respectively. The [**uniform topology**]{} is the topology induced on $\Ez$ by declaring a set $E$ open if it contains a ball $\{f\in\Ez \mid \|f\|<\eps\}$ for some $\eps>0$.
\(iii) A quantity $f\in\Ez$ is called [**bounded**]{} if $\|f\|<\infty$, [**Hermitian**]{} if $f^*=f$, and [**normal**]{} if $[f,f^*]=0$. More generally, a set $F$ of quantities is called [**normal**]{} if all its quantities commute with each other and with their conjugates.
Note that every Hermitian quantity (and in a commutative algebra, every quantity) is normal. Physical observables will be among the normal quantities, but until we define (in a later part of this sequence of papers) what it means to ‘observe’ a quantity we avoid talking about observables.
\(i) The commutative algebra $\Ez = \Cz^n$ with pointwise multiplication and componentwise inequalities is a Q-algebra, if vectors with constant entries $\alpha$ are identified with $\alpha\in\Cz$. This Q-algebra describes properties of $n$ classical elementary events; cf. Example \[ex.5.3\](i).
\(ii) $\Ez=\Cz^{n\times n}$ is a Q-algebra if complex numbers are identified with the scalar multiples of the identity matrix, and $f\geq g$ iff $f-g$ is Hermitian and positive semidefinite. This Q-algebra describes quantum systems with $n$ levels. For $n=2$, it also describes a single spin, or a qubit.
\(iii) The algebra of all complex-valued functions on a set $\Omega$, with pointwise multiplication and pointwise inequalities is a Q-algebra. Suitable subalgebras of such algebras describe classical probability theory – cf. Example \[ex1.4\](i) – and classical mechanics – cf. Example \[ex.classquant\](i). In the latter case, $\Omega$ is the phase space of the system considered.
\(iv) The algebra of bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space $\Hz$, with $f\geq g$ iff $f-g$ is Hermitian and positive semidefinite, is a Q-algebra. They (or the more general $C^*$-algebras and von Neumann algebras) are frequently taken as the basis of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.
\(v) The algebra of continuous linear operators on the Schwartz space ${\cal S}(\Omega_{qu})$ of rapidly decaying functions on a manifold $\Omega_{qu}$ is a Q-algebra. It also allows the discussion of unbounded quantities. In quantum physics, $\Omega_{qu}$ is the configuration space of the system.
Note that physicist generally need to work with unbounded quantities, while much of the discussion on foundations takes the more restricted Hilbert space point of view. The theory presented here is formulated in a way to take care of unbounded quantities, while in our examples, we select the point of view as deemed profitable.
We shall see that, for the general, qualitative aspects of the theory there is no need to know any details of how to actually perform calculations with quantities; this is only needed if one wants to calculate specific properties for specific systems. In this respect, the situation is quite similar to the traditional axiomatic treatment of real numbers: The axioms specify the permitted ways to handle formulas involving these numbers; and this is enough to derive calculus, say, without the need to specify either what real numbers [*are*]{} or algorithmic rules for addition, multiplication and division. Of course, the latter are needed when one wants to do specific calculations but not while one tries to get insight into a problem. And as the development of pocket calculators has shown, the capacity for understanding theory and that for knowing the best ways of calculation need not even reside in the same person.
Note that we assume commutativity only between numbers and quantities. However, general commutativity of the addition is a consequence of our other assumptions. We prove this together with some other useful relations.
For all quantities $f$, $g$, $h\in \Ez$ and $\lambda \in\Cz$, (f+g)h=fh+gh, f-f=0, f+g=g+f \[f,f\^\*\]=-2i\[f,f\], f\^\*f0, ff\^\*0. f\^\*f0 f=0 f=0, fg h\^\*fhh\^\*gh, ||f||g, f\^\*g+g\^\*f2f g, f=|| f, fgfg, f gf g.
The right distributive law follows from $$\begin{array}{lll}
(f+g)h&=&((f+g)h)^{* *}=(h^* (f+g)^* )^* =(h^* (f^* +g^* ))^* \\
&=&(h^* f^* +h^* g^* )^* =(h^* f^* )^* +(h^* g^* )^* \\
&=&f^{* * }h^{* * }+g^{* * }h^{* * }=fh+gh.
\end{array}$$ It implies $f-f=1f-1f=(1-1)f=0f=0$. From this, we may deduce that addition is commutative, as follows. The quantity $h:=-f+g$ satisfies $$-h=(-1)((-1)f+g)=(-1)(-1)f+(-1)g=f-g,$$ and we have $$f+g=f+(h-h)+g=(f+h)+(-h+g)=(f-f+g)+(f-g+g)=g+f.$$ This proves . If $u=\re f$, $v=\im f$ then $u^*=u,v^*=v$ and $f=u+iv, f^*=u-iv$. Hence $$[f,f^*]=(u+iv)(u-iv)-(u-iv)(u+iv)=2i(vu-uv)=-2i[\re f,\im f],$$ giving . – follow directly from (Q7) – (Q9). Now let $\alpha=\|f\|$, $\beta=\|g\|$. Then $f^*f\leq \alpha^2$ and $g^*g\leq \beta^2$. Since $$\begin{array}{lll}
0\leq (\beta f - \alpha g)^*(\beta f - \alpha g)&=&
\beta^2f^*f-\alpha\beta(f^*g+g^*f)+\alpha^2 g^*g\\
&\leq& \beta^2\alpha^2 \pm\alpha\beta(f^*g+g^*f) +\alpha^2 g^*g,
\end{array}$$ $f^*g+g^*f\leq 2\alpha\beta$ if $\alpha\beta\neq 0$, and for $\alpha\beta=0$, the same follows from . Therefore holds. The first half of is trivial, and the second half follows for the plus sign from $$(f+g)^*(f+g)=f^*f+f^*g+g^*f+g^*g
\leq \alpha^2+ 2\alpha\beta+\beta^2=(\alpha+\beta)^2,$$ and then for the minus sign from the first half. Finally, by , $$(fg)^*(fg)=g^*f^*fg\leq g^*\alpha^2g=\alpha^2g^*g\leq\alpha^2\beta^2.$$ This implies .
\[c1.3\]
\(i) Among the complex numbers, precisely the nonnegative real numbers $\lambda$ satisfy $\lambda\geq 0$.
\(ii) For all $f\in\Ez$, $\re f$ and $\im f$ are Hermitian. $f$ is Hermitian iff $f=\re f$ iff $\im f=0$. If $f,g$ are commuting Hermitian quantities then $fg$ is Hermitian, too.
\(iii) $f$ is normal iff $[\re f,\im f]=0$.
\(i) If $\lambda$ is a nonnegative real number then $\lambda=f^*f\geq0$ with $f=\sqrt{\lambda}$. If $\lambda$ is a negative real number then $\lambda=-f^*f\leq0$ with $f=\sqrt{-\lambda}$, and by antisymmetry, $\lambda\geq0$ is impossible. If $\lambda$ is a nonreal number then $\lambda\neq\lambda^*$ and $\lambda\geq0$ is impossible by (Q8).
The first two assertions of (ii) are trivial, and the third holds since $(fg)^*=g^*f^*=gf=fg$ if $f,g$ are Hermitian and commute.
\(iii) follows from .
Thus, in conventional terminology (see, e.g., [Rickart]{} [@Ric]), $\Ez$ is a [**partially ordered nondegenerate \*-algebra with unity**]{}, but not necessarily with a commutative multiplication.
In the realizations of the axioms I know of, e.g., in $C^*$-algebras ([Rickart]{} [@Ric]), we also have the relations $$\|f^*\|=\|f\|,~~~\|f^*f\|=\|f\|^2,$$ and $$0\leq f \leq g \implies f^2 \leq g^2,$$ but I have not been able to prove these from the present axioms, and they were not needed to develop the theory.
As the example $\Ez=\Cz^{n\times n}$ shows, $\Ez$ may have zero divisors, and not every nonzero quantity need have an inverse. Therefore, in the manipulation of formulas, precisely the same precautions must be taken as in ordinary matrix algebra.
Complementarity {#compl}
===============
The lack of commutativity gives rise to the phenomenon of complementarity, expressed by inequalities that demonstrate the danger of simply thinking of quantities in terms of numbers.
Two Hermitian quantities $f,g$ are called [**complementary**]{} if there is a real number $\gamma>0$ such that (f-x)\^2+(g-y)\^2 \^2 x,y.
\(i) The Q-algebra of all complex-valued functions on a set $\Omega$ contains no complementary pair of quantities. Indeed, setting $x=f(\omega)$, $y=g(\omega)$ in , we find $0\geq \gamma^2$, contradicting complementarity.
Thus complementarity captures the phenomenon where two quantities do not have simultaneous sharp classical ‘values’. (See also Section \[states\].)
\(ii) $\Cz^{2\times2}$ contains a complementary pair of quantities. Indeed, the Pauli matrices \_1 =(
[l]{}0 1\
1 0
), \_3 =(
[l]{}1 0\
0 -1
) are complementary; see Proposition \[p.comp\](i) below.
\(iii) The algebra of bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space of dimension $>1$ contains a complementary pair of quantities, since it contains many subalgebras isomorphic to $\Cz^{2\times2}$.
\(iv) In the algebra of all linear operators on the Schwartz space ${\cal S}(\Rz)$, [**position**]{} $q$, defined by $$(qf)(x)=xf(x),$$ and [**momentum**]{} $p$, defined by $$(pf)(x)=-i\hbar f'(x),$$ where $\hbar>0$ is Planck’s constant, are complementary. Since $q$ and $p$ are Hermitian, this follows from the easily verified [**canonical commutation relation**]{} \[q,p\]=iand Proposition \[p.comp\](ii) below.
\[p.comp\]
\(i) The Pauli matrices satisfy (\_1-s\_1)\^2+(\_3-s\_3)\^2 1 s\_1,s\_3.
\(ii) Let $p,q$ be Hermitian quantities satisfying $[q,p]=i\hbar$. Then, for any $k,x\in\Rz$ and any positive $\Delta p,\Delta q \in\Rz$, ()\^2+()\^2 .
\(i) A simple calculation gives $$(\sigma_1-s_1)^2+(\sigma_3-s_3)^2-1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
s_1^2+(1-s_3)^2 & -2s_1 \\
-2s_1 & s_1^2+(1+s_3)^2 \\
\end{array}\right) \geq 0,$$ since the diagonal is nonnegative and the determinant is $(s_1^2+s_3^2-1)^2\geq 0$.
\(ii) The quantities $f=(q-x)/\Delta q$ and $g=(p-k)/\Delta p$ are Hermitian and satisfy $[f,g]=[q,p]/\Delta q\Delta p=i\kappa$ where $\kappa=\hbar/\Delta q\Delta p$. Now follows from $$0\leq (f+ig)^*(f+ig)=f^2+g^2+i[f,g]=f^2+g^2-\kappa.$$
The complementarity of position and momentum expressed by is the deeper reason for the Heisenberg uncertainty relation discussed later in and .
In $\Cz^{n\times n}$, two complementary quantities cannot commute.
Any two commuting quantities $f,g$ have a common eigenvector $\psi$. If $f\psi=x\psi$ and $g\psi=y\psi$ then $\psi^*((f-x)^2+(g-y)^2)\psi=0$, whereas implies $$\psi^*(f-x)^2+(g-y)^2)\psi\geq \gamma^2\psi^*\psi >0.$$ Thus $f,g$ cannot be complementary.
I have not been able to decide whether complementary quantities can possibly commute. (It is impossible when there is a joint spectral resolution.)
Ensembles
=========
The stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is usually discussed in terms of [*probabilities*]{}. However, from a strictly logical point of view, this has the drawback that one gets into conflict with the traditional foundation of probability theory by [Kolmogorov]{} [@Kol], which does not extend to the noncommutative case. Mathematical physicists (see, e.g., [Parthasarathy]{} [@Par], [Meyer]{} [@Mey]) developed a far reaching quantum probability calculus based on Hilbert space theory. But their approach is highly formal, drawing its motivation from analogies to the classical case rather than from the common operational meaning.
[Whittle]{} [@Whi] presents a much less known alternative approach to classical probability theory, equivalent to that of Kolmogorov, that treats [*expectation*]{} as the basic concept and derives probability from axioms for the expectation. (See the discussion in [@Whi Section 3.4] why, for historical reasons, this has remained a minority approach.)
The approach via expectations is easy to motivate, leads quickly to interesting results, and extends without much trouble to the quantum world, yielding the ensembles (‘mixed states’) of traditional quantum physics. As we shall see, explicit probabilities enter only at a very late stage of the development.
A significant advantage of the expectation approach compared with the probability approach is that it is intuitively more removed from connotations of ‘unlimited repeatability’. Hence it can be naturally used for [*unique*]{} systems such as the set of all natural globular proteins (cf., e.g., [Neumaier]{} [@Neu.prot]), the climate of the earth, or the universe, and to deterministic, pseudo-random behavior such as rounding errors in floating point computations (cf., e.g., [Higham]{} [@Hig Section 2.6]), once these have enough complexity to exhibit finite [*internal*]{} repetitivity to which the weak law of large numbers (Theorem \[t.weaklaw\] below) may be applied.
The axioms we shall require for meaningful expectations are those trivially satisfied for weighted averages of a finite ensemble of observations. While this motivates the form of the axioms and the name ‘ensemble’ attached to the concept, there is no need at all to interpret expectation as an average; this is the case only in certain classical situations. In general, ensembles are simply a way to consistently organize structured data obtained by some process of observation.
For the purpose of statistical analysis and prediction, it is completely irrelevant what this process of observation entails. What matters is only that for certain quantities observed values are available that can be compared with their expectations. The expectation of a quantity $f$ is simply a value near which, based on the theory, we should expect an observed value for $f$. At the same time, the standard deviation serves as a measure of the amount to which we should expect this nearness to deviate from exactness.
For science, however, it is of utmost importance to have well-defined protocols that specify what are valid observations. Such standardized protocols guarantee that the observations are repeatable and hence objective. On the other hand, these protocols require a level of description not appropriate for the foundations of a discipline. Therefore, at the present fundamental level of exposition, observed values are undefined, and not yet part of the formal development. In physics, they need a theory of measurement, which will be discussed in a later part of this sequence of papers.
\(i) An [**ensemble**]{} is a mapping $^-$ that assigns to each quantity $f \in \Ez$ its [**expectation**]{} $\overline{f}=:\< f\> \in \Cz$ such that for all $f,g \in \Ez$, $\alpha \in \Cz$,
(E1) $\<1\> =1, ~~\<f^*\>=\<f\>^*,~~ \< f+g\> =\<f\> +\<g\> $,
(E2) $\<\alpha f\> =\alpha\<f\>$,
(E3) If $f \ge 0$ then $\<f\> \ge 0$,
(E4) If $f_l\in\Ez,~ f_l \downarrow 0$ then $\inf \<f_l\> = 0$.
Here $f_l \downarrow 0$ means that the $f_l$ converge almost everywhere to $0$ and $f_{l+1}\leq f_l$ for all $l$.
\(ii) The number $$\cov(f,g):=\re \<(f-\overline{f})^*(g-\overline{g}) \>$$ is called the [**covariance**]{} of $f,g\in\Ez$. Two quantities $f,g$ are called [**correlated**]{} if $\cov(f,g)\neq0$, and [**uncorrelated**]{} otherwise.
\(iii) The number $$\sigma(f):=\sqrt{\cov(f,f)}$$ is called the [**uncertainty**]{} or [**standard deviation**]{} of $f\in\Ez$ in the ensemble $\<\cdot\>$.
(We shall not use axiom (E4) in this paper and therefore defer technicalities about almost everywhere convergence to a more detailed treatment in a later part of this sequence of papers).
This definition generalizes the expectation axioms of [Whittle]{} [@Whi Section 2.2] for classical probability theory and the definitions of elementary classical statistics. Note that (E3) ensures that $\sigma(f)$ is a nonnegative real number that vanishes if $f$ is a constant quantity (i.e., a complex number).
\[ex.5.3\]
\(i) [**Finite probability theory.**]{} In the commutative Q-algebra $\Ez = \Cz^n$ with pointwise multiplication and componentwise inequalities, every linear functional on $\Ez$, and in particular every ensemble, has the form f=\_[k=1]{}\^n p\_k f\_k for certain weights $p_k$. The ensemble axioms hold precisely when the $p_k$ are nonnegative and add up to one; thus $\<f\>$ is a weighted average, and the weights have the intuitive meaning of ‘probabilities’.
Note that the weights can be recovered from the expectation by means of the formula $p_k=\<e_k\>$, where $e_k$ is the unit vector with a one in component $k$.
\(ii) [**Quantum mechanical ensembles.**]{} In the Q-algebra $\Ez$ of bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space $\Hz$, quantum mechanics describes a [**pure ensemble**]{} (traditionally called a ‘pure state’, but we shall reserve the name ‘state’ for a concept defined in Section \[states\]) by the expectation $$\<f\>:=\psi^*f\psi,$$ where $\psi\in\Hz$ is a unit vector. And quantum thermodynamics describes an [**equilibrium ensemble**]{} by the expectation $$\<f\>:=\tr e^{-S/\kbar}f,$$ where $\kbar>0$ is the [**Boltzmann constant**]{}, and $S$ is a Hermitian quantity with $\tr e^{-S/\kbar}=1$ called the [**entropy**]{} whose spectrum is discrete and bounded below. In both cases, the ensemble axioms are easily verified.
\[p5.2\]
For any ensemble,
\(i) $f\leq g \implies \<f\> \leq \<g\>$.
\(iii) For $f,g\in\Ez$, $$\cov(f,g)=\re(\<f^*g\>-\<f\>^*\<g\>),$$ $$\<f^*f\>=\<f\>^*\<f\>+\sigma(f)^2,$$ $$|\<f\>|\leq\sqrt{\<f^*f\>}.$$
\(iii) If $f$ is Hermitian then $\bar f = \<f\>$ is real and $$\sigma(f)=\sqrt{\<(f-\overline{f})^2 \>}
=\sqrt{\<f^2\>-\<f\>^2}.$$
\(iv) Two commuting Hermitian quantities $f,g$ are uncorrelated iff $$\<fg\>=\<f\>\<g\>.$$
\(i) follows from (E1) and (E3).
\(ii) The first formula holds since $$\<(f-\bar f)^*(g-\bar g)\>
=\<f^*g\>-\bar f^*\<g\>-\<f\>^*\bar g +\bar f^*\bar g
= \<f^*g\>-\<f\>^*\<g\>.$$ The second formula follows for $g=f$, using (E1), and the third formula is an immediate consequence.
\(iii) follows from (E1) and (ii).
\(iv) If $f,g$ are Hermitian and commute the $fg$ is Hermitian by Corollary \[c1.3\](ii), hence $\<fg\>$ is real. By (iii), $\cov(f,g)=\<fg\>-\<f\>\<g\>$, and the assertion follows.
Fundamental for the practical use of ensembles, and basic to statistical mechanics, is the [**weak law of large numbers**]{}:
\[t.weaklaw\] For a family of quantities $f_l$ $(l=1, \ldots , N)$ with constant expectation $\< f_l \> = \mu$, the [**mean value**]{} $$\bar f := \frac{1}{N} \D \sum ^N _{l=1} f_l$$ satisfies $$\< \bar f \> =\mu.$$ If, in addition, the $f_l$ are uncorrelated and have constant standard deviation $\sigma(f_l)=\sigma$ then (|f) = / becomes arbitrarily small as $N$ becomes sufficiently large.
We have $$\<\bar f\> =\frac{1}{N}(\<f_1\>+\dots+\<f_N\> )
=\frac{1}{N}(\mu+\dots+\mu)=\mu$$ and $$\bar f^*\bar f=\frac{1}{N^2}\Big(\sum_jf_j\Big)^*\Big(\sum_kf_k\Big)
=N^{-2}\sum_{j,k}f_j^*f_k.$$ Now $$\<f_j^*f_j\>=\<f_j\>^*\<f_j\>+\sigma(f_j)^2=|\mu|^2+\sigma^2$$ and, if the $f_l$ are uncorrelated, for $j\neq k$, $$\<f_j^*f_k+f_k^*f_j\>=2\re \<f_j^*f_k\>
=2\re \<f_j\>^*\<f_k\>=2\re \mu^*\mu=2|\mu|^2.$$ Hence $$\begin{array}{lll}
\sigma(\bar f)^2 &=& \<\bar f^*\bar f\>-\<\bar f\>^*\<\bar f\> \\
&=& N^{-2}\Big(N(\sigma^2+|\mu|^2)+{N \choose 2}2|\mu|^2\Big)-\mu^*\mu
=N^{-1}\sigma^2,
\end{array}$$ and the assertions follow.
Uncertainty
===========
Due to our inability to prepare experiments with a sufficient degree of sharpness to know with certainty everything about a system we investigate, we need to describe the preparation of experiments in a stochastic language that permits the discussion of such uncertainties; in other words, we shall model prepared experiments by ensembles.
Formally, the essential difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in the latter’s lack of commutativity. While in classical mechanics there is in principle no lower limit to the uncertainties with which we can prepare the quantities in a system of interest, the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation for noncommuting quantities puts strict limits on the uncertainties in the preparation of microscopic ensembles. Here, [*preparation*]{} is defined informally as bringing the system into an ensemble such that measuring certain quantities gives values that agree with the expectation to an accuracy specified by given uncertainties.
In this section, we discuss the limits of the accuracy to which this can be done.
\(i) The [**Cauchy–Schwarz inequality**]{} $$|\< f^*g \>|^2 \le \< f^*f \>\< g^*g \>$$ holds for all $f,g\in\Ez$.
\(ii) The [**uncertainty relation**]{} $$\sigma(f)^2\sigma(g)^2
\geq |\cov(f,g)|^2+\left|\shalf\<f^*g-g^*f\>\right|^2$$ holds for all $f,g\in\Ez$.
\(iii) For $f,g\in\Ez$, (f,g)=(g,f)=((f+g)\^2-(f)\^2-(g)\^2), |(f,g)| (f)(g), (f+g) (f)+(g). In particular, |fg-fg|(f)(g) f,g.
\(i) For arbitrary $\alpha ,\beta\in \Cz$ we have $$\begin{array}{ll}
0&\le \<(\alpha f-\beta g)^*(\alpha f-\beta g )\> \\
&=\alpha ^* \alpha \< f^*f \>-\alpha ^* \beta \< f^*g \>
-\beta ^*\alpha \< g^*f \>+\beta\beta^* \< g^*g \>\\
&=|\alpha |^2\< f^*f \>-2\re(\alpha ^* \beta \< f^*g \>)
+|\beta|^2\< g^*g \>
\end{array}$$ We now choose $\beta=\< f^*g \>$, and obtain for arbitrary real $\alpha $ the inequality 0\^2 f\^\*f -2| f\^\*g |\^2+| f\^\*g |\^2 g\^\*g . The further choice $\alpha=\< g^*g \>$ gives $$0\le \< g^*g \>^2\< f^*f \>-\< g^*g \>|\< f^*g \>|^2.$$ If $\< g^*g \>>0$, we find after division by $\< g^*g \>$ that (i) holds. And if $\< g^*g \>\le 0$ then $\< g^*g \>=0$ and we have $\< f^*g \>=0$ since otherwise a tiny $\alpha $ produces a negative right hand side in . Thus (i) also holds in this case.
\(ii) Since $(f-\bar f)^*(g-\bar g)-(g-\bar g)^*(f-\bar f)=f^*g-g^*f$, it is sufficient to prove the uncertainty relation for the case of quantities $f,g$ whose expectation vanishes. In this case, (i) implies $$(\re \<f^*g\>)^2 +(\im \<f^*g\>)^2 =|\<f^*g\>|^2 \leq
\< f^*f \>\< g^*g \> = \sigma(f)^2\sigma(g)^2.$$ The assertion follows since $\re \<f^*g\>=\cov(f,g)$ and $$i\im \<f^*g\>=\shalf(\<f^*g\>-\<f^*g\>^*)=\shalf\<f^*g-g^*f\>.$$
\(iii) Again, it is sufficient to consider the case of quantities $f,g$ whose expectation vanishes. Then
[lll]{} (f+g)\^2 &=& (f+g)\^\*(f+g) =f\^\*f+f\^\*g+g\^\*f+g\^\*g\
&=& (f)\^2+2(f,g)+(g)\^2,
and follows. is an immediate consequence of (ii), and follows easily from and . Finally, is a consequence of and Proposition \[p5.2\](iii).
In the classical case of commuting Hermitian quantities, the uncertainty relation just reduces to the well-known inequality of classical statistics. For noncommuting Hermitian quantities, the uncertainty relation is stronger. In particular, we may deduce from the commutation relation for position $q$ and momentum $p$ [Heisenberg]{}’s [@Hei; @Rob] uncertainty relation (q)(p). Thus [*no ensemble exists where both $p$ and $q$ have arbitrarily small standard deviation*]{}. (More general noncommuting Hermitian quantities $f,g$ may have [*some*]{} ensembles with $\sigma(f)=\sigma(g)=0$, namely among those with $\<fg\>=\<gf\>$.)
Putting $k=\bar p$ and $x=\bar q$ and taking expectations in and using Proposition \[p5.2\](iii), we find another version of the uncertainty relation, implying again that $\sigma(p)$ and $\sigma(q)$ cannot be made simultaneously very small: ()\^2 +()\^2 . Heisenberg’s relation follows from it by putting $\Delta p = \sigma(p)$ and $\Delta q = \sigma(q)$.
We now derive a characterization of the quantities $f$ with vanishing uncertainty, $\sigma(f)=0$; in classical probability theory these correspond to quantities (random variables) that have fixed values in every realization.
We say a quantity $f$ [**vanishes**]{} in the ensemble $\<\cdot\>$ if $$\<f^*f\>=0.$$
\(i) $\sigma(f)=0$ iff $f-\<f\>$ vanishes.
\(ii) If $f$ vanishes in the ensemble $\<\cdot\>$ then $\<f\>=0$.
\(iii) The set $V$ of vanishing quantities satisfies $$f+g\in V~~~\mbox{if } f,g\in V,$$ $$fg\in V~~~\mbox{if $g\in V$ and $f\in \Ez$ is bounded},$$ $$f^2\in V~~~\mbox{if $f\in V$ is Hermitian}.$$
\(i) holds since $g=f-\<f\>$ satisfies $\<g^*g\>=\sigma(f)^2$.
\(ii) follows from Proposition \[p5.2\](ii).
\(iii) If $f,g\in V$ then $\<f^*g\>=0$ and $\<g^*f\>=0$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, hence $\<(f+g)^*(f+g)\>=\<f^*f\>+\<g^*g\>=0$, so that $f+h\in V$.
If $g\in V$ and $f$ is bounded then $$(fg)^*(fg)=g^*f^*fg\leq g^*\|f\|^2g=\|f\|^2g^*g$$ implies $\<(fg)^*(fg)\>\leq\|f\|^2\<g^*g\>=0$, so that $fg\in V$.
And if $f\in V$ is Hermitian then $\<f^2\>=\<f^*f\>=0$, and, again by Cauchy-Schwarz, $\<f^4\>\leq\<f^6\>\<f^2\>=0$, so that $f^2\in V$.
Nonlocality
===========
A famous feature of quantum physics is its intrinsic nonlocality, expressed by so-called [**Bell inequalities**]{} (cf. [Bell]{} [@Bel], [Clauser & Shimony]{} [@ClaS]). The formulation given here depends on the most orthodox part of quantum mechanics only; it does not, as is usually done, refer to hidden variables, and involves no counterfactual reasoning.
\[t.bell\] Let $f_k$ ($k=1,2,3,4$) be Hermitian quantities satisfying f\_k\^21 k=1,2,3,4.
\(i) [(cf. [Cirel’son]{} [@Cir])]{} For every ensemble, |f\_1f\_2+f\_3f\_2+f\_3f\_4-f\_1f\_4|2.
\(ii) [(cf. [Clauser]{} et al. [@ClaHS])]{} If, for odd $j-k$, the quantities $f_j$ and $f_k$ commute and are uncorrelated then |f\_1f\_2+f\_3f\_2+f\_3f\_4-f\_1f\_4|2.
\(i) Write $\gamma$ for the left hand side of . Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the easily verified inequality $$\sqrt{\alpha}+\sqrt{\beta}\leq\sqrt{2(\alpha+\beta)}~~~
\mbox{for all } \alpha, \beta \geq 0,$$ we find $$\begin{array}{lll}
\gamma&=&|\<f_1(f_2-f_4)\>+\<f_3(f_2+f_4)\>| \\
&\leq&\sqrt{\<f_1^2\>\<(f_2-f_4)^2\>}+\sqrt{\<f_3^2\>\<(f_2+f_4)^2\>} \\
&\leq&\sqrt{\<(f_2-f_4)^2\>}+\sqrt{\<(f_2+f_4)^2\>} \\
&\leq&\sqrt{2(\<(f_2-f_4)^2\>+\<(f_2+f_4)^2\>)}
=\sqrt{4\<f_2^2+f_4^2\>}=\sqrt{8}. \\
\end{array}$$
\(ii) By Proposition \[p5.2\](ii), $v_k:=\<f_k\>$ satisfies $|v_k|\leq 1$. If $f_j$ and $f_k$ commute and are uncorrelated for odd $j-k$ then Proposition \[p5.2\](iv) implies $\<f_jf_k\>=v_jv_k$ for odd $j-k$. Hence $$\begin{array}{lll}
\gamma&=&|v_1v_2+v_3v_2+v_3v_4-v_1v_4| =|v_1(v_2-v_4)+v_3(v_2+v_4)| \\
&\leq&|v_1|~|v_2-v_4|+|v_3|~|v_2+v_4| \leq |v_2-v_4|+|v_2+v_4| \\
&=&2\max(|v_2|+|v_4|)\leq 2. \\
\end{array}$$
\[spinpair\] In $\Cz^{4 \times 4}$, the four monomial matrices $f_j$ defined by $$f_1x=\left(\begin{array}{r}x_3\\x_4\\x_1\\x_2\end{array}\right),~
f_2x=\left(\begin{array}{r}x_2\\x_1\\x_4\\x_3\end{array}\right),~
f_3x=\left(\begin{array}{r}x_1\\x_2\\-x_3\\-x_4\end{array}\right),~
f_4x=\left(\begin{array}{r}x_1\\-x_2\\x_3\\-x_4\end{array}\right)$$ satisfy , and $f_j$ and $f_k$ commute and are uncorrelated for odd $j-k$. It is easily checked that in the pure ensemble defined by the vector $$\psi=
\left(\begin{array}{r}
\alpha_1\\-\alpha_2\\ \alpha_2\\ \alpha_1
\end{array}\right),
~~~\alpha_{1,2}=\sqrt{\frac{2\pm\sqrt{2}}{8}},$$ $\<f_1f_2\>=\<f_3f_2\>=\<f_3f_4\>=-\<f_1f_4\>=\half\sqrt{2}$. Hence holds with equality and is violated. Indeed, since $\<f_k\>=0$ for all $k$, we see that $f_j$ and $f_k$ are correlated for odd $j-k$.
On identifying $$\left(\begin{array}{l}x_1\\x_2\\x_3\\x_4\end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{l}x_1~~x_2\\x_3~~x_4\end{array}\right)$$ and defining the tensor product action $u\otimes v: x \mapsto uxv^T$, the matrices $f_j$ can be written in terms of the Pauli spin matrices as $$f_1 = \sigma_1 \otimes 1,~~f_2 = 1 \otimes \sigma_1,~~
f_3 = \sigma_3 \otimes 1,~~f_4 = 1 \otimes \sigma_3.$$
If we interpret the two terms in a tensor product as quantities related to two spatially separated fermion particles $A$ and $B$, we conclude that there are pure ensembles in which the components of the spin vectors of two fermion particles are correlated, no matter how far apart the two particles are placed.
Such [*nonlocal correlations*]{} of certain quantum ensembles are an enigma of the microscopic world that, being experimentally confirmed, cannot be removed by any interpretation of quantum mechanics. (See [Bell]{} [@Bel] for the original Bell inequality, [Pitowsky]{} [@Pit] for a treatise on Bell inequalities, and [Aspect]{} [@Asp], [Clauser & Shimony]{} [@ClaS], [Tittel]{} et al. [@TitBG] for experiments verifying the violation of .)
Probability
===========
The interpretation of probability has been surrounded by philosophical puzzles for a long time. [Fine]{} [@Fin] is probably still the best discussion of the problems involved; [Hacking]{} [@Hac] gives a good account of its early history. (See also [Home and Whitaker]{} [@HomW].) Our definition generalizes the classical intuition of probabilities as weights in a weighted average and is modeled after the formula for finite probability theory in Example \[ex.5.3\](i).
In the special case when a well-defined counting process may be associated with the statement whose probability is assessed, our exposition supports the conclusion of [Drieschner]{} [@Dri p.73], [*“probability is predicted relative frequency”*]{} (German original: “Wahrscheinlichkeit ist vorausgesagte relative Häufigkeit”). More specifically, we assert that, [*for counting events, the probability carries the information of expected relative frequency*]{} (see Theorem \[t1.5\](iii) below).
To make this precise we need a precise concept of independent events that may be counted. To motivate our definition, assume that we look at times $t_1,\dots,t_N$ for the presence of an event of the sort we want to count. We introduce quantities $e_l$ whose value is the amount added to the counter at time $t_l$. For correct counting, we need $e_l\approx 1$ if an event happened at time $t_l$, and $e_l\approx 0$ otherwise; thus $e_l$ should have the two possible values $0$ and $1$ only. Since these numbers are precisely the Hermitian idempotents among the constant quantities, this suggests to identify events with general Hermitian idempotent quantities.
In addition, it will be useful to have the more general concept of ‘effects’ for more fuzzy, event-like things.
\(i) A quantity $e \in \Ez$ satisfying $0\leq e\leq 1$ is called an [**effect**]{}. The number $\<e\>$ is called the [**probability**]{} of the effect $e$. Two effects $e,e'$ are called [**independent**]{} in an ensemble $\< \cdot \>$ if they commute and satisfy $$\< ee' \> = \< e \> \< e' \>.$$
\(ii) A quantity $e \in \Ez$ satisfying $e^2 = e = e^*$ is called an [**event**]{}. Two events $e,e'$ are called [**disjoint**]{} if $ee'=e'e=0$.
\(iii) An [**alternative**]{} is a family $e_l$ ($l\in L$) of effects such that $$\sum_{l\in L} e_l \leq 1.$$
\(i) Every event is an effect.
\(ii) The probability of an effect $e$ satisfies $0\leq\<e\>\leq 1$.
\(iii) The set of all effects is convex and closed in the uniform topology.
\(iv) Any two events in an alternative are disjoint.
\(i) holds since $0\leq e^*e=e^2=e$ and $0\leq(1-e)^*(1-e)=1-2e+e^2=1-e$.
\(ii) and (iii) follow easily from Proposition \[p5.2\].
\(iv) If $e_k,e_l$ are events in an alternative then $e_k\leq 1-e_l$ and $$(e_ke_l)^*(e_ke_l)=e_l^*e_k^*e_ke_l=e_l^*e_k^2e_l=e_l^*e_ke_l
\leq e_l^*(1-e_l)e_l=0.$$ Hence $e_ke_l=0$ and $e_le_k=e_l^*e_k^*=(e_ke_l)^*=0$.
Note that we have a well-defined notion of probability though the concept of a probability distribution is absent. It is neither needed nor definable in general. Nevertheless, the theory contains classical probability theory as a special case.
\[ex1.4\]
\(i) [**Classical probability theory.**]{} In classical probability theory, quantities are usually called [**random variables**]{}; they belong to the Q-algebra $B(\Omega)$ of measurable complex-valued functions on a measurable set $\Omega$.
The characteristic function $e = \CHI_M$ of any measurable subset $M$ of $\Omega$ (with $\CHI_M (\omega ) =1$ if $\omega \in M$, $\CHI_M (\omega )=0$ otherwise) is an event. A family of characteristic functions $\CHI_{M_l}$ form an alternative iff their supports $M_l$ are pairwise disjoint.
Effects are the measurable functions $e$ with values in $[0,1]$; they can be considered as ‘characteristic functions’ of a fuzzy set where $\omega \in\Omega$ has $e(\omega )$ as degree of membership (see, e.g., [Zimmermann]{} [@Zim]).
For many applications, the algebra $B(\Omega)$ is too big, and suitable subalgebras $\Ez$ are selected on which the relevant ensembles can be defined as integrals with respect to suitable positive measures.
\(ii) [**Quantum probability theory.**]{} In the algebra of bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space $\Hz$, every unit vector $\phi \in \Hz$ gives rise to an [**elementary event**]{} $e_\phi = \phi\phi ^*$. A family of elementary events $e_{\phi_l}$ form an alternative iff the $\phi_l$ are pairwise orthogonal. The probability of an elementary event $e_\phi$ in an ensemble corresponding to the unit vector $\psi$ is e\_=\^\*e\_=\^\*\^\*=|\^\*|\^2. This is the well-known [**squared probability amplitude**]{} formula, traditionally interpreted as the probability that after preparing a pure ensemble in ‘state’ $\psi$, an ideal measurement causes a ‘state reduction’ to the new pure ‘state’ $\phi$. Note that our interpretation of $|\phi^*\psi|^2$ is completely within the formal framework of the theory and completely independent of the measurement process.
Further, nonelementary quantum events are orthogonal projectors to subspaces. The effects are the Hermitian operators $e$ with spectrum in $[0,1]$.
\[t1.5\]
\(i) For any effect $e$, its [**negation**]{} $\neg e = 1 - e$ is an effect with probability $$\< \neg e \> = 1 - \< e \>;$$ it is an event if $e$ is an event.
\(ii) For commuting effects $e, e'$, the quantities $$e \wedge e' = ee' ~~~(e \mbox{ \bf and } e'),$$ $$e \vee e' = e + e' - ee' ~~~(e \mbox{ \bf or } e')$$ are effects whose probabilities satisfy $$\< e \wedge e' \> + \< e \vee e' \> = \< e \> + \< e' \>;$$ they are events if $e, e'$ are events. Moreover, $$\<e\wedge e'\> = \<e\>\<e'\>~~~\mbox{for independent effects } e, e'.$$
\(iii) For a family of effects $e_l$ $(l=1, \ldots , N)$ with constant probability $\< e_l \> = p$, the [**relative frequency**]{} $$q := \frac{1}{N} \D \sum ^N _{l=1} e_l$$ satisfies $$\< q \> =p.$$ (iv) For a family of independent events of probability $p$, the uncertainty $$\sigma (q) = \sqrt{ \frac{ p(1-p)}{N}}$$ of the relative frequency becomes arbitrarily small as $N$ becomes sufficiently large [**(weak law of large numbers)**]{}.
\(i) $\neg e$ is an effect since $0\leq 1-e\leq1$, and its probability is $\< \neg e \> = \< 1-e \> = 1 - \< e \>$. If $e$ is an event then clearly $\neg e$ is Hermitian, and $(\neg e)^2=(1-e)^2=1-2e+e^2=1-e=\neg e$. Hence $\neg e$ is an event.
\(ii) Since $e$ and $e'$ commute, $e \wedge e'=ee'=e^2e'=ee'e$. Since $ee'e\geq0$ and $ee'e\leq ee=e\leq1$, we see that $e \wedge e'$ is an effect. Therefore, $e \vee e'=e+e'-ee'=1-(1-e)(1-e')=\neg (\neg e\wedge \neg e')$ is also an effect. The assertions about expectations are immediate. If $e,e'$ are events then $(ee')^* =e'^* e^* =e'e=ee'$, hence $ee'$ is Hermitian; and it is idempotent since $(ee')^2=ee'ee'=e^2e'^2=ee'$. Therefore $e \wedge e'=ee'$ is an event, and $e \vee e'=\neg (\neg e\wedge \neg e')$ is an event, too.
\(iii) This is immediate by taking the expectation of $q$.
\(iv) This follows from Theorem \[t.weaklaw\] since $\<e_k^2\>=\<e_k\>=p$ and $$\sigma(e_k)^2= \< (e_k-p)^2\> =\< e_k^2\> -2p\< e_k\> +p^2
=p-2p^2+p^2=p(1-p).$$
We remark in passing that, with the operations $\wedge,\vee,\neg$, the set of events in any [*commutative*]{} subalgebra of $\Ez$ forms a Boolean algebra; see [Stone]{} [@Sto]. Traditional quantum logic (see, e.g., [Birkhoff & von Neumann]{} [@BirN], [Pitowsky]{} [@Pit], [Svozil]{} [@Svo]) discusses the extent to which this can be generalized to the noncommutative case. We shall make no use of quantum logic; the only logic used is classical logic, applied to well-defined assertions about quantities. However, certain facets of quantum logic related to so-called ‘hidden variables’ are discussed from a different point of view in the next section.
The set of effects in a commutative subalgebra is [*not*]{} a Boolean algebra. Indeed, $e \wedge e \neq e$ for effects $e$ that are not events. In fuzzy set terms, if $e$ codes the answer to the question ‘(to which degree) is statement $S$ true?’ then $e \wedge e$ codes the answer to the question ‘(to which degree) is statement $S$ really true?’, indicating the application of more stringent criteria for truth.
For noncommuting effects, ‘and’ and ‘or’ ar undefined. One might think of $\shalf(ee'+e'e)$ as a natural definition for $e \wedge e'$; however, this expression need not be an event, as the simple example $$e=\left(\bary{cc}1&0\\0&0 \end{array}\right),~~
e'=\half\left(\bary{cc}1&1\\1&1 \end{array}\right),~~~~
\half(ee'+e'e)=\frac{1}{4}\left(\bary{cc}2&1\\1&0 \end{array}\right)$$ shows.
States
======
States formalize the objective properties that physical systems possess. We consider properties (the ‘beables’ of [Bell]{} [@Bel2]) to be assignments of complex numbers $v(f)$ to certain quantities $f$.
The specification of which states correspond to physical systems is part of the interpretation problem of quantum mechanics. Different schools use different proposals but, due to the lack of experimental tests, no agreement has been reached. We therefore demand only minimal requirements shared by all reasonable concepts of states, and independent on any a priori relations to (as yet undefined) measurement.
We discuss the constraints imposed on sharpness, a desirable property of Hermitian quantities. In this way we find an answer to the question: Assuming there is an objective reality behind quantum physics, what form can it take?
Since not all states assign properties to all quantities, we need a symbol ‘?’ that indicates an unspecified (and perhaps undefined) value. Operations involving ? give ? as a result, with exception of the rule $$0?=?0=0.$$
\(i) A [**state**]{} is a mapping $v : \Ez \rightarrow \Cz \cup \{ ? \}$ such that
(S1) $v(\alpha+\beta f)=\alpha+\beta v(f)$ if $\alpha, \beta\in\Cz$,
(S2) $v (f)\in\Rz\cup\{?\}$ if $f$ is Hermitian.
$v(f)$ is called the [**reference value**]{} of $f$ in state $v$. $\Ez_v:= \{ f\in \Ez \mid v (f)\in \Cz \}$ denotes the set of quantities with definite values in state $v$.
\(ii) A set $E$ of Hermitian quantities is called [**sharp**]{} in state $v$ if, for $f,g \in E$ and $\lambda\in\Rz$,,
(SQ0) $\Rz \subseteq E,~~~v(f)\in\Rz$,
(SQ1) $f^2 \in E,~~~ v(f^2) = v(f)^2$,
(SQ2) $f^{-1}\in E$, $v(f^{-1})=v(f)^{-1}$ if $f$ is invertible,
(SQ3) $f\pm g \in E,~ v(f+\lambda g) = v(f) + \lambda v(g)$ if $f,g$ commute.
A quantity $f$ is called [**sharp**]{} in $v$ if $\re f$ and $\im f$ commute and belong to some set that is sharp in state $v$.
Thus, sharp quantities behave with respect to their reference values precisely as numbers would do. In particular, sharp quantities are normal by Corollary \[c1.3\].
While having a well-defined reference value guarantees objectivity and hence observer-independent reality, sharpness is a matter not of objectivity but one of point-like behavior.
\[ex.classquant\]
\(i) [**Classical mechanics.**]{} Classical $N$-particle mechanics is described by a [*phase space*]{} $\Omega_{cl}$, the direct product of $\Rz^N\times\Rz^N$ and a compact manifold describing internal particle degrees of freedom. $\Ez$ is a subalgebra of the algebra $B (\Omega_{cl})$ of Borel measurable functions on [**phase space**]{} $\Omega_{cl}$.
A [**classical point state**]{} is defined for each $\omega\in\Omega_{cl}$ by $$v_\omega (f) :=
\left\{ \bary{ll}
f(\omega) & \mbox{if $f$ is continuous at $\omega$},\\
? & \mbox{otherwise.}
\eary \right.$$ In a classical point state $v$, all $f\in\Ez_v$ are sharp (and normal).
\(ii) [**Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.**]{} Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics of $N$ particles is described by a Hilbert space $\Hz=L^2(\Omega_{qu})$, where $\Omega_{qu}$ is the direct product of $\Rz^N$ and a finite set that takes care of spin, color, and similar indices. $\Ez = \Ez_2 (\Omega)$ is the algebra of bounded linear operators on $\Hz$. (If unbounded operators are considered, $\Ez$ is instead an algebra of linear operators in the corresponding Schwartz space, but for this example, we don’t want to go into technical details.)
The Copenhagen interpretation is the most prominent, and at the same time the most restrictive interpretation of quantum mechanics. It assigns definite values only to quantities in an eigenstate. A [**Copenhagen state**]{} is defined for each $\psi \in \Hz\setminus \{0\}$ by $$v _\psi (f) :=
\left\{ \bary{ll}
\lambda & \mbox{if } f \psi = \lambda \psi, \\
? & \mbox{otherwise.}
\eary \right.$$ In a Copenhagen state $v$, all normal $f\in\Ez_v$ are sharp.
Our first observation is that numbers are their own reference values, and that sharp events are dichotomic – their only possible reference values are $0$ and $1$.
(i) $v(\alpha)=\alpha$ if $\alpha \in \Cz$.
\(ii) If $e$ is a sharp event then $v(e)\in\{0,1\}$.
\(i) is the case $\beta=0$ of (S1), and (ii) holds since in this case, (SQ1) implies $v(e)=v(e^2)=v(e)^2$.
If the set $E$ is sharp in the state $v$ then fgE, v(fg) = v(f)v(g) , +f E, v(+f)=+v(f) f E,,.
If $f,g \in E$ commute then $f\pm g \in E$ by (SQ3). By (SQ1), $(f\pm g)^2\in E$ and $v((f\pm g)^2)=v(f\pm g)^2$. By (SQ3), $fg=((f+g)^2-(f-g)^2)/4$ belongs to $E$ and satisfies $$\begin{array}{lll}
4v(fg)&=&v((f+g)^2)-v((f-g)^2)=v(f+g)^2-v(f-g)^2\\
&=&(v(f)+v(g))^2-(v(f)-v(g))^2=4v(f)v(g).
\end{array}$$ Thus holds, and follows from , (SQ0) and (SQ3).
One of the nontrivial traditional [*postulates*]{} of quantum mechanics, that the possible values a sharp quantity $f$ may take are the elements of the spectrum $\spec f$ of $f$, is a [*consequence*]{} of our axioms.
\[t.spec\] If a Hermitian quantity $f$ is sharp with respect to $v$, and $v(f)=\lambda$ then:
\(i) $\lambda-f$ is not invertible.
\(ii) If there is a polynomial $\pi(x)$ such that $\pi(f)=0$ then $\lambda$ satisfies $\pi(\lambda)=0$. In particular, if $f$ is a sharp event then $v(f)\in \{0,1\}$.
\(iii) If $\Ez$ is finite-dimensional then there is a quantity $g\neq 0$ such that $fg=\lambda g$, i.e., $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $f$.
Note that $\lambda$ is real by (SQ0).
\(i) If $g:=(\lambda-f)^{-1}$ exists then by and (SQ2), $\lambda-f,g\in E$ and $$v(\lambda-f)v(g)=v((\lambda-f)g)=v(1)=1,$$ contradicting $v(\lambda-f)=\lambda-v(f)=0$.
\(ii) By polynomial division we can find a polynomial $\pi_1(x)$ such that $\pi(x)=\pi(\lambda)+(x-\lambda)\pi_1(x)$. If $\pi(\lambda)\neq 0$, $g:=-\pi_1(f)/\pi(\lambda)$ satisfies $$(\lambda-f)g=(f-\lambda)\pi_1(f)/\pi(\lambda)
=(\pi(\lambda)-\pi(f))/\pi(\lambda)=1,$$ hence $\lambda-f$ is invertible with inverse $g$, contradiction. Hence $\pi(\lambda)=0$. In particular, this applies to an event with $\pi(x)=x^2-x$; hence its possible reference values are zeros of $\pi(x)$, i.e., either $0$ or $1$.
\(iii) The powers $f^k$ ($k=0,\dots, \dim \Ez$) must be linearly dependent; hence there is a polynomial $\pi(x)$ such that $\pi(f)=0$. If this is chosen of minimal degree then $g:=\pi_1(f)$ is nonzero since its degree is too small. Since $0=\pi(\lambda)=\pi(f)+(f-\lambda)\pi_1(f)=(f-\lambda)g$, we have $fg=\lambda g$.
When $\Ez$ is a $C^*$-algebra, the spectrum of $f\in \Ez$ is defined as the set of complex numbers $\lambda$ such that $\lambda-f$ has no inverse (see, e.g., [@Ric]). Thus in this case, part (i) of the theorem implies that all numerical values a sharp quantity $f$ can take belong to the spectrum of $f$. This covers both the case of classical mechanics and that of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.
However, in general, one cannot hope that [*every*]{} Hermitian quantity is sharp. Indeed, it was shown already by [Kochen & Specker]{} [@KocS] that there is a finite set of events in $\Cz^{3 \times 3}$ (and hence in $\Cz^{n \times n}$ for all $n\geq 3$) for which any assignment of reference values leads to a contradiction with the sharpness conditions. We give a slightly less general result that is much easier to prove.
\[t.nocons\] [(cf. [Mermin]{} [@Mer], [Peres]{} [@Per2])]{}
There is no state with a sharp set of quantities containing four Hermitian quantities $f_j$ ($j=1,2,3,4$) satisfying $f_j^2=1$ and f\_jf\_k={
[rl]{} -f\_kf\_j & j-k=2,\
f\_kf\_j &.
.
Let $E$ be a set containing the $f_j$. If $E$ is sharp in the state $v$ then $v_j=v(f_j)$ is a number, and $v_j^2=v(f_j^2)=v(1)=1$ implies $v_j \in\{-1,1\}$. In particular, $v_0:=v_1 v_2 v_3 v_4\in\{-1,1\}$. By , $v(f_j f_k)=v_j v_k$ if $j,k\neq \pm 2$. Since $f_1f_2$ and $f_3f_4$ commute, $v(f_1f_2f_3f_4)=v(f_1f_2) v(f_3f_4)=v_1v_2v_3 v_4
=v_0$, and since $f_1f_4$ and $f_2f_3$ commute, $v(f_1f_4f_2f_3)=v(f_1f_4)v(f_2f_3) v_1v_4v_2 v_3
=v_0$. Since $f_1f_4f_2f_3=-f_1f_2f_3f_4$, this gives $v_0=-v_0$, hence the contradiction $v_0=0$.
\[ex.peres\] The $4 \times 4$-matrices $f_j$ defined in Example \[spinpair\] satisfy the required relations. In particular, there cannot be a state in which all components of the spin vectors of two fermions are sharp.
This is the basic reason underlying a number of well-known arguments against so-called local hidden variable theories, which assume that [*all*]{} Hermitian quantities are sharp. (See [Bernstein]{} [@Ber], [Eberhard]{} [@Ebe], [Greenberger]{} et al. [@GreHS; @GreHZ], [Hardy]{} [@Har; @Har2], [Mermin]{} [@Mer; @Mer2], [Peres]{} [@Per; @Per2], [Vaidman]{} [@Vai]). For a treatment in terms of quantum logic, see [Svozil]{} [@Svo].
Sharp quantities always satisfy a [**Bell inequality**]{} analogous to inequality for uncorrelated quantities:
\[t.bells\] Let $v$ be a state with a sharp set of quantities containing four Hermitian quantities $f_j$ ($j=1,2,3,4$) satisfying $f_j^2=1$ and $[f_j,f_k]=0$ for odd $j-k$. Then |v(f\_1f\_2)+v(f\_2f\_3)+v(f\_3f\_4)-v(f\_1f\_4)|2.
Let $v_k:=v(f_k)$. Then (SQ2) implies $v_k^2=v(f_k^2)=v(1)=1$, and since equation implies $v(f_jf_k)=v_jv_k$ for odd $j-k$, we find $$\begin{array}{lll}
\gamma&=&|v_1v_2+v_2v_3+v_3v_4-v_1v_4| \\
&=&|v_1(v_2-v_4)+v_3(v_2+v_4)| \\
&\leq&|v_1|~|v_2-v_4|+|v_3|~|v_2+v_4| \\
&\leq&|v_2-v_4|+|v_2+v_4| \\
&=&2\max(|v_2|+|v_4|)\leq 2. \\
\end{array}$$
Note, however, that Example \[ex.peres\] already implies that the sharpness assumption in this theorem (and in other derivations of Bell inequalities for local hidden variable theories; see, e.g., the treatise [Pitowsky]{} [@Pit]) fails not only in special entangled ensembles such as that exhibited in Example \[spinpair\] but must fail independent of any special preparation.
While the above results show that one cannot hope to find quantum states in which all Hermitian quantities are sharp, results of [Clifton & Kent]{} [@CliK] imply that one can achieve sharpness in $\Ez=\Cz^{n\times n}$ at least for a dense subset of Hermitian quantities.
States without squaring rule
============================
Since sharpness cannot be achieved for all Hermitian quantities, we discuss the relevance of the sharpness assumption.
The chief culprit among the sharpness assumptions seems to be the squaring rule (SQ1) from which the product rule was derived. Indeed, the squaring rule (and hence the product rule) already fails in a simpler, classical situation, namely when considering weak limits of highly oscillating functions, For example, consider the family of functions $f_k$ defined on $[0,1]$ by $f_k(x)=\alpha$ if $\lfloor kx \rfloor$ is even and $f_k(x)=\beta$ if $\lfloor kx \rfloor$ is odd. Trivial integration shows that the weak-$^*$ limits are $\lim f_k=\shalf(\alpha+\beta)$ and $\lim f_k^2=\shalf(\alpha^2+\beta^2)$, and these do not satisfy the expected relation $\lim f_k^2= (\lim f_k)^2$. Such weak limits of highly oscillating functions lead to the concept of a [*Young measure*]{}, which is of relevance in the calculus of variation of nonconvex functionals and in the physics of metal microstructure. See, e.g., [Roubicek]{} [@Rou].
More insight from the classical regime comes from realizing that reference values are a microscopic analogue of similar macroscopic constructions.
For example, the center of mass, the mass-weighted average of the positions of the constituent particles, serves in classical mechanics as a convenient reference position of an extended object. It defines a point in space with a precise and objective physical meaning. The object is near this reference position, within an uncertainty given by the diameter of the object. Similarly, a macroscopic object has a well defined reference velocity, the mass-weighted average of the velocities of the constituent particles.
Thus, if we define an algebra $\Ez$ of ‘intensive’ macroscopic mechanical quantities, given by all (mass-independent and sufficiently nice) functions of time $t$, position $q(t)$, velocity $\dot q(t)$ and acceleration $\ddot q(t)$, the natural reference value $v_{mac}(f)$ for a quantity $f$ is the mass-weighted average of the $f$-values of the constituent particles (labeled by superscripts $a$), $$v_{mac}(f)=
\sum_a m^a f(t, q^a(t),\dot q^a(t), \ddot q^a(t))\Big/\sum_a m^a.$$ This reference value behaves correctly under aggregation, if on the right hand side the reference values of the aggregates are substituted, so that it is independent of the details of how the object is split into constituents. Moreover, $v=v_{mac}$ has nice properties: [**unrestricted additivity**]{},
(SL) $v(f+g) = v(f) + v(g)$ if $f,g \in \Ez$,
and [**monotony**]{},
(SM) $f\geq g \implies v(f)\geq v(g)$.
However, neither position nor velocity nor acceleration is a sharp quantity with respect to $v_{mac}$ since (SQ1) and (SQ2) fail. Note that deviations from the squaring rule make physical sense; for example, $v_{mac}(\dot q^2)-v_{mac}(\dot q)^2$ is (in thermodynamic equilibrium) proportional to the temperature of the system.
From this perspective, and in view of Einstein’s quote at the beginning of section \[states\], demanding the squaring rule for a reference value is unwarranted since it does not even hold in this classical situation.
Once the squaring rule (and hence sharpness) is renounced as a requirement for definite reference values, the arena is free for interpretations that use reference values defined for [*all*]{} quantities, and thus give a satisfying realistic picture of quantum mechanics. In place of the lost multiplicative properties we may now require unrestricted additivity (SL) without losing interesting examples.
For example, the ‘local expectation values’ of Bohmian mechanics ([Bohm]{} [@Boh]) have this property, if the prescription given for Hermitian quantities in [Holland]{} [@Hol (3.5.4)] is extended to general quantities, using the formula $$v(f) :=v(\re f) +iv(\im f)$$ which follows from (SL). Such [**Bohmian states**]{} have, by design, sharp positions at all times. However, they lack desirable properties such as monotony (SM), and they display other counterintuitive behavior (see, e.g., [Neumaier]{} [@Neu.bohm] and its references).
A much more natural proposal is to [*require that each state is an ensemble*]{}. Then (SL) and (SM) hold, and one even has a replacement for the multiplicative properties. Indeed, for such [**ensemble states**]{}, it follows from that there is an uncertainty measure f = associated with each Hermitian quantity $f$ such that |v(fg)-v(f)v(g)|fg f,g. Thus the product rule (and in particular the squaring rule) holds in an approximate form.
For quantities with small uncertainty $\Delta f$, we have essentially classical (nearly sharp) behavior. Im particular, by the weak law of large numbers, Theorem \[t.weaklaw\], averages over many uncorrelated commuting quantities of the same kind have small uncertainty and hence are nearly classical. In particular, this holds for the quantities considered in statistical mechanics, and [*explains the emergence of classical properties for macroscopic systems*]{}.
Indeed, in statistical mechanics, classical values for observables are traditionally defined as expectations, and the concept of ensemble states with objective reference values for all quantities simply extends this downwards to the quantum domain.
With the interpretation that the only states realized in quantum mechanics are ensembles states, [*quantum objects are inherently extended objects*]{}, and realizing this reduces the riddles the interpretation of the microworld poses when instead pointlike (sharp) properties are imagined.
\(i) [**The ground state of hydrogen.**]{} The uncertainty $\Delta q$ of position (defined by interpreting for the vector $q$ in place of the scalar $f$) in the ground state of hydrogen is $\Delta q=\sqrt{3} r_0$ (where $r_0=5.29\cdot 10^{-11}\fct{m}$ is the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom), slightly larger than the reference radius $v(r)=v(|q-v(q)|)=1.5 r_0$.
\(ii) [**The center of mass of the Moon.**]{} The Moon has a mass of $m_{\fns{Moon}}=7.35\cdot 10^{22} \fct{kg}$, Assuming the Moon consists mainly of silicates, we may take the average mass of an atom to be about 20 times the proton mass $m_{\fns{p}}=1.67 \cdot 10^{-27} \fct{kg}$. Thus the Moon contains about $N=m_{\fns{Moon}}/20m_{\fns{p}}=2.20\cdot 10^{48}$ atoms. In the rest frame of an observer standing on the Moon, the objective uncertainty of an atom position (due to the thermal motion of the atoms in the Moon) may be taken to be a small multiple of the Bohr radius $r_0$. Assuming that the deviations from the reference positions are uncorrelated, we may use to find as uncertainty of the position of the center of mass of the Moon a small multiple of $r_0/\sqrt{N}=3.567\cdot 10^{-35}\fct{m}$. Thus the center of mass of the Moon has a definite objective position, sharp within the measuring accuracy of many generations to come.
Ensemble states provide an elegant solution to the reality problem, confirming the insistence of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation on that there is nothing but ensembles, while avoiding their elusive reality picture. It also conforms to [Ockham]{}’s razor [@Ock; @HofMC], [*frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora*]{}, that we should not use more degrees of freedom than are necessary to explain a phenomenon.
Quantum reality with reference values defined by ensemble states is as well-behaved and objective as classical macroscopic reality with reference values defined by a mass-weighted average over constituent values, and lacks sharpness (in the sense of our definition) to the same extent as classical macroscopic reality.
Moreover, classical point states are ensemble states, and whenever a Copenhagen state assigns a numerical value to a quantity, the corresponding pure ensemble state assigns the same value to it. Thus both classical mechanics and the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics are naturally embedded in the ensemble state interpretation.
The logical riddles of quantum mechanics (see, e.g., [Svozil]{} [@Svo]) find their explanation in the fact that most events are unsharp in a given ensemble state, so that their objective reference values are no longer dichotomic but may take arbitrary values in $[0,1]$, by (SM).
The arithmetical riddles of quantum mechanics (see, e.g., [Schrödinger]{} [@Sch]) find their explanation in the fact that most Hermitian quantities are unsharp in a given ensemble state, so that their objective reference values are no longer eigenvalues but may take arbitrary values in the convex hull of the eigenvalues.
The geometric riddles of quantum mechanics – e.g., in the double slit experiment ([Bohr]{} [@Bohr], [Wootters & Zurek]{} [@WooZ]) and in EPR-experiments ([Aspect]{} [@Asp], [Clauser & Shimony]{} [@ClaS]) – do not disappear. But they remain within the magnitudes predicted by reference radii and uncertainties, hence require no special interpretation in the microscopic case. They simply demonstrate that particles are intrinsically extended and that electrons cannot be regarded as pointlike. (For photons, this is known to be the case also for different reasons, namely the nonexistence of a position operator with commuting components; see, e.g., [Strnad]{} [@Str], [Mandel & Wolf]{} [@ManW Chapter 12.11], [Newton & Wigner]{} [@NewW], [Pryce]{} [@Pry], but cf. [Hawton]{} [@Haw].)
Moreover, when considering quantum mechanical phenomena that violate our geometric intuition, one should bear in mind two similar violations of a naive geometric picture for the center of mass, Einstein’s prototype example for a definite and objective property of macroscopic systems:
First, though it is objective, the center of mass is nevertheless a fictitious point, not visibly distinguished in reality; for nonconvex objects it may even lie outside the object! Second, the center of mass follows a well-defined, objective path, though this path need not conform to the visual path of the object; this can be seen by pushing a long, elastic cylinder through a strongly bent tube.
All these considerations are independent of the measurement problem. To investigate how measurements of classical macroscopic quantities (i.e., expectations of quantities with small uncertainty related to a measuring device) correlate with reference values of a microscopic system interacting with the device requires a precise definition of a measuring device and of the behavior of the combined system under the interaction (cf. the treatments in [Busch]{} et al. [@BusGL; @BusLM], [Giulini]{} et al. [@GiuJK], [Mittelstaedt]{} [@Mit] and [Peres]{} [@Per3]). We shall discuss this problem from our perspective in a later part of this sequence of papers.
Dynamics
========
In this section we discuss the most elementary aspects of the dynamics of (closed and isolated) physical systems. We shall have much more to say about dynamics in later parts of this series of papers, where so-called Poisson algebras will be used to make the formal dynamical parallels between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics understandable as two special cases of a single theory.
The observations about a physical system change with time. The dynamics of a closed and isolated physical system is conservative, and may be described by a fixed (but system-dependent) one-parameter family $S_t$ ($t\in\Rz$) of [**automorphisms**]{} of the \*-algebra $\Ez$, i.e., mappings $S_t:\Ez\to\Ez$ satisfying (for $f,g \in \Ez$, $\alpha\in\Cz$, $s,t\in\Rz$)
(A1) [$S_t(\alpha)=\alpha, ~~~ S_t(f^*)=S_t(f)^*$,]{}
(A2) [$S_t(f+g)=S_t(f)+S_t(g), ~~~ S_t(fg)=S_t(f)S_t(g)$,]{}
(A3) [$S_0(f)=f, ~~~ S_{s+t}(f)=S_s(S_t(f))$.]{}
In the [**Heisenberg picture**]{} of the dynamics, where states are fixed and quantities change with time, $f(t):=S_t(f)$ denotes the time-dependent [**Heisenberg quantity**]{} associated with $f$ at time $t$. Note that $f(t)$ is uniquely determined by $f(0)=f$. Thus the dynamics is deterministic, [*independent of whether we are in a classical or in a quantum setting*]{}.
(In contrast, nonisolated closed systems are dissipative and intrinsically stochastic; see, e.g., [Giulini]{} et al. [@GiuJK]. We shall discuss this in a later part of this series.)
\[ex.classquant.dyn\] In nonrelativistic mechanics, conservative systems are described by a Hermitian quantity $H$, called the [**Hamiltonian**]{}.
\(i) In [**classical mechanics**]{} – cf. Example \[ex.classquant\](i) –, a Poisson bracket $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ together with $H$ defines the Liouville superoperator $Lf=\{f,H\}$, and the dynamics is given by the one-parameter group defined by $$S_t(f)=e^{tL}(f),$$ corresponding to the differential equation ={f(t),H}.
\(ii) In [**nonrelativistic quantum mechanics**]{} – cf. Example \[ex.classquant\](ii) –, the dynamics is given by the one-parameter group defined by $$S_t(f)=e^{-tH/i\hbar}fe^{tH/i\hbar},$$ corresponding to the [**Heisenberg equation**]{} i=e\^[-tH/i]{}\[f,H\]e\^[tH/i]{}=\[f(t),H\].
\(iii) [**Relativistic quantum mechanics**]{} is currently (for interacting systems) developed only for scattering events in which the dynamics is restricted to transforming quantities of a system at $t=-\infty$ to those at $t=+\infty$ by means of a single automorphism $S$ given by $$S(f)=sfs^*,$$ where $s$ is a unitary quantity (i.e., $ss^*=s^*s=1$), the so-called [**scattering matrix**]{}, for which an asymptotic series in powers of $\hbar$ is computable from quantum field theory.
The realization of the axioms is different in the classical and in the quantum case, but the interpretation is identical.
The common form and deterministic nature of the dynamics, independent of any assumption of whether the system is classical or quantum, implies that there is no difference in the causality of classical mechanics and that of quantum mechanics. Therefore, [*the differences between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics cannot lie in an assumed intrinsic indeterminacy of quantum mechanics contrasted to deterministic classical mechanics*]{}. The only difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in the latter’s lack of commutativity.
Of course, reference values of quantities at different times will generally be different. To see what happens, suppose that, in state $v$, a quantity $f$ has reference value $v(f)$ at time $t=0$. At time $t$, the quantity $f$ developed into $f(t)$, with reference value v(f(t))=v(S\_t(f))=v\_t(f), where the time-dependent [**Schrödinger state**]{} v\_t=vS\_t is the composition of the two mappings $v$ and $S_t$. It is easy to see that $v_t$ is again a state, and that all properties discussed in the previous section that $v$ may possess are inherited by $v_t$.
Thus we may recast the dynamics in the [**Schrödinger picture**]{}, where quantities are fixed and states change with time. The dynamics of the time-dependent states $v_t$ is then given by . Of course, in this picture, the dynamics is deterministic, too.
\(i) In [**classical mechanics**]{}, implies for an ensemble state of the form $$v_t(f)=\int_{\Omega_{cl}} \rho(\omega,t)f(\omega)d\omega$$ the [**Liouville equation**]{} $$i\hbar\frac{d\rho(t)}{dt}=\{H,\rho(t)\}.$$
\(ii) In [**nonrelativistic quantum mechanics**]{}, implies for an ensemble state of the form $$v_t(f)=\tr \rho(t)f$$ the [**von Neumann equation**]{} $$i\hbar\frac{d\rho(t)}{dt}=[H,\rho(t)].$$
\(iii) [**Bohmian mechanics**]{} has no natural Heisenberg picture, cf. [sc Holland]{} [@Hol footnote p.519]. The reason is that noncommuting position operators at different times are assumed to have sharp values. Thus the results of this section do not apply to it.
In a famous paper, [Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen]{} [@EinPR] introduced the following criterion for elements of physical reality:
[ *If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity* ]{}
and postulated that
[ *the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory.* ]{}
Traditionally, elements of physical reality were thought to have to emerge in a classical framework with hidden variables. However, to embed quantum mechanics in such a framework is impossible under natural hypotheses ([Kochen & Specker]{} [@KocS]); indeed, it amounts to having states in which all Hermitian quantities are sharp, and we have seen that this is impossible for quantum systems involving a Hilbert space of dimension $4$ or more.
However, the reference values of states with numerical reference values for [*all*]{} Hermitian quantities, and in particular the reference values of ensemble states, are such elements of physical reality: If one knows in a state $v=v_0$ all reference values with certainty at time $t=0$ then, since the dynamics is deterministic, one knows with certainty the reference values at any time. In this sense, ensemble states provide a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Taking another look at the form of the Schrödinger dynamics , we see that the reference values behave just like the particles in an ideal fluid, propagating independently of each other. We may therefore say that the Schrödinger dynamics describes the [**flow of truth**]{} in an objective, deterministic manner. On the other hand, the Schrödinger dynamics is completely silent about [*what*]{} is true. Thus, as in mathematics, where all truth is relative to the logical assumptions made (what is considered true at the beginning of an argument), in theoretical physics truth is relative to the initial values assumed (what is considered true at time $t=0$).
In both cases, theory is about what is consistent, and not about what is real or true. The formalism enables us only to deduce truth from other assumed truths. But what is regarded as true is outside the formalism, may be quite subjective and may even turn out to be contradictory, depending on the acquired personal habits of self-critical judgment.
What we can possibly know as true are the [*laws*]{} of physics, general relationships that appear often enough to see the underlying principle. But concerning [*states*]{} (i.e., in practice, boundary conditions) we are doomed to idealized, more or less inaccurate approximations of reality. [Wigner]{} [@Wig p.5] expressed this by saying, [*the laws of nature are all conditional statements and they relate only to a very small part of our knowledge of the world.*]{}
Epilogue
========
The axiomatic foundation given here of the basic principles underlying theoretical physics suggests that, from a formal point of view, the differences between classical physics and quantum physics are only marginal (though in the quantum case, the lack of commutativity requires some care and causes deviations from classical behavior). In both cases, everything flows from the same assumptions simply by changing the realization of the axioms.
It is remarkable that, in the setting of Poisson algebras described and explored in later parts of this series of papers, this remains so even as we go deeper into the details of dynamics and thermodynamics.
[99]{}
A. Aspect, Proposed experiment to test the nonseparability of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976), 1944-1951. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
J.S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics 1 (1964), 195-200. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
J.S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1987.
H.J. Bernstein, Simple version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) argument against local realism, Found. Phys. 29 (1999), 521-525.
G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, The logics of quantum mechanics, Ann. Math. 37 (1936), 823-843.
D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952), 166-179. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, pp. 200-241 in: P.A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston 1949. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
P. Busch, M. Grabowski and P.J. Lahti, Operational quantum physics, Springer, Berlin 1995.
P. Busch, P.J. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, The quantum theory of measurement, 2nd. ed., Springer, Berlin 1996.
B.S. Cirel’son, Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality, Lett. Math. Phys. 4 (1980), 93-100.
J. F. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony and R.A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969), 880-884. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bell’s theorem: experimental tests and implications, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881-1926 (1978).
R. Clifton and A. Kent, Simulating quantum mechanics by non-contextual hidden variables, Manuscript (1999). quant-ph/9908031.
E.B. Davies, Quantum theory of open systems, Academic Press, London 1976.
P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on quantum field theory. Belfer Grad. School of Sci., New York 1966.
M. Drieschner, Voraussage – Wahrscheinlichkeit – Objekt. Über die begrifflichen Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1979.
P.H. Eberhard, Bell’s theorem without hidden variables, Il Nuovo Cimento 38 B (1977), 75-80.
A. Einstein, Conversation with Bohr and Ehrenfest at the Fifth Solvay conference in October, 1927; cf. The formulation used is from a letter of September 7, 1944, reprinted pp. 275-276 in: A.P. French (ed.), Einstein, a centenary volume, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1979.
A. Einstein, Einleitende Bemerkungen über Grundbegriffe, in: Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur (A. George, ed.), Albin Michel, Paris 1953. quoted after [@dEs], p. 407.
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47 (1935), 777-780. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
B. d’Espagnat, Veiled reality. An analysis of present-day quantum mechanical concepts, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1995.
H. Everett III, Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957) 454-462. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
T.L. Fine, Theory of probability; an examination of foundations. Acad. Press, New York 1973.
D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.-O. Stamatescu and H.D. Zeh, Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory, Springer, Berlin 1996.
D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Amer. J. Phys. 58 (1990), 1131-1143.
D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond Bell’s theorem, pp. 73-76 in: M. Kafatos (ed.), Bell’s theorem, quantum theory, and conceptions of the universe, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1989.
I. Hacking, The emergence of probability, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1975.
L. Hardy, Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and Lorentz-invariant realistic theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992), 2981-2984.
L. Hardy, Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993), 1665-1668.
M. Hawton, Photon position operator with commuting components, Phys. Rev. A 59 (1999), 954-959.
W. Heisenberg, [Ü]{}ber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift f. Physik 43 (1927), 172-198. (Engl. translation: Section I.3 in [@WheZ].)
N.J. Higham, Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms, SIAM, Philadelphia 1996.
D. Hilbert, Mathematische Probleme, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1902), 437-479.
R. Hoffmann, V.I. Minkin and B.K. Carpenter, Ockham’s Razor and Chemistry, HYLE Int. J. Phil. Chem 3 (1997), 3-28. P.R. Holland, The quantum theory of motion, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1993.
D. Home and M.A.B. Whitaker, Ensemble interpretations of quantum mechanics. A modern perspective, Phys. Rep. 210 (1992), 223-317.
Isaiah 55:9, Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984.
Isaiah 65:24, Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984.
M. Jammer, The conceptual development of quantum mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York 1966.
M. Jammer, The philosophy of quantum mechanics: the interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective, Wiley, New York 1974.
J.M. Jauch, Foundations of quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA 1968.
S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, J. Math. Mech. 17 (1967), 59-67. (Reprinted in C.A. Hooker, ed., The logico-algebraic approach to quantum mechanics, Vol. I: Historical evolution, Reidel, Dordrecht 1975.)
Kohelet, Ecclesiastes 1:10, in: Holy Bible, Good News Edition, 1984.
Kohelet, Ecclesiastes 11:6, in: Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984.
A.N. Kolmogorov, Foundations of the theory of probability, Chelsea, New York 1950. (German original: Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, Springer, Berlin 1933.)
L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical coherence and quantum optics, Cambridge Univ. Press 1995.
N.D. Mermin, Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990), 3373-3376.
N.D. Mermin, What’s wrong with these elements of reality? Physics Today (June 1990), 9-10.
A. Messiah, Quantum mechanics, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1991; Vol. 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1976.
P. Mittelstaedt, The interpretation of quantum mechanics and the measurement process, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1998.
P.-A. Meyer, Quantum probability for probabilists, 2nd. ed., Springer, Berlin 1995.
A. Neumaier, Bohmian mechanics contradicts quantum mechanics, Manuscript (2000). quant-ph/0001011
A. Neumaier, Molecular modeling of proteins and mathematical prediction of protein structure, SIAM Rev. 39 (1997), 407-460.
J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, Berlin 1932.
T.D. Newton and E.P. Wigner, Localized states for elementary systems, Rev. Mod. Phys 21 (1949), 400-406.
W. of Ockham, Philosophical Writings, (ed. by P. Boehner) Nelson, Edinburgh 1957.
K.R. Parthasarathy, An introduction to quantum stochastic calculus, Birkhäuser, Basel 1992.
St. Paul, 1 Corinthian 13:8-10, in: The New Testament. This is my paraphrase of a famous quote by Paul; for other renderings, see, e.g.,
St. Paul, 1 Timothy 6:8, in: Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984.
A. Peres, In compatible results of quantum measurements, Physics Lett. A 151 (1990), 107-108.
A. Peres, Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 (1991), L175-L178.
A. Peres, Quantum theory: Concepts and methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1993.
I. Pitowsky, Quantum probability – quantum logic, Lecture Notes in Physics 321, Springer, Berlin 1989.
Plato, Timaeus, Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis 1999. The quotes (Tim. 28-29) are from the Project Gutenberg Etext at (the first half of the document is a commentary, then follows the original in English translation)
M.H.L. Pryce, The mass-centre in the restricted theory of relativity and its connexion with the quantum theory of elementary particles, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 195 (1949), 62-81.
C.E. Rickart, General theory of Banach algebras. Van Nostrand, Princeton 1960.
H.P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34 (1929), 163-164. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
T. Roubicek, Relaxation in Optimization Theory and Variational Calculus, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1997.
E. Schr[ö]{}dinger, Die gegenw[ä]{}rtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935), 807-812; 823-828; 844-849. (Engl. translation: Section I.11 in [@WheZ].)
King Solomon, Proverbs 16:3, in: Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984.
M.H. Stone, The theory of representations for Boolean algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (1936), 37-111.
J. Strnad, Photons in introductory quantum physics, Amer. J. Phys. 54 (1986), 650-652.
K. Svozil, Quantum logic. Springer, Berlin 1998.
W. Tittel, J. Brendel, B. Gisin, T. Herzog, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin, Experimental demonstration of quantum-correlations over more than 10 kilometers, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3229-3232 (1998).
L. Vaidman, Variations on the theme of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger proof, Found. Phys. 29 (1999), 615-630.
J.A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 1983.
P. Whittle, Probability via expectation, 3rd ed., Springer, New York 1992. (1st ed.: Probability, Harmondsworth 1970.)
E.P. Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 13 (1960), 1-14.
W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability and a quantitative statement of Bohr’s principle, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979), 473-484. (Reprinted in [@WheZ].)
H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy set theory – and its applications, 3rd ed., Kluwer, Dordrecht 1996.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform an analysis of the Cosmic Web as a complex network, which is built on a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological simulation. For each of nodes, which are in this case dark matter halos formed in the simulation, we compute 10 network metrics, which characterize the role and position of a node in the network. The relation of these metrics to topological affiliation of the halo, i.e. to the type of large scale structure, which it belongs to, is then investigated. In particular, the correlation coefficients between network metrics and topology classes are computed. We have applied different machine learning methods to test the predictive power of obtained network metrics and to check if one could use network analysis as a tool for establishing topology of the large scale structure of the Universe. Results of such predictions, combined in the confusion matrix, show that it is not possible to give a good prediction of the topology of Cosmic Web (score is $\approx$ 70 $\%$ in average) based only on coordinates and velocities of nodes (halos), yet network metrics can give a hint about the topological landscape of matter distribution.'
author:
- |
Maksym Tsizh $^1$,[^1] Bohdan Novosyadlyj $^{1,2}$, Yurij Holovatch$^{3,4,5}$, Noam I Libeskind $^{6,7}$\
$^1$Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Kyryla i Methodia str. 8, Lviv, 79005, Ukraine\
$^2$ College of Physics and International Center of Future Science of Jilin University, Qianjin str. 2699, Changchun, 130012, P.R.China\
$^3$Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, National Acad. Sci. of Ukraine, 79011 Lviv, Ukraine\
$^4$ $\mathbb{L}^4$ Collaboration & Doctoral College for the Statistical Physics of Complex Systems, Leipzig-Lorraine-Lviv-Coventry, Europe\
$^5$Centre for Fluid and Complex Systems, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, United Kingdom\
$^{6}$Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany\
$^{7}$University of Lyon, UCB Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IPN Lyon, France\
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: |
Large-scale structures in the $\Lambda$CDM Universe:\
network analysis and machine learning
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology: large scale structure–gravitationally bound systems–complex networks-machine learning
Introduction
============
Applying complex network methods is one of the latest trends in studying of the large scale structure of the Universe. This approach is the next step after excursion set theory of halos [@Bond91; @ShethTormen2002] and voids [@ShethWeygaert2004] formation and evolution in cosmology. Unlike the excursion set theory, in the complex network approach, the hierarchy of nodes is not a crucial feature. However, the importance for connectivity of network, place in the network, neighbour richness and centralities of the nodes are.
The pioneering work of this approach in cosmology [@HongDei15] addressed the problem of relation between network centralities of nodes in the Cosmic Web and the type of topological population of the corresponding galaxy. The following papers studied different usages of complex networks analysis of the Cosmic Web: discriminating of different topologies in population with similar two-point correlation functions [@Hong16], discovering various ways of network construction [@Coutinho16], finding similarity and peculiarity of physical galaxy properties (color, brightness, mass index) of different topology (defined by network characteristic) environment population [@Apunevych17], relating correlation function and relative size of the largest connected component of network [@Zhang18], studying connectivity of Gaussian Random Field-like galaxy field [@Codis18] as a probe of evolution of structures and the nature of dark energy. In recent works, [@HongJeong19] and [@HongDey19], authors study how the transitivity of the Cosmic Web and its other network characteristic can distinguish models of dark energy in cosmological simulations and different scenarios of Ly-alpha emitters. Aside the complex network approach there are other graph-based methods of studying the Cosmic Web. One of them is the minimal spanning trees (MST) approach. It was successively developed in a number of papers [@Barrow85; @Graham95; @Colberg07]. One of the latest works in this subject exploits the MST to identify and classify large-scale structures (filaments and voids) within the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey [@Alpaslan13].
We would like also to mention investigations of the topological features of the Cosmic Web through Betti numbers [@Pratyush16] and beta-skeleton analysis [@Fang18], both also used to reveal the underlying structures in galaxy distribution.
Another interesting and rapidly developing direction in data analysis of the large scale structure and extra-galactic astronomy is the usage of machine learning (ML) for object classification or their parameters and features estimation. Wide review of this field of research is beyond the scope of this paper, however, one could easily find dozen of papers in the recent years. For example: morphological classification of galaxies by their images [@Huertas07] or their observable features [@Dobrycheva17]; predicting galaxy features like HI content optical data [@Rafieferantsoa18; @Zamudio19] or multi-wavelength counterparts of sub-millimeter galaxies [@An18] or galaxy cluster mass [@Armitage18] based on surveys. ML methods can paint galaxies themselves, knowing only information about host dark matter halo [@Agarwal17; @Zhang19]. Finally, it is possible to predict directly the evolution of cosmological structure formation (in terms of Press-Schechter theory) [@Lucie18; @He18] or simulate the Cosmic Web [@Rodriguez18] or weak lensing map [@Mustafa17] via ML .
In this work, for the first time, we combine both powerful methods (complex network analysis and ML) with a purpose to test whether such combination can become a new tool of probing the topology of large scale structure. We choose to use the results of GADGET2 cosmological simulation [@Libeskind17], benefiting from the fact that 12 well established structure finders have already been applied to it.
This work has the following structure. In the next section we describe in details the construction of the network and topology classification of the Cosmic Web. In the third section we define all the network metrics which we are going to use and show their correlations with topology structure types and between themselves. Also, we provide distributions of the network metrics for different structure sub-populations. In the fourth section we will use ML methods to predict the type of topology structure to which each halo belongs, having the very minimum information about it (coordinate, mass, spin and velocity) by utilizing computed network metrics as predictors for ML. We discuss the obtained results in the final section.
Building a network
==================
Network on LCDM Universe
------------------------
In this paper we rely on data of cosmological simulation GADGET2 performed and provided by N. Libeskind and co-authors in work [@Libeskind17] to build the network of the Cosmic Web. This simulation is one-type particle cosmological $N$-body simulation of dark matter distribution. The size of the box is 200 $h^{-1}$ Mpc with $512^3$ dark matter particles of mass $5\cdot 10^{9}$ $M_\odot$ in it. Haloes in the simulation were identified by a friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm, with a linking length of 0.2 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and a minimum of 20 particles per halo. The result was a catalogue of 281465 halos with mass range $10^{11}$ – $10^{15}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$.
We start by representing the set of halos as a complex network. Each halo in the catalogue is a node of network. The nodes with distances between them smaller than a certain value, called linking length $l$, are connected by edges. There can be only 1 or 0 edges between two nodes (network has no multiplicity). Here the simplest possible option is considered: the edges are unweighted and undirected. As a result simple undirected unweighted graph is built, which we analyse. Such graph can be naturally described by its symmetric adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, in which its element $a_{ij}$ is 1 when $i$-th and $j$-th nodes are connected and 0 otherwise, $a_{ii}=0$.
Linking length choice
---------------------
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
As it has been noted before [@HongDei15; @Apunevych17], network linking length affects all the numbers, relations and laws one may discover when exploring the network. Indeed, having linking length too small will result in the disconnected network and reveal no structures in the web, while having it too large will not show the peculiarities and important nodes of the network. Nevertheless, there is a range of linking length values, for which properties of constructed networks are similar. We have experimented with the range of $l$ between 1.6 and 2.4 $h^{-1}$ Mpc in 0.1Mpch $h^{-1}$ intervals (see the difference between networks with different linking length in Fig.\[figll\]). Though the average values of metrics vary with linking length, the computed correlations we discuss here have shown qualitatively similar behaviour within all the range of values of linking length. Following a naive approach, we choose a linking length $l=2$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc $= 2.86$ Mpc, for a detailed analysis of the network. This is 10 times larger than linking length used in FOF algorithm to form the halos in simulation and twice larger than average distance between halos, as can be seen from Figure \[fig1a\]. In terms of $l_{\bar{\mu}}$ introduced in [@HongDei15] our linking length $l$ is $l_2<l<l_3$, while those authors use $l_5$ and $l_6$ in their work. In this notation $l_\mu$ is such linking length, that in random network with same number of nodes mean value of nodes inside radius $l_\mu$ is $\mu$ (formula (25) in [@HongDei15]). However, in our opinion, the crucial parameters are average values of metrics, degree $k$ and clustering coefficient $Cl$ (definitions are given in the next section) in particular. These values at $l=2$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc are close to ones computed in [@Apunevych17] in their network analysis, $\langle k \rangle = 6.77$, $\langle Cl \rangle = 0.603$ (see the Table 1 for average values we obtained in our networks). Therefore, we conclude that chosen value is appropriate to study the Cosmic Web we consider.
![Distribution of distances to closest neighbour for sample of population. Red lines denotes first, second and third quartiles, black line denote mean value.[]{data-label="fig1a"}](mindist100.png){width="48.00000%"}
---------------------------------- ------ -------- -------- --
Cosmic Web/
Metrics 1.6 2.0 2.4
\[0.5ex\] $\langle k \rangle$ 3.5 5.6 8.1
$\langle A_n\rangle$ 3.9 6.1 8.8
$\langle C_{\mathrm{K}} \rangle$ 0.41 0.002 0.002
$\langle C_b \rangle$ 8.7 7.8 0.0002
$\langle C_c\rangle$ 4.1 0.0008 0.005
$\langle C_h\rangle$ 18.9 351.8 1827
$\langle T \rangle$ 6.9 17.7 37.7
$\langle Cl \rangle$ 0.41 0.51 0.56
$\langle Sq \rangle$ 0.2 0.3 0.2
$\langle C_x \rangle$ 6.6 6.8 6.3
---------------------------------- ------ -------- -------- --
: Average values of network metrics (node degree $\langle k \rangle$, average neighbour degree $\langle A_n \rangle$, Katz centrality $\langle C_{K}\rangle$, betweenness centrality $\langle C_b \rangle$, closeness centrality $\langle C_c\rangle$, harmonic centrality $\langle C_c\rangle$, triangles $\langle T \rangle$, clustering coefficient $\langle Cl \rangle$, squares $\langle Sq \rangle$ and eigen centrality $\langle C_x \rangle$) for networks with different linking length $l$. Find the definitions of these metrics in the following section.[]{data-label="table1"}
Topology classification of the large scale structures
-----------------------------------------------------
The 12 methods of topology classification of the large scale structure compared in [@Libeskind17] were used to define the affiliation of each halo to up to 4 possible types of structures: voids, filaments, sheets and knots (superclusters). These classifications and their link to network characteristic of each halo are of the main interest of this work.
Among 12 topology structure classification schemes compared in [@Libeskind17] we are interested in those, which have all 4 classes in their classification of topological structures, there are 6 of them. These schemes are called there T-web [@Forero-Romero09], V-web [@Hoffman12], NEXUS+ [@Carollo13], ORIGAMI[@Falck12], mwsa[@Ramachandra2015] and CLASSIC [@Hahn07]. For the last of the listed, CLASSIC, we obtained the best score when using ML (see Table 2 for comparison), so we choose it for detailed analysis here. This method is based on linearization of cosmological density field and evaluating the number of eigenvalues of the Hessian of the gravitational potential. Depending on its value a corresponding type of topological structure (void, filament sheet or knot) is assigned to each node. In the catalogues provided in [@Libeskind17] for each node its type of structure is coded as “0”, “1”, “2” and “3” (in web$\_$ID column of the data file), corresponding to voids, filaments, sheets and knots (superclusters) respectively. Beside this number coding we will also use color coding on our graphs, depicting number counts of void population with blue, filament with green, sheets with yellow and knots with red colors. The number count of each population are presented in Figure \[fig1b\]. The filament is the most populated one.
![Number count of population of different topology classes - voids (blue), filaments (green), sheets (yellow) and knots (red). Filaments are most populated.[]{data-label="fig1b"}](webiddistr.png){width="48.00000%"}
Network metrics
===============
Currently there are definitions for more than hundred different local network metrics of a node, lot of them are similar and others are less relevant for the Cosmic Web, taking into account the nature of bounds between nodes (halos). For our analysis we have chosen 10 network characteristics evaluated for each node: degree, average neighbour degree (a.n. degree), betweenness, closeness, harmonic, eigenvector (or just eigen) and Katz centralities, clustering coefficient, triangles and squares. All of them were computed with the help of `NetworkX` package for `Python`. These metrics are widely used when studying social networks[@Brandes01], transport [@Holovatch12], communications and other kind of networks[@Albert01], including Cosmic Web [@Apunevych17]. On the other hand, it occurs that adding more metrics of the node doesn’t help in ML problem of predicting the topology. Let us go through definition of each of the characteristics.
Definitions
-----------
First let us define the metrics based on the number of neighbours of the node. In this section the term ”distance“ between two nodes will refer to the number of edges separating them. Namely, that the distance between nodes is measured in terms of the number of edges in the shortest path between them.
- [*Degree*]{}. The degree $k_j$ of the node $j$ is one of the basic network metrics and is defined simply as the number of its neighbours, that is, nodes that share a common edge with it. In terms of the adjacency matrix: $$k_j = \sum_{i=1}^N a_{ij}.$$ Here and below the summation is carried out over all $N$ nodes of the network, if not explained explicitly.
- [*Average neighbour degree*]{} (a.n. degree) $A_n$ is literally, average degree of the neighbours of node $j$, normalized by number of neighbours: $$A_n(j) = \frac{1}{k_j}\sum_{t \in n(j)} k_t.$$ $n(j)$ denotes set of neighbours of the node $j$.
- [[*Katz centrality*]{}]{} [@Katz53] is a further, higher order generalization of the node degree: it takes into account not only the number neighbours, but also neighbours of neighbours etc. The number of more distant neighbours is weighted inversely with distance. In terms of the elements of the adjacency matrix $a_{ji}$ it is defined as follows: $$C_{\mathrm{K}}(j) = \sum_{l=1}^\infty \sum_{i=1}^N \alpha^l (a^l)_{ji} .$$ Here $(a^l)_{ji}$ denotes element of the adjacency matrix of nodes at distance $l$, which means that its element is 1 if $i$ and $j$ nodes have $l$ elements between them and 0 otherwise. Coefficient $\alpha$ is picked up to keep the sum convergent, but at the same time to take into account as distant neighbours as possible. In this work $\alpha$ is taken to be 0.02, which is a compromise between computational difficulty and depth of characterising network with this metric.
Next, let’s consider other centrality metrics.
- [*Betweeness centrality*]{}. The (normalized) betweenness centrality of a node $j$ tells us the fraction of shortest paths of all paths that go through the node. It is defined by the expression [@Brandes01] : $$C_b(j)= \frac{2}{(N-1)(N-2)}\sum_{s,t=1}^N\frac{\sigma_{st}(j)}{\sigma_{st}}.$$ Here $\sigma_{st}$ is the total number of shortest paths from node $s$ to node $t$ and $\sigma_{st}(j)$ is the number of those paths that pass through $j$. If $s=t$ then $\sigma_{st} = 1$ and if $j=s$ or $j=t$ then $\sigma_{st} = 0$. The metric is 0 if $s$ and $t$ are not connected.
- [*Closeness and harmonic centralities.*]{} The (normalized) closeness centrality of a node $j$ is [@Brandes01] reciprocal to the sum of distances to all other nodes, to which it is connected ($V(j)$). It is normalized by the number of nodes: $$C_c(j)= \frac{N-1}{\sum_{y \in V(j)} d(y,j)},$$ A very similar definition has the harmonic centrality of the node [@Vigna14]. It is the sum of the reciprocal of the shortest path distances from all other nodes to $j$: $$C_h(j)= \sum_{y \in V(j)} \frac{1}{d(y,j)},$$ where $1/d(y,j) = 0$ if there is no path from $y$ to $j$. Unlike closeness, harmonic centrality was computed without normalization.
Now, let us introduce network metrics related to clustering.
- [*Clustering coefficient and triangles*]{}. Triangles of the node $T(j)$ have very simple definition: it’s a number of triangles, formed by edges, that include $j$. Clustering coefficient [@Barthelemy10] is, in addition, normalized by the number of possible triangles, if all neighbours are connected. $$Cl(j) = \frac{2T(j)}{k_j(k_j-1)}.$$ On the other hand, clustering coefficient is equal to fraction of connections between neighbours to all possible connection between them. Also triangles are natural mix of the clustering coefficient and the degree of a node.
- [*Square clustering*]{} of the node $j$, $Sq(j)$, is computed in a similar way as the clustering coefficient, it is a fraction of squares formed by edges of all possible squares if all neighbours are connected.
Finally, *eigenvector centrality* or *eigencentrality* has to be introduced. The eigencentrality is a measure of the influence of a node in a network. Scores are assigned to nodes based on the concept that connections to high-scoring nodes contribute more to the score of the node: $$C_x(j) = \frac 1 \lambda \sum_{t \in n(j)} C_x(t),$$ where $\lambda$ is some constant. Or, in terms the adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, the $j$-th component of eigenvector $\mathbf{x}$ of matrix is the eigenvector centrality of the $j$-th node, $\mathbf{Ax} = {\lambda}\mathbf{x}$. So the node is important if it is linked to other important nodes, and eigencentrality quantifies the measure of importance. It is computed iteratively, and is only defined up to a common factor, so only the ratios of the centralities of the vertices are well defined.
Next, let us compute the correlation coefficients with type (rank) of topology structures and between network metrics themselves.
Correlation between network metrics and topology class
------------------------------------------------------
Our aim is to find out how useful the network information itemized in the previous section is, for the study of the topology of the Cosmic web.. Therefore, we are interested in local (individual) values of network metrics for each node. Nevertheless, for interested reader we provide averages of network metrics in Table 1 for networks with different linking length. Recall, that the results, presented below, are obtained for network with linking length $l=2$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc (the third column of the Table 1).
Our first step is to find the Spearman rank correlation coefficient for all the network metrics of the node with the type of topology structure to which the node belongs. Spearman’s correlation measures the strength and direction of association between two variables, i.e. whether the dependent one grows if the independent does. In our case, the independent variable $X$ is the code of the topology type structure with possible values “0”, “1”, “2” or “3”, as was introduced in [@Libeskind17], and variable $Y$ denotes one of the 10 metrics introduced above: $$r_s = \frac {\operatorname{cov}(X,Y)} { \sigma_{X} \sigma_{Y} }$$ So, we have covariance of these variables in the numerator and product of standard deviations of variables in the denominator.
Despite the fact that we can not directly assign a physical meaning to this variable, intuitively it corresponds to a change in topological structure, from less dense regions (voids) to more dense regions (knots). The results are given in Figure \[fig2\]. Note, that the highest rank correlation is with eigencentrality, which means it is an important characteristic for topology of the network, while the lowest is with clustering and square clustering coefficients, indicating that they don’t differ too much for populations of different topology structure. Differences in Spearman rank correlation coefficients increase with growth of the linking length.
Next we compute the correlations between network metrics themselves. Pearson coefficient is computed for all 45 different pairs of metrics and present in a form of the heatmap in Figure \[fig2\]. This plot shows how correlated different metrics in our network are. One can note, that degree, average neighbour degree and Katz centrality correlate between themselves strongly, which makes sense, as latter two are generalization of the first one. Closeness and harmonic centrality correlate as they have similar definition. The most independent are betweenness centrality and squares.
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
Distributions for different topology class sub-populations
----------------------------------------------------------
Now lets have a look at the number count distributions of the characteristics for subpopulations of different topology. Results are presented in Figures \[fig3\]–\[fig7\].As expected, the higher the correlation between a given metric and the topological structure, the narrower the distribution and the more well defined the maxima will be. In practice we observe this for degree, average neighbour degree and Katz centrality: the maxima in distributions are well distinguishable, they have different form and skewness in the distributions. However, this rule doesn’t hold for the harmonic centrality, which correlates more than degree with the topology index.
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
Consequently, we distinguish three types of metrics by types of distributions in subpopulations of different topology structures: those that have drastically different distribution for different types of large scale structure (degree, a.n. degree, Katz centrality, triangles), those that have similar distributions in different subpopulations (closeness centrality, clustering coefficient, square clustering coefficient), and those that are somewhere in the middle between previous two groups, having somewhat different distributions (harmonic, eigenvector, betweenness centralities). Distributions of degree and clustering coefficient we obtained have comparable distribution with those in [@Apunevych17]. It is also interesting to point out that clustering coefficient seems to have distribution, indifferent to type of topology structure, while it was shown in [@Apunevych17] that distributions of the color index and stellar mass of galaxies as nodes are different for populations with different clustering coefficient.
Machine learning and predictive power of network characteristics
================================================================
The general purpose of using ML in this work is to reproduce topological classification of the Cosmic Web obtained within certain method having just a few characteristics (predictors) for each halo. We have used the following information about halos: spacial coordinates, masses and peculiar velocities, which are fully available with good accuracy in synthetic data. Based on spacial coordinates we found 10 network metrics for each halo, which (together with peculiar velocity and mass) are the predictors in our ML models.
After having tried several ML techniques to compare their predictive power, it turns out, that the extreme gradient boosting decision trees method (with realization via `xgboost` library on `Python`) of classification is the most efficient to predict the topology structure type of nodes. One can find detailed description of this method in [@Chen17], while here we provide a short sketch.
![An example of how a decision tree can be formed in our problem. The “depth” (number of splits) of a tree can be controlled, it is a hyper-parameter of the method. Value of the predictor, which splits the sample at each step is chosen to maximize the “entropy” after splitting, that is to have maximally different subsets at the next step. Final subsets are pre-scripted to one of the classification categories. The prediction is given based on which bucket the instance belongs to after the same series of questions about its characteristic.[]{data-label="tree"}](tree.jpg){width="48.00000%"}
As any other ML classifier, xgboost uses the vector of predictors (also called “features”) $X$ (10 network metrics plus mass and velocity of the halo in our case) to produce prediction $\hat{y}$ of values of the target variable $y$ (index of topology structure in our case). Goal of any ML techniques is to “train” a model (function) $F$ to predict values of the form $\hat{y}_i = F(X_i)$ for $i$-th instance (halo in our case) by minimizing the loss function $L(\hat{y}, y)$ of the prediction: $$L(\hat{y}, y) = \sum_{i=1}^M l(y_i, \hat{y}_i)$$ where summation is over training set of size $M$ (in our case $M=0.9N$) and $l(y_i, \hat{y}_i)$ function that measure the difference between prediction and target variable value for each instance. For regression model it can be mean squared error, $$L(\hat{y}, y) = \tfrac{1}{M}\sum_i^M (\hat{y}_i - y_i)^2.$$ In (our) case of classification model, it is usually taken as a cross-entropy loss function, $$L(\hat{y}, y) = -\tfrac{1}{M}\sum_i^M \left(y_i \log p_i + (1-y)\log(1-p_i) \right),$$ where $p_i=p_i(\hat{y}_i)$ is the probability given by model to predict the correct category $y_i$ of instance $i$ based on its features $X_i$.
The family of decision tree techniques uses an idea of building the classification tree, in which “branching” occurs when splitting the set of instances (halos) by some specific predictor values at each step. After a number of such steps one obtains a subsets, instances in which belong to (almost) the same classes. The ensemble of such trees (with prediction function $f_k(X_i)$ for $k$-th tree), which are weak classifiers, is used to obtain the final prediction. The final prediction is the result of “voting” of predictions from the each tree. The objective function (which is to be optimized in the model) can be written as: $$\mathcal{L} = \sum_i^M l(y_i, \hat{y}_i) + \sum_k \Omega (f_k), \quad$$ where $\hat{y}_i = \sum_k f_k(X_i)$ and summation $\sum_k$ is over ensemble of decision trees. Function $l$ has to be differentiable. Last term, $\sum_k \Omega (f_k)$ is so-called regularization term. It penalizes the complexity of the model and increases with sum of squares of predictors weights in functions $f_k$. We show a sketch of a possible decision tree for our problem in Figure \[tree\].
Gradient boosting of decision trees is a way to enhance the prediction of the tree ensemble with the method of gradient descent. The object function is built iteratively, at each step adding function $f_t$ that improves our model the most. On the $t$-th step: $$\mathcal{L}^{(t)} = \sum_i^N [l(y_i, \hat{y}_i) + g_i f_t(X_i) + \frac{h_i}{2}f_t^2(X_i)] + \sum_k\Omega (f_k),$$ where gradient statistics on the loss function $g_i$ and $h_i$ are improved at each iteration step. Usually, a few hundreds of iterations is made when training such model.
Applying described above ML method gave us following results. Even after running through a set of hyper-parameters of the method (number of trees and depth of each), `xgboost` yields best prediction score only $~70\%$. See Figure \[fig8\] (left panel) for the normalized confusion matrix of the predictions that was obtained. The score for void population is the best ($82\%$), meaning that this method fits the best for distinguishing void population from others in galaxy distribution, while distinguishing between superclusters and other types of structures with such a method is really unsatisfying: it will predict correctly in less than half of cases. Prediction rates for other classification algorithm are given in Table 2.
We also ran the same method for a network built with the linking length $l = 2.4$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The results are given in Figure \[fig8\] on the right panel. They are slightly better: prediction score is $~72\%$, some entries of confusion matrix have improved. This may be a result of the fact, that the larger linking length yields the larger range of metrics values, which in its turn, allows the ML model to give more accurate prediction. But one should remember, that larger linking length requires more computational resources for evaluation all the metrics.
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
Classification algorithm Prediction score
-------------------------- ------------------
T-web 0.510
V-web 0.551
NEXUS+ 0.617
ORIGAMI 0.509
mwsa 0.624
CLASSIC 0.700
\[table2\]
: Prediction rate for different topology classification algorithm
Discussion
==========
In this work we have applied network analysis to a LCDM cosmological simulation. We computed 10 network metrics on the halo distribution of a publicly available simulation [@Libeskind17]. This simulation is useful because it has been used by multiple groups as benchmark for large scale structure quantification. For each metric the correlation with each node’s topology class was computed as well as the cross-correlation between themselves. As a result, it is possible to identify which metrics are more important for topological classification. These are degree, average neighbour degree, eigencentrality and harmonic centrality. We also examined distributions of values of those metrics for subpopulations of each type of structure. For some the difference is visible to the naked eye and this gives us a hint that these metrics may be applied to the study of the large-scale distribtuion of matter.
We studied networks built with different linking length in the range 1.6 – 2.4 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The results described here remain mainly the same within the range, showing that there is no any special scale in this range in the Cosmic Web.
We should mention again, that the most interesting would be comparison our results with those obtained in [@HongDei15] and [@Apunevych17]. In [@HongDei15] authors also linked the topology formed by the dark matter halos of the cosmological simulation (Millennium) with its network metrics: degree centrality, betweenness centrality and clustering. They also studied the distributions of these metrics within the same topology subpopulations. The differences in our results are natural, as we analysed different simulations and the topology structures where defined in another way. In [@Apunevych17] authors studied the correlations between network metrics and properties of the node, real galaxies from the COSMOS catalogue in their case. There are distribution histograms there too, for populations of the different redshifts $z$. One can see resemblance of those with our histograms for degree, closeness centrality and clustering. This means that network built on halos of dark matter and galaxies of baryon matter have similar properties.
Another part of the work was applying xgboost ML technique to predict the topology structure initially assigned with the CLASSIC method (in [@Libeskind17]). The results shows that, unfortunately, combination of the network analysis and machine learning can not be reliable tool for defining topology structures (voids, filaments, sheets and superclusters) having in background only coordinates, masses and velocities of nodes (halos). The average prediction rate is only $~70\%$ for linking length $l=2$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc and $~72\%$ for $l=2.4$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc. However, we can also see, that some structures are more distinguishable than others, for example, predicting voids has rate of $~82\%$.
All this brings us to the next steps of network analysis of the Cosmic Web, which can be analysing the dynamics of network, (through dynamics of network metrics, for example) built on the Cosmic Web, with the cosmological evolution of the large scale structure of the Universe.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the State Found for Fundamental Research of Ukraine under the project F76 and the project of Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine “Formation and characteristics of elements of the structure of the multicomponent Universe, gamma radiation of supernova remnants and observations of variable stars” (state registration number 0119U001544). NIL acknowledges financial support from the Project IDEXLYON at the University of Lyon under the Investments for the Future Program (ANR-16-IDEX-0005). NIL also acknowledge support from the joint Sino-German DFG research Project “The Cosmic Web and its impact on galaxy formation and alignment” (DFG-LI 2015/5-1). Authors are thankful to Dr. R. de Regt for inspiring discussions.
[3]{}
Agarwal S., Dave R. , Bassett B. , MNRAS V. **478 (3)**, P. 3410 – 3422 (2018), [arXiv:1712.03255](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03255). Albert R. , Barabasi A.-L., Reviews of Modern Physics, V. **74**, P. 47 (2002), [arXiv:0106096](https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0106096). Alpaslan M., et al., MNRAS, V. **438 (1)**, P. 177 – 194 (2013), [arXiv:1311.1211](https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1211). An F. et al., ApJ, V. **862 (2)**, (2018), [arXiv:1806.06859](https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06859). Armitage T., Kay S. , Barnes D. , MNRAS, V. **484 (2)**, P. 1526 – 1537 (2019), [arXiv:1810.08430](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08430). Barrow J., Bhavsar S. , Sonoda D., MNRAS, V. **216**, P. 17 – 35 (1985). Barthelemy M., Physics Reports, V.**499**, P. 1 – 101 (2011), [arXiv:1010.0302](https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0302).
Berche B., von Ferber C., Holovatch T., Holovatch Yu., Advances in Complex Systems, V.**15**, 1250063 (2012), [arXiv:1201.5532](https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5532). Brandes U., The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, V. **25**, P. 163 – 177 (2001). Bond J. R., Cole S., Efstathiou G., Kaiser N., ApJ, V. **379**, P. 440 (1991) Carollo C. M., et al., ApJ, V. **776**, P. 71 (2013).
Chen T., Guestrin C., KDD ’16 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, P. 785 – 794 (2016), [arXiv:1603.02754](https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02754). Codis S., Pogosyan D., Pichon Ch., MNRAS, V. **479 (1)**, P. 973 – 993 (2018), [arXiv:1803.11477](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.11477). Colberg M., MNRAS, V. **375 (1)**, P. 337 – 347 (2007), [astro-ph/0611641](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611641). Coutinho C. et al., [arXiv:1604.03236](https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03236). Dobrycheva D., Vavilova I., Melnyk O., Elyiv A., EWASS-2017, Symposium “Astroinformatics: From Big Data to Understanding the Universe at Large” [arXiv:1712.08955](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.08955). Falck B. L., Neyrinck M. C., Szalay A. S., , ApJ, V. **754**, P. 126 (2012).
Fang F. et al., MNRAS, V. **485 (4)**, P. 5276 – 5284 (2019), [arXiv:1809.00438](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00438). Forero-Romero J. E., Hoffman Y., Gottlöber S., Klypin A., Yepes G., MNRAS, V. **396**, P. 1815, (2009).
Hahn O., Porciani C., Carollo C. M., Dekel A., MNRAS V. **375 (2)**, P. 489 – 499 (2007), [astro-ph/0610280](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610280). He S. et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, V. **116** (28), P. 13825 – 13832 (2019), [arXiv:1811.06533](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06533). Hoffman Y., Metuki O., Yepes G., Gottlöber S., Forero-Romero J. E., Libeskind N. I., Knebe A., MNRAS V.**425**, P. 2049 (2012).
Hong S., Dey A., MNRAS, V.**450 (2)**, P.1999 – 2015 (2015), [arXiv:1504.00006](https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00006). Hong S. et al., MNRAS, V.**459**, P. 2690 – 2700 (2016), [arXiv:1603.02285](https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02285). Hong S., Dey A. et al., MNRAS, V. **483** (3), P.3950 – 3970 (2019), [arXiv:1811.10631](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.10631). Hong S., Jeong D. et al., submitted to MNRAS (2019),[arXiv:1903.07626](https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07626). Huertas-Company M., Rouan D., Tasca L. , Soucail G., Le Fevre O., Astronomy and Astrophysics, V. **478 (3)**, P. 971 – 980 (2008), [.](https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1359) Graham M., Clowes R., MNRAS, V. **275**, P. 790 – 796 (1995). Katz L., Psychometrika, V. **18** (1), P. 39 – 43 (1953). Libeskind N. et al., MNRAS, **473**, P. 1195 – 1217 (2018), [arXiv:1705.03021](https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03021). Lucie-Smith L., H. Peiris V., Pontzen A., Lochner M., MNRAS V. **479 (3)**, P. 3405 – 3414 (2018), [arXiv:1802.04271](https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04271). Mustafa M. et al.,Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, **6**:1 (2019), [arXiv:1706.02390](https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02390). Pratyush P. et al., MNRAS, V. **465 (4)**, P. 4281-4310 (2016), [arXiv:1608.04519](https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04519). Rafieferantsoa M., Andrianomena S., Dave R., MNRAS, V. **479 (4)**, P. 4509 – 4525 (2018), [arXiv:1803.08334](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08334).
Ramachandra N.S., Shandarin S. F., MNRAS, V. **452**, P. 1643 (2015).
de Regt R., Apunevych, S., von Ferber C., Holovatch Yu., Novosyadlyj B., MNRAS, V. [**477**]{} (4), P. 4738–4748 (2018), [arXiv:1707.00978](https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00978). Rodriguez A. C. et al., Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, **5**:4 (2018), [arXiv:1801.09070](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09070). Sheth R.K., Tormen G., MNRAS, V. [**329**]{}, P. 61 – 75 (2002), [astro-ph/0105113](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105113). Sheth R.K., Tormen G., MNRAS, V. [**350**]{}, P. 517 – 538 (2004), [astro-ph/0311260](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311260). Vigna B., Vigna P., Vigna S., Internet Mathematics, V.**10.3-4**, P. 222 – 226 (2014).
Zamudio-Fernandez J. et al.,[arXiv:1904.12846](https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12846). Zhang J., Cheng D., Chu M.-Ch., Phys. Rev. D, **97**, 023534 (2018), [arXiv:1708.07602](https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07602) Zhang X. et al., submitted for KDD 2019, [arXiv:1902.05965](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05965).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[**Abstract**]{} – Kinetics of homogeneous nucleation and growth of copper precipitates under electron irradiation of Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$ alloys at concentrations $x$ from 0.06 to 0.4at.% and temperatures $T$ from 290 to 450$^{\circ}$C is studied using the kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) simulations and the statistical theory of nucleation (STN). The conventional assumption about the similarity of mechanisms of precipitation under electron irradiation and during thermal aging is adopted. The earlier-developed $ab \ initio$ model of interactions in Fe-Cu alloys is used for both the KMC simulations and the STN calculations. Values of the nucleation barrier $F_c$ and the prefactor $J_0$ in the Zeldovich-Volmer relation for the nucleation rate $J$ are calculated for a number of concentrations and temperatures. For the dilute alloys with $x\leq 0.2\%$, the STN and the KMC results for the nucleation barrier $F_c$ do virtually coincide with each other, which seems to confirm a high reliability of the STN for this problem. The STN calculations are also used to estimate the temperature dependencies of concentrations which correspond to the homogeneous or the heterogeneous precipitation limit, $x_l^{hom}(T)$ and $x_l^{het}(T)$, and both dependencies are found to be rather sharp.
precipitation, dilute Fe-Cu alloys, kinetic Monte Carlo simulations, statistical theory of nucleation
author:
- |
V.G. Vaks$^{\rm a,b}$$^{\ast}$ [^1], F. Soisson$^{\rm c}$, and I.A. Zhuravlev$^{\rm a}$\
$^{\rm a}$[*[National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, 123182 Moscow, Russia]{}*]{}; $^{\rm
b}$[*[Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University), 117303 Moscow, Russia]{}*]{}; $^{\rm c}$[*CEA, DEN, Service de Recherches de Métallurgie Physique, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France*]{}\
title: 'Studies of homogeneous precipitation in very dilute iron-coper alloys using kinetic Monte Carlo simulations and statistical theory of nucleation'
---
Introduction
============
Studies of copper precipitation in irradiated Fe-Cu-based alloys at temperatures $T\sim 290-300^{\circ}$C and low copper concentrations $x$ between $x$=0.05-0.06% and $x$=0.2-0.3% (in atomic percents, here and below) attract great attention, first of all in connection with the problem of hardening and embrittlement of the nuclear reactor pressure vessels (RPVs), see, e. g. [@Akamatsu-95]-[@Meslin-10b]. Numerous experiments combined with some simulations showed that for the usual conditions of electron irradiation, that is, when the radiation-induced clusters of vacancies and self-interstitial atoms are not formed and the heterogeneous precipitation on them is basically absent, SANS and ATP measurements at $x\lesssim 0.1\%$ typically do not reveal any copper-rich precipitates [@Akamatsu-95; @Mathon-97; @Radiguet-07], even though the alloys remain to be strongly supersaturated. The absence of a significant homogeneous copper precipitation in these electron-irradiated Fe-Cu-based alloys is commonly explained “by the very low volume fraction of probably very small precipitates,... and ... one can infer that the limit of observable copper precipitation at 290 $^{\circ}$C is located between $x$=0.09 and 0.08%” [@Mathon-97], or “between $x$=0.1 and 0.2%” [@Auger-00]. In particular, cluster dynamics simulations of homogeneous precipitation at $x$=0.088%, described in [@Radiguet-07] predict “a very low density ($5\cdot 10^{-16}$ m$^{-3}$) of very big ($R\simeq 30$ nm) copper precipitates”. Under neutron or ion irradiations when copper precipitation can occur heterogeneously at clusters of vacancies or self-interstitial atoms, such precipitation at $T=290^{\circ}$C was observed for $x\gtrsim 0.08$ [@Radiguet-07; @Meslin-10a], but not for $x\lesssim 0.06\%$ [@Miller-06; @Miller-09].
Therefore, theoretical studies of copper precipitation in very dilute Fe-Cu-based alloys near the concentration or temperature limits of such precipitation, $x_l^{hom}(T)$ for the homogeneous nucleation and $x_l^{het}(T)$ for the heterogeneous nucleation, seem to be interesting from both fundamental and applied standpoints, even for binary Fe-Cu alloys which can be considered as model alloys for the RPV steels [@Akamatsu-95; @Mathon-97; @Duparc-02; @Radiguet-07]. Such theoretical studies can be particularly interesting if they can sufficiently reliably predict the temperature dependencies of these precipitation limits at elevated $T>290^{\circ}$C for which experimental estimates are either uncertain or absent.
A consistent $ab \ initio$ model for studies of precipitation kinetics in Fe-Cu alloys has been recently developed by Soisson and Fu [@SF-07], and detailed kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) simulations of precipitation in a number of Fe-Cu alloys at different $T$ and $x$ based on this model yield a good agreement with available experimental data [@SF-07; @KVZ-13]. Therefore, this model and KMC methods developed in [@SF-07] seem to be prospective to study the above-discussed problem of copper precipitation in dilute Fe-Cu alloys.
We will also use the statistical theory of nucleation and growth of isolated precipitates (to be abbreviated as STN) developed by Dobretsov and Vaks [@DV-98a; @DV-98b]. This theory provides microscopic expressions for both the nucleation barrier (activation barrier for the formation of a critical embryo) $F_c$ and the prefactor $J_0$ in the phenomenological Zeldovich and Volmer formula for the nucleation rate $J$ (the number of supercritical embryos formed in unit volume per unit time) [@Lif-Pit-79] valid for the initial, steady-state nucleation stage of precipitation: $$J=J_0\exp (-\beta F_c) \label{J-J_0}$$ where $\beta =1/T$ is the reciprocal temperature. The STN corresponds to a number of refinements of earlier models of nucleation suggested by Cahn-Hilliard [@Cahn-Hil-59] and Langer [@Langer-69]. It is based on the generalized Gibbs distribution approach [@Vaks-04] and enables one to quantitatively calculate values of $F_c$ and $J_0$ for the microscopic alloy model chosen, particularly in the case of high nucleation barriers, $\beta F_c\gg
1$, which just corresponds to the dilute alloys under consideration. In description of growth of supercritical embryos we also use the phenomenological equation of such growth suggested in the classical theory of nucleation [@Lif-Pit-79] and access validity of this equation by comparison with our KMC simulations.
In all our simulations and calculations we consider only homogeneous precipitation and accept the conventional assumption (discussed, in particular, by Mathon et al. [@Mathon-97]) that for the moderate irradiation intensity (i.e. when the ratio of ballistic jump frequency to thermally activated jump frequency is small), the main effect of irradiation is to increase the point defect concentrations, and hence the Fe and Cu diffusion coefficients. It means that the precipitation kinetics under electron irradiation is the same as that during thermal aging at the same temperature, except for an acceleration factor $A_{irr}$ defined by the relation: $$A_{irr}=D^{irr}_{Cu}/D^{th}_{Cu}\label{D_Cu}$$ where $D^{th}_{Cu}$ and $D^{irr}_{Cu}$ are the copper diffusivities during thermal aging and under irradiation, respectively. As evolution of microstructure under precipitation is determined by the diffusion of copper, Eq. (\[D\_Cu\]) implies an analogous relation between the evolution times $t_{irr}$ and $t_{th}$ under irradiation and during thermal aging: $$t_{irr}=t_{th}/A_{irr}. \label{t_irr}$$ Then the precipitation kinetics under electron irradiation can be described by the KMC codes developed by Soisson and Fu [@SF-07] for thermal aging with replacing the thermal aging time $t_{th}$ by the “scaled” time $t_{irr}$ according to Eq. (\[t\_irr\]). This approach is accepted throughout this work. In more detail, scaling relation (\[D\_Cu\]) and estimates of the acceleration factor $A_{irr}$ are discussed in Sec. 4. At the same time, the main results and conclusions of this work do not depend on $A_{irr}$ values as this scaling factor is canceled in many important kinetic characteristics.
In Sec. 2 we present some results of calculations of structure of critical embryos and parameters $F_c$ and $J_0$ in (\[J-J\_0\]) for dilute Fe-Cu alloys obtained using the STN [@DV-98a; @DV-98b]. In Sec. 3 we describe our KMC simulations of nucleation and growth of copper precipitates in dilute Fe-Cu alloys. In Sec. 4 we present an estimate of the acceleration factor $A_{irr}$ based on the rate theory models [@Sizmann-78] and find this estimate to reasonably agree with those obtained using the available experimental data [@Mathon-97] and our KMC simulations. In Sec. 5 we use the phenomenological equation for growth of a supercritical embryo [@Lif-Pit-79] and our KMC simulations to estimate some important kinetic parameter which enters into the STN expression for the prefactor $J_0$ in Eq. (\[J-J\_0\]). In Sec. 6 we show that the nucleation barrier $F_c$ values calculated using the STN agree well with those estimated in our KMC simulations, particularly at large $\beta F_c\gg 1$ which correspond to the concentrations and temperatures near the above-mentioned precipitation limits. In Sec. 7 we use the STN calculations combined with some plausible physical assumptions to estimate the temperature dependence of both the homogeneous and the heterogeneous precipitation limit, $x_l^{hom}(T)$ and $x_l^{het}(T)$, for practically interesting temperatures $T$ between 290 and 450$^{\circ}$C. Our main conclusions are summarized in
Properties of critical embryos in dilute Fe-Cu alloys calculated using the statistical theory of nucleation
===========================================================================================================
In this section we use the STN described in Refs. [@DV-98a; @DV-98b] (to be referred to as I and II) to calculate some thermodynamic, structural and kinetic characteristics of critical embryos. For these calculations we use the $ab$ $initio$ model of Fe-Cu alloys developed by Soisson and Fu and described in detail in Ref. [@SF-07]. Here we only note that this model uses the following values of the binding energy between two copper atoms and between a copper atom and a vacancy, $E^{bn}_{\rm CuCu}$ and $E^{bn}_{v{\rm Cu}}$, for the $n$-th neighbors (in eV): $$\begin{aligned}
&&E^{b1}_{\rm CuCu}=0.121-0.182T,\qquad E^{b2}_{\rm
CuCu}=0.021-0.091T,\nonumber\\
&&E^{b1}_{v{\rm Cu}}=0.126,\qquad E^{b2}_{v{\rm Cu}}=0.139.
\label{E^b-SF}\end{aligned}$$ The high values of $E^{bn}_{\rm CuCu}$ in Eqs. (\[E\^b-SF\]) correspond to strong thermodynamic driving forces for precipitation, while a strong attraction between vacancy and copper atoms leads to the strong trapping of vacancies by copper precipitates discussed in detail in [@SF-07].
First we consider the structural and thermodynamic characteristics of embryos which are described in the STN in terms of the occupation number $n_i$ for each lattice site $i$. The operator $n_i$ is unity when a copper atom is at site $i$ and zero otherwise, while probabilities of various distributions $\{n_i\}$ are described by the distribution function $P\{n_i\}$ given by Eq. (I-3): $$P\{n_i\}=\exp [\beta(\Omega+\mu\sum_in_i-H)]\,.\label{P}$$ Here $H$ is the configurational Hamiltonian supposed to be pairwise, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and the grand canonical potential $\Omega$ is determined by the normalization condition: $$H=\sum_{i>j}v_{ij}n_in_j,\qquad \Omega =-T\ln {\rm Tr}\exp
[\beta(\sum_i\lambda_in_i-H)]\label{H_Omega}$$ where $v_{ij}$ are the configurational interactions, while symbol “Tr” means summation over all configurations $\{n_i\}$. The free energy $F$ of an alloy with embryo is determined by relations $$F=\Omega+\mu\sum_ic_i\, ,\qquad \mu=\partial F/\partial c_i={\rm
constant}\label{F-mu}$$ where $c_i=\langle n_i \rangle = {\rm Tr}(n_iP)$ is the mean occupation number, or the local concentration. The free energy $F=F\{c_i\}$ in (\[F-mu\]) was calculated using several statistical approximations described in detail in I and II: mean-field, “mean-field with fluctuations”, pair-cluster, and “pair-cluster-with fluctuations”. The latter was found to be more consistent and accurate than others, thus below we use only the “pair-cluster-with fluctuations” approximation.
In tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 1 we present some characteristics of critical embryos. To illustrate both concentration and temperature dependencies of these characteristics, we consider two series of Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$ alloys: those with the same temperature $T=290^{\circ}$C but different concentrations $x$ varying from $0.06$ to $0.4$% (Table 1), and those with the same concentration $x=0.2\%$ but different temperatures $T$ varying from $290$ to 390$^{\circ}$C (Table 2). In these tables, $N_c$ is the total number of copper atoms within the embryo, and $R_c$ is its effective radius defined as that of the sphere having the same volume as $N_c$ copper atoms in the BCC lattice of $\alpha$-iron with the lattice constant $a_0$=0.288 nm: $$R_c=a_0(3N_c/8\pi)^{1/3}=0.142\,N_c^{1/3}\,{\rm nm}. \label{R_c}$$ Note that this critical radius (as well as the precipitate radius $R$ in Eq. (\[R-N\]) below) characterizes the total number of atoms but not the “geometrical” size of precipitate, in particular, not its mean squared radius $\langle r_i^2\rangle^{1/2}$ defined by Eq. (II-10). Therefore, for small and “loose” precipitates, such as those shown by lines B and C in Fig. 1, these radii can notably differ from “geometrical” ones. However, quantities $R_c$ and $R$ in (\[R\_c\]) and (\[R-N\]) are convenient to describe the precipitation kinetics.
Quantities $\Delta\Omega_0$ and $\Delta\Omega_1$ in tables 1 and 2 are the zero-order and the first-order terms in fluctuative contributions to the total nucleation barrier $F_c=\Delta\Omega_0+\Delta\Omega_1$ (defined as the difference between grand canonical potentials of two alloy states, that with the embryo and that without the embryo). These two terms correspond to the iterative treatment of some exact relation of thermodynamics of nonuniform systems given by Eq. (I-9) which relates the free energy $F=F\{c_i\}$ to the correlator $K_{ij}$ of fluctuations of site occupations $n_i$: $K_{ij}=\langle (n_i-c_i)(n_j-c_j)\rangle$. As discussed in II and below, the accuracy of such iterative treatment of fluctuations for dilute alloys considered is usually rather high. Fig. 1 illustrates variations of structure of critical embryos with concentration or temperature.
The results presented in tables 1, 2 and Fig.1 clearly illustrate very sharp variations of both structure and thermodynamics of critical embryos with concentration $x$ and temperature $T$. In particular, at $T=290^{\circ}$C, the decrease of concentration from $x=0.4$ to $x=0.06\%$ leads to the increase of the embryo size $N_c$ and the reduced nucleation barrier $\beta F_c$ by about three times: from $N_c\simeq 8$ to $N_c\simeq 25$, and from $\beta F_c\simeq 12$ to $\beta F_c\simeq 35$. According to the Zeldovich-Volmer relation (\[J-J\_0\]), the latter implies decreasing the nucleation rate by about ten orders of magnitude (variation with $x$ of the prefactor $J_0$ in (\[J-J\_0\]) will be shown to be negligible). Table 2 illustrates a similar sharp increase of $N_c$ and $\beta F_c$ under elevating temperature between 290 and $390^{\circ}$C. Fig. 1 shows that this sharp rise of sizes and nucleation barriers is accompanied by notable changes in the structure of the embryo: its boundary at high $\beta F_c\gtrsim 30$ is much less diffuse than that at moderate $\beta F_c\lesssim 20$.
Discussing the concentration profiles shown in Fig. 1 we note that these profiles (as well as those shown in Fig. 1 in [@KVZ-13] and Fig. 2 in [@KSSV-11]) usually correspond to rather diffuse interfaces. At the same time, KMC simulations show that only very small clusters can have a diffuse interface, while for $R\gtrsim
0.3$ nm (that is, $N\gtrsim 10$ copper atoms) one observes almost “pure” copper clusters with a sharp interface, see, e.g., Fig. 8 in [@SF-07]. However, one should take into account that the profiles shown in Fig. 1 (and other similar figures) correspond to statistical averaging over all orientations of a cluster which is typically rather anisotropic, and this averaging leads to diffuse interfaces; it is illustrated, in particular, by Fig. 8 in [@SF-07]. Let us also note that in phenomenological treatments of critical embryos based on the Cahn-Hilliard continuum approach [@Nagano-06; @Philippe-11], the embryo interfaces are usually notably more diffuse than those obtained in the microscopic STN used. In particular, rather sharp interfaces shown by curves A and D in Fig. 1 can hardly be obtained in the phenomenological treatments.
Let us now discuss the prefactor $J_0$ in Eq. (\[J-J\_0\]). In the STN, it is given by Eq. (II-3): $$J_0=\left(\beta |\gamma_0|/2\pi\right)^{1/2}{\cal N} D_{\bf R}({\bf
u})D_{aa}.\label{J_0}$$ Here the first three factors (discussed in detail in I) have the “thermodynamic” origin. They describe dependencies of the free energy and the distribution function of the embryo on the “critical” variable $a$ characterizing its size, and on three variables $\bf u$ characterizing tits position $\bf R$. The last factor $D_{aa}$ is the generalized diffusivity in the $c_i$-space that corresponds to an increase of $a$, i. e. to growth of the embryo. This factor is defined by Eq. (I-55) which expresses $D_{aa}$ as a certain linear combination of generalized mobilities $M_{ij}$ which describe the temporal evolution of mean occupations $c_i$ via Eq. (I-50): $$dc_i/dt=\sum_j[M_{ij}-\delta_{ij}\sum_kM_{ik}]\beta\partial
F/\partial c_j.\label{dc_i/dt}$$ The $M_{ij}$ values can be calculated using some microscopic models, for example, those employed in II. In particular, for the ideal solution (or in the dilute alloy limit which corresponds to small $c_i$), the mobility $M_{ij}=M_{ij}^0$ is given by Eq. (II-8) with $u_{ik}=0$: $$M_{ij}^0=\delta_{ij,nn}\gamma_{nn}^0[c_i(1-c_i)c_j(1-c_j)]^{1/2}.\label{M_ij^0}$$ Here $\delta_{ij,nn}$ is the Kroneker symbol equal to unity when sites $i$ and $j$ are the nearest neighbors and zero otherwise, while quantity $\gamma_{nn}^0$ has the meaning of the mean rate of exchanges between neighboring copper and iron atoms. It is related to the copper diffusivity $D_0$ in a pure iron by the following relation (see, e. g., Eqs. (72) and (74) in [@VZh-12]): $$\gamma_{nn}^0=D_0/a_0^2\label{gamma_nn^0}$$ where $a_0$ is the BCC iron lattice constant used in Eq. (\[R\_c\]).
At the same time, mobilities $M_{ij}$ can be considered as phenomenological parameters in the general Onsager-type equations (\[dc\_i/dt\]), and for weakly nonuniform alloys under consideration they can be supposed to be nonzero only for neighboring sites $i$ and $j$, just as in Eq. (\[M\_ij\^0\]). For our problem, the phenomenological model of $M_{ij}$ can be considered as adequate if it properly describes the diffusion of solute (copper) atoms in processes of nucleation and growth of embryos. In Sec. 5 we show that growth of a supercritical embryo in dilute Fe-Cu alloys can be described well using some generalization of the phenomenological diffusion equation suggested in the classical theory of nucleation [@Lif-Pit-79] given by Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) below. This generalized diffusion equation differs from those for ideal or dilute solutions mainly by the value of the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ which takes into account the acceleration of precipitation kinetics due to the high mobility of small copper clusters noted in Refs. [@SF-07; @Jourdan-10] and discussed below. The $D_{eff}$ values for dilute Fe-Cu alloys considered are estimated in Sec. 5 using kinetic Monte Carlo simulations.
Therefore, we suggest that the adequate phenomenological description of precipitation in Fe-Cu alloys under consideration can be obtained if we assume for mobilities $M_{ij}$ in (\[dc\_i/dt\]) the same simplest form as that in Eq. (\[M\_ij\^0\]), $$M_{ij}=\delta_{ij,nn}\gamma_{nn}[c_i(1-c_i)c_j(1-c_j)]^{1/2}\,,
\label{M_ij}$$ but assume the effective exchange rate $\gamma_{nn}$ in (\[M\_ij\]) to be proportional not to the diffusivity $D_0$ in a pure iron as in Eq. (\[gamma\_nn\^0\]), but to the phenomenological effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ mentioned above: $$\gamma_{nn}=D_{eff}/a_0^2.\label{gamma_nn}$$ Validity of this assumption will be checked by comparison with the KMC simulation results presented in Secs. 5 and 6.
In Table 3 we present values of various factors in the expression (\[J\_0\]) for the prefactor $J_0$ in Eq. (\[J-J\_0\]) for some alloys Fe-Cu. Quantity $\gamma_0$ in this table is the derivative of the free energy $F$ with respect to the effective embryo size $a$: $\gamma_0=\partial^2F/\partial a^2$. As the critical embryo corresponds to the saddle-point of $F$ in the $c_i$-space with respect to this size (I, II), $\gamma_0$ values in table 3 are negative. ${\cal N}$ is the normalizing constant in the embryo size distribution function; $D_{aa}$ is the generalized diffusivity discussed above, and $D_{\bf R}({\bf u})$ is some geometrical factor which for a large embryo is proportional to its surface. For quantities $D_{aa}$, $D_{\bf R}({\bf u})$, and the total prefactor $J_0$ we present their “reduced”, dimensionless values: $D_{aa}/\gamma_{nn}$, $v_aD_{\bf R}({\bf u})$, and $\tilde{J_0}=v_aJ_0/\gamma_{nn}$. Note that the embryo size $N_c$ decreases with $x$ and increases with $T$, as tables 1 and 2 show.
Table 3 shows that both concentration and temperature dependencies of quantities ${\cal N}$ and $D_{aa}/\gamma_{nn}$ are rather weak. On the contrary, the geometrical factor $D_{\bf R}({\bf u})$ notably increases with the embryo size $N_c$, while $\beta|\gamma_0|$ somewhat decreases with $N_c$. The total reduced prefactor $\tilde{J_0}= v_aJ_0/\gamma_{nn}$ notably increases with $N_c$, by about 20 or 5 times for the total $x$ or $T$ intervals shown in table 3. However, in the total nucleation rate $J$ given by Eq. (\[J-J\_0\]), these variations of $J_0$ are negligible as compared to the above-mentioned huge changes of the activation factor $\exp\,(-\beta F_c)$ for these intervals of $x$ or $T$.
Now we note that a very sharp decrease of this activation factor with $x$ between $x\sim 0.2$ and $x\sim 0.08\%$ seen in table 1 evidently correlates with the above-mentioned experimental estimates of the homogeneous precipitation limit at $T=290^{\circ}$C given in Refs. [@Mathon-97; @Auger-00; @Radiguet-07]. It seems natural to suggest that the position $x_l^{hom}$ of this limit is mainly determined by the activation factor $\exp (-\beta F_c)$, or by the reduced nucleation barrier $\beta F_c$ which at $x=x_l^{hom}$ reaches a certain high value $(\beta F_c)_l$. For example, if we accept for the experimental $x_l^{hom}$=$x_l$ at $290^{\circ}{\rm
C}$ the estimate from Ref. [@Mathon-97], $x_l^{exp}\sim
0.08$-$0.09\%$, we have: $(\beta F_c)_l\simeq 28$, while taking this estimate from Ref. [@Auger-00], $x_l^{exp}\sim 0.15\%$, we obtain: $(\beta F_c)_l\simeq 23$. In more detail, estimates of the precipitation limits $x_l$ are discussed below in Sec. 6.
Kinetic Monte Carlo simulations of nucleation and growth of precipitates in dilute Fe-Cu alloys
===============================================================================================
As mentioned in Sec. 1, our KMC simulations use the “scaling” assumptions (\[D\_Cu\]) and (\[t\_irr\]) which enable us to relate the homogeneous precipitation in irradiated alloys to that during thermal aging for which the KMC codes developed by Soisson and Fu [@SF-07] can be employed. In these simulations we consider the following Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$ alloys: (A) those at $T=290^{\circ}$ C and $x$ equal to 0.088, 0.116, 0.144, 0.177, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4%, and (B) those at $x=0.2\%$ and temperatures $T$ equal to 290, 305, 320, 335, 350, 365, 380 and 390$^{\circ}$C. We use simulation volume $V_s=L^3$ with periodic boundary conditions and, to check the statistical reliability of results, we usually employ several different values of the simulation size $L$: $$L_1=128a_0,\quad L_2=160a_0, \quad L_3=192a_0.\label{L_n}$$ Before to describe the results, we mention a characteristic feature of such simulations for some low concentrations $x$ or high temperatures $T$: at such $x$ and $T$, we observe only one precipitate within simulation volume, that is, the total number $N_p$ of precipitates within simulation box is unity (while at further lowering $x$ or elevating $T$ we observe no precipitates for the simulation time). In our simulations it was the case for the series (A) alloys with $T=290^{\circ}$C at $x\leq 0.144\%$, and for the series (B) alloys with $x=0.2\%$, at $T\geq 335^{\circ}$C. In all such cases, the relation $N_p=1$ preserves under increasing simulation volume (replacing $L_1$ by $L_2$ or $L_3$), though the incubation time $t_{inc}$ (that which precedes to the formation of the embryo [@SM-00]) somewhat decreases when $V_s$ increases.
The presence of changes of physical characteristics (such as the precipitate density $d_p=N_p/V_s$ or the incubation time $t_{inc}$) under variations of simulation volume evidently indicates on the statistical unreliability of simulation results for these characteristics. At the same time, the growth of a precipitate after its formation seems to be described by such simulations quite properly. Therefore, even though the simulations with $N_p=1$ can not be used to study the evolution of precipitate density $d_p(t)$, they will be widely used for studies of precipitate growth described in Sec. 5.
When the number of precipitates within simulation box significantly exceeds unity, the simulations become statistically reliable and can be used to study the precipitate density $d_p(t)$. In figures 2 and 3 we show the dependencies $d_p(t)$ for all our simulations for which the final number of precipitates within simulation box is not too small: $N_p\geq 3$. The simulation time on abscissa axis is given in the “thermal aging” values $t_{th}$ which in our model are related to the observed time $t_{irr}$ by Eq. (\[t\_irr\]). The acceleration factor $A_{irr}$ in this relation and comparison with the available data [@Mathon-97] about precipitation in an Fe-0.3%Cu alloy under electron irradiation are discussed below in Sec. 4. In the lower part of frames 2(e) and 2(f) we also show temporal dependencies of the mean precipitate radius $R_m$ for two simulations with $x=0.3\%$. For other our simulations with $N_p\gtrsim 10$ these dependencies are similar and describe usually a smooth increase of $R_m$ by about 20-30%.
The dependencies $d_p(t_{th})$ presented in Figs. 2 and 3 are approximately linear. Therefore, if we define the nucleation rate $J=J_{\rm KMC}$ for these simulations as the ratio $$J_{\rm KMC}=d_p(\tau)/\tau\label{J_KMC}$$ where $\tau=(t_{th}-t_{th}^{inc})$ is the evolution time counted off the incubation time $t_{th}^{inc}$, this nucleation rate for each simulation remains approximately constant, particularly for the simulations with not small $N_p$ where fluctuations are not too strong. Hence these our simulations seem to describe mainly the first stage of precipitation, the steady-state nucleation, for which the constant value of the nucleation rate $J$ is characteristic.
The dashed line in each frame of Figs. 2 and 3 shows our estimate of the $J_{\rm KMC}$ value in Eq. (\[J\_KMC\]) assuming it to be constant. For this estimate we tried to use the maximum broad interval of time $t_{th}$ for which the temporal dependence $d_p(t_{th})$ is close to linear. In spite of the evident scatter of KMC results presented in Figs 2 and 3, particularly for simulations with not large $N_p$, the linear temporal dependence $d_p(\tau_{th})$ can usually be followed rather clearly . Therefore, our estimates of $J_{\rm KMC}$ values in Eq. (\[J\_KMC\]) seem to be sufficiently definite.
At the same time, the Zeldovich-Volmer relation (\[J-J\_0\]) is valid just for the steady-state nucleation stage. Therefore, we can use our estimates of $J_{\rm KMC}$ to estimate the parameters $F_c$ and $J_0$ in (\[J-J\_0\]) putting: $$J_0\exp (-\beta F_c)=J_{\rm KMC}.\label{J_KMC-F_c}$$ As discussed in Sec. 2, variations of the activation factor $\exp
(-\beta F_c)$ with concentration or temperature affect the total nucleation rate $J$ much stronger than those of the prefactor $J_0$. Therefore, for the given $J_{\rm KMC}$, the activation factor $\exp
(-\beta F_c)$ can be determined from Eq. (\[J\_KMC-F\_c\]) rather accurately even if the prefactor $J_0$ is estimated not too precisely, in particular, when $J_0$ is estimated from the STN calculations described in Sec. 2 which include model assumptions (\[M\_ij\]) and (\[gamma\_nn\]).
Substituting for the prefactor $J_0$ its expression via quantities $\tilde{J}_0$, $v_a$ and $\gamma_{nn}$ given in the last line of table 3, and using Eq. (\[gamma\_nn\]) which relates $\gamma_{nn}$ to the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ mentioned in Sec. 2, we can re-write relation (\[J\_KMC-F\_c\]) as the equation for the reduced nucleation barrier $\beta F_c$: $$(\beta F_c)_{\rm KMC}=\ln \Big(2\,D_{eff}\tilde{J}_0/a_0^5 J_{\rm
KMC}\Big)\label{F_c-KMC}$$ where index “KMC” in the left-hand side indicates that this expression for $\beta F_c$ is based on the KMC simulations.
Values of the reduced prefactor $\tilde{J}_0$ can be taken from our STN calculations illustrated by the last line of table 3. Hence to find the reduced nucleation barrier $\beta F_c$ from Eq. (\[F\_c-KMC\]), we need the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$. Estimates of $D_{eff}$ based on our KMC simulations of growth of precipitates are described below in Sec. 5.
Estimate of acceleration precipitation factor $A_{irr}$ for electron irradiation of dilute iron-copper alloys
=============================================================================================================
The concentrations of point defects (vacancies and interstitials) under permanent irradiation may frequently exceed their equilibrium values by several orders of magnitudes [@Sizmann-78]. In such conditions diffusive phase transformations, such as precipitation or ordering, are strongly accelerated. For the case of electron irradiation of Fe-Cu alloys this has been observed, in particular, by Mathon et al. [@Mathon-97] and by Radiguet et al. [@Radiguet-07]. If other irradiation effects (such as ballistic mixing or radiation induced segregation) can be neglected, it is natural to expect that the precipitation kinetics under irradiation is the same as that during thermal aging at the same temperature, except for the strong acceleration of this kinetics described by the factor $A_{irr}$ in Eqs. (\[D\_Cu\]) and (\[t\_irr\]). In this section we estimate this acceleration factor for dilute Fe-Cu alloys under typical conditions of electron irradiation [@Mathon-97] and compare this estimate with both the experimental and KMC simulation results.
For dilute alloys under consideration, the copper diffusivity under thermal aging in Eq. (\[D\_Cu\]) is given by the conventional expression [@LeClaire-78]: $$D_{Cu}^{th} = \alpha _v c_v^{eq} D_v\label{D_Cu^th}.$$ Here $c_v^{eq}$ is the equilibrium vacancy concentration which is expressed via the enthalpy and entropy of vacancy formation, $H_v^{for}$ and $S_v^{for}$, as: $c_v^{eq}=\exp(S_v^{for}-\beta
H_v^{for})$, and $D_v$ is the vacancy diffusion coefficient in a pure iron which is related to the vacancy migration enthalpy and entropy, $ H_v^{mig}$ and $S_v^{mig}$, as follows: $$D_v=a_0^2 \nu _0 \exp(S_v^{mig}-\beta H_v^{mig})\label{D_v}$$ where $a_0$ is the BCC lattice constant and $\nu_0$ is the attempt frequency supposed to have the order of the Debye frequency. The coefficient $\alpha_v$ in (\[D\_Cu\^th\]) describes vacancy-solute correlations, and it is commonly written as [@LeClaire-78]: $$\alpha_v = f_2 \exp \left({\beta G_{Cu-v}^{bin}
}\right)\label{alpha_v}$$ where $f_2$ is the impurity correlation factor, and $G_{Cu-v}^{bin}$ is the copper-vacancy binding energy. These parameters may be obtained from experimental measurements, or from [*ab initio*]{} calculations [@SF-07]. Similarly, under irradiation one may write: $$D_{Cu}^{irr} = \alpha _v c_v^{irr} D_v + \alpha _i c_i^{irr}
D_i\label{D_irr} ,$$ where $c_v^{irr}$ and $c_i^{irr}$ are the vacancy and the interstitial concentrations under irradiation.
It seems natural to assume that the copper-vacancy correlation effects and binding are not modified by irradiation. Detailed information on the interstitial diffusion (needed for calculations of $\alpha _i$ and $D_i$) is usually more difficult to obtain. However, when the point defect concentrations reach their steady-state value, one can show that $c_v^{irr} D_v =c_i^{irr} D_i
$ [@Sizmann-78]. If $\alpha_v$ and $\alpha _i$ are of the same order of magnitude, one finally gets $D_{Cu}^{irr} \simeq 2\alpha _v
c_v^{irr} D_v$, which corresponds to the following acceleration factor in (\[D\_Cu\]) and (\[t\_irr\]): $$A_{irr} = 2\,(c_v^{irr}/ c_v^{eq})\,.\label{A_irr-FS}$$ To compare our KMC simulations during thermal aging and the experimental kinetics of precipitation under irradiation, the key point is therefore to get a reliable estimation of the vacancy point defect concentrations under irradiation. According to the rate theory models [@Sizmann-78], if point defects created by irradiation disappear by mutual recombination or by annihilation at dislocations (which are assumed to be the dominant point defect sinks), the evolution of their concentrations in a pure metal is described by the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{dc_v\over dt} = K - Rc_i c_v - \rho_d D_v (c_v - c_v^{eq} )\nonumber\\
&&{dc_i\over dt} = K - Rc_i c_v - \rho_d D_i (c_i - c_i^{eq} )
\simeq K - Rc_i c_v - \rho_d D_i c_i\,.\label{eq:dcdt}\end{aligned}$$ Here $K$ is the rate of formation of Frenkel pairs under electron irradiation (in dpa/s), $\rho_d$ is the dislocation density, and $R$ is the vacancy-interstitial recombination rate: $$R = 4\pi r_{vi}(D_v + D_i )/v_a\label{R-recombin}$$ where $r_{vi}$ is the recombination radius, and $v_a=a_0^3/2$ is the atomic volume.
For pure iron (for which lattice constant is $a_0$=0.288 nm), most of the point defect properties have been estimated by [*ab initio*]{} calculations. In particular, for the vacancy formation parameters we have: $H_v^{for} = 2.18\;{\rm{eV}}$ [@SF-07] and $S_v^{for} = 4.08$ [@Nichols-78], which gives: $c_v^{eq} \simeq
1.8 \times 10^{ - 18} $ at 290$^{\circ}$C. The migration enthalpies are: $H_v^{mig} = 0.68$ eV [@SF-07] and $H_i^{mig} =
0.34$ eV [@Lucas-09]. The Debye frequency is $\nu _0 = 10^{13}
{\rm{s}}^{{\rm{-1}}}$, and with these parameters a vacancy migration entropy $S_v^{mig} \simeq 2.2$ is required to get the experimental pre-exponential factor for self-diffusion of iron (see Refs. [@SF-07; @Fu-04] for details). Lacking both experimental and [*ab initio*]{} estimations, we will assume the same value for the migration entropy of the interstitials.
The irradiation conditions of ref. [@Mathon-97] are: $K = 2
\times 10^{-9}$ dpa/s at 290$^{\circ}$C, with dislocation densities between $\rho _d=10^8\; \rm cm^{-2}$ and $\rho
_d=10^{11}\; \rm cm^{-2}$. The evolution of point defect concentrations, obtained by numerical integration of Eq. (\[eq:dcdt\]) with these two dislocations densities, is given on Fig. 4. In both cases, the steady-state values are reached very rapidly (after less than $10^{-1}$ s), with vacancy concentrations $c_v^{irr} \simeq 3.5 \times 10^{-11}$ and $3.6 \times 10^{ - 14}
$. The acceleration factor is therefore $A_{irr} \simeq 4 \times
10^4 $ for the highest dislocation density and $A_{irr} \simeq 3.9
\times 10^7 $ for the lowest.
In Ref. [@Mathon-97], a precipitate density of $0.9\times
10^{23} \rm m^{-3}$ is observed under electron irradiation of Fe-0.3%Cu alloy after approximately $8.3\times10^4$ s. Our KMC simulations of precipitation during thermal aging shown in Fig. 2(f) predict a similar density after $1.5\times 10^9$ s. This corresponds to an acceleration by a factor $A_{irr}\sim 1.8\times 10^4$ under irradiation. Considering the strong approximations used in the rate theory model, and the uncertainties on the point defect properties, the agreement between our estimate of $A_{irr}$ and the combination of experimental and KMC results seems to be reasonable.
A more detailed comparison of our simulations with experiments by Mathon et al. [@Mathon-97] is hindered by a low resolution in measurements of precipitate sizes $R$ by SANS method used in [@Mathon-97]: $\Delta R\sim 0.5$ nm. It can explain quantitative disagreements between the results reported in [@Mathon-97] and those shown in frames 2(e) and 2(f). The maximum value of the precipitate density $d_p(t)$ reported in [@Mathon-97], $d_{max}\sim 1.65\times 10^{23}1/{\rm m}^3$, is by about 1.5 times lower than the final values $d_p(t)$ shown in Figs. 2(e) and 2(f), even though the maximum value $d_{max}$ is probably not reached yet in these simulations. Hence, our simulated $d_p$ exceed those reported in [@Mathon-97] by at least several times. At the same time, values of the mean precipitate radius for the nucleation stage (which corresponds to $d_p(t)<d_{max}$) reported in [@Mathon-97], $R_{m,M}^n\sim 1.1$—$1.65$ nm, are by about 2-3 times higher than the analogous values $R_m^n\sim 0.3-0.5$ nm observed in both experiments [@Goodman-73; @Kampmann-86] and simulations [@SF-07; @KVZ-13] for other Fe-Cu alloys, while our $R_m$ in frames 2(e) and 2(f) are close to these usual $R_m^n$. Therefore, it seems probable that because of the above-mentioned low resolution $\Delta R\sim 0.5$ nm, values of the precipitate density $d_p$ reported in [@Mathon-97] are underestimated, while those of the mean precipitate size $R_m$ are overestimated. More accurate measurements of $d_p$ and $R_m$ in dilute Fe-Cu alloys under electron irradiation are evidently needed for a quantitative comparison with our simulations.
Estimates of effective diffusivity of copper atoms for growth of a precipitate using kinetic Monte Carlo simulations
====================================================================================================================
In the phenomenological theory of growth of a supercritical embryo developed for a spherical embryo of a radius $R$ with a sharp edge, the temporal dependence $R(t)$ (for the rigid lattice alloy model used) is described by the following equation [@Lif-Pit-79]: $$dR/dt=D_{eff}(R-R_c)(c-c_b)/R^2. \label{dR/dt}$$ Here $D_{eff}$ is the effective diffusivity of a solute atom (in our case, of a copper atom) in an alloy; $R_c$ is the critical radius; $c=\,x$ is the copper concentration far from the embryo; and $c_b$ is the binodal concentration (solubility limit) for temperature under consideration.
In more realistic descriptions, in particular, in the STN or KMC simulations described in sections 2 and 3, both critical and supercritical embryos have not a sharp edge but a diffuse surface illustrated by Fig. 1. More important, in the phenomenological derivation [@Lif-Pit-79] of Eq. (\[dR/dt\]), the diffusivity $D_{eff}$ was supposed to be constant independent of the precipitate size $N$ and its mobility $m(N)$. At the same time, the recent KMC studies [@SF-07; @Jourdan-10] have shown that the small precipitates under consideration which contain $N\lesssim$100 copper atoms are highly mobile, being much more mobile than individual copper atoms. It leads to a great acceleration of precipitation kinetics which qualitatively corresponds to an increase of the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ in Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) with respect to the diffusivity of an individual copper atom.
In spite of all these simplifications, the phenomenological equation (\[dR/dt\]) is commonly believed to realistically describe growth of supercritical embryos [@Lif-Pit-79]. Accepting this point of view, we first present the explicit solution of Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) for $R(t)$. Then we use our KMC simulations to access validity of Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) and to estimate the parameter $D_{eff}$ in this equation for dilute Fe-Cu alloys under consideration.
First we note that employing the simplest sharp-edge model of an embryo in usual derivations of Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) seems to be unessential, and this equation (at large $N_c\gg 1$ considered) appears to be valid for any realistic description of growth of an embryo, including that used in KMC simulations. The radius $R(t)$ in Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) mainly characterizes the total number $N$ of solute atoms within the embryo, and for any precipitate this radius can be expressed via $N$ analogously to Eq. (\[R\_c\]) for the critical embryo: $$R=a_0(3N/8\pi)^{1/3}=0.142\,N^{1/3}\,{\rm nm}. \label{R-N}$$ The right-hand-side of Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) contains two basic factors (in addition to the diffusivity $D_{eff}$ and a geometrical factor $1/R^2$) which naturally describe the driving force for growth of the embryo: the factor $(c-c_b)$ that characterizes supersaturation of a metastable alloy, and the factor $(R-R_c)$ that describes vanishing of this force at $R=R_c$. Therefore, the phenomenological equation (\[dR/dt\]) with the generalization (\[R-N\]) seems to be rather plausible, and comparison to our KMC simulations given below seems to confirm its validity, at least for the $R$ and $t$ intervals studied.
First we present the explicit solution $R(t)$ of Eq. (\[dR/dt\]). As discussed in detail in [@Lif-Pit-79], the embryo can be considered as “supercritical” only when its size $R$ exceeds some value $(R_c+\Delta)$ where $\Delta$ determines the scale of critical fluctuations of sizes near $R_c$. Therefore, the time $t_{f}$ when the supercritical embryo has been eventually formed is defined by the relation: $$R(t_{f})=(R_c+\Delta).\label{t_fs}$$ For the sharp-edge model of the embryo used in [@Lif-Pit-79], the fluctuation width $\Delta$ is expressed via the interfacial energy $\sigma$ as: $\Delta=(T/8\pi\sigma)^{1/2}$. To generalize this estimate to the case of real embryos with diffuse interfaces, we can express $\sigma$ via the critical radius $R_c$ and the nucleation barrier $F_c$. It yields: $$\Delta= R_c\alpha,\qquad \alpha=(2T/3F_c)^{1/2}.\label{alpha}$$ For large embryos under consideration with $\beta F_c\gg 1$, values of $\alpha$ are small; in particular, for the Fe-Cu alloys listed in tables 1 and 2, we have: $\alpha\sim 0.15-0.2$.
Integrating Eq. (\[dR/dt\]) from the initial time $t_{f}$ defined by Eq. (\[t\_fs\]) to the arbitrary time $t$ when $R(t)=R$, we obtain: $$(R-R_c-\Delta)(R+3R_c+\Delta)/2+R_c^2\ln\,[(R-R_c)/\Delta]=
D_{eff}(c-c_b)\tau\label{R(t)}$$ where $\tau=(t-t_{f})$ is the total time of growth of a supercritical embryo. If we describe this growth by a reduced variable $y=(R-R_c-\Delta)/R_c$, Eq. (\[R(t)\]) takes a universal form which contains only the reduced dimensionless time $\xi$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&y(2+\alpha+y/2)+\ln(1+y/\alpha)=\xi\nonumber,\\
&&\xi=D_{eff}(c-c_b)\tau/R_c^2.\label{y(t)}\end{aligned}$$ At large $R\gg R_c$, the dependence $R(\tau)$ given by Eq. (\[R(t)\]) or (\[y(t)\]) takes the form $$R(\tau)=[2D_{eff}(c-c_b)\tau]^{1/2}\label{R_diff-tau}$$ which describes the diffusion-controlled growth of a spherical embryo, see, e. g., [@Martin-76a].
Now we compare the description of growth of an embryo by the phenomenological equation (\[R(t)\]) or (\[y(t)\]) with that given by our KMC simulations. First, we note that for our model of irradiated alloys based on Eqs. (\[D\_Cu\]) and (\[t\_irr\]), the reduced time $\xi$ in Eq. (\[y(t)\]) does not include the irradiation acceleration factor $A_{irr}$, just as the right-hand side of Eq. (\[F\_c-KMC\]), and this reduced time is explicitly expressed via the thermal aging time $\tau=\tau_{th}=
(t_{th}-t_{th}^{f})$ used in our KMC simulations. Therefore, growth of a supercritical embryo can be described, from one side, by the function $R(\xi)$ determined by Eq. (\[R(t)\]) or (\[y(t)\]). From the other side, such growth can be followed in our KMC simulations for any precipitate chosen, which yields the dependence $R=R_{\rm KMC}(t_{th})$ with $R$ defined by Eq. (\[R-N\]). Equating these two quantities, $$R(\xi)=R_{\rm KMC}(t_{th}),\label{R_xi_KMC}$$ with $\xi$ given by Eq. (\[y(t)\]) for $\tau=\tau_{th}$, we obtain the equality which contains only one unknown parameter $D_{eff}$ at all times $\tau_{th}>0$.
One can expect that the proper choice of this single parameter can provide a good accuracy for obeying equality (\[R\_xi\_KMC\]) at all $\tau_{th}$ considered only if the phenomenological equation (\[dR/dt\]) holds true for these $\tau_{th}$. Therefore, the check of validity of relation (\[R\_xi\_KMC\]) enables us, first, to access reliability of the phenomenological equations (\[dR/dt\]) and (\[R(t)\]) for description of growth of supercritical embryos and, second, to estimate the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ in these equations for dilute Fe-Cu alloys.
It is convenient to characterize the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}(x,T)$ by its ratio $A_c$ to the appropriate dilute alloy diffusivity $D(0,T)=D_0(T)$ writing $D_{eff}$ as $$D_{eff}(x,T)=A_c\times D_0(T).\label{A_c}$$ The parameter $A_c=A_c(x,T)$ in (\[A\_c\]) characterizes the effective acceleration of growth of precipitates being mainly due to the above-mentioned high mobility of small copper clusters. To differ it from the irradiation acceleration factor $A_{irr}$ discussed in Sec. 4, $A_c$ will be called “the acceleration diffusion parameter”.
For the dilute alloy diffusivity $D_0(T)$ of a copper atom in a pure iron at $T=290-450^{\circ}$C we will use the conventional Arrhenius-type expression $$D_0(T)=A\exp\,(-\beta Q)\label{D_0}$$ with the $A$ and $Q$ values suggested by Soisson and Fu [@SF-07] basing on combinations of their $ab \ initio$ calculations and empirical estimates: $$A=0.97\cdot 10^{-4} \ {\rm m^2/s}\,,\qquad Q=2.67 \ {\rm eV}.
\label{SF-parameters}$$ In Figs. 5 and 6 we show the phenomenological functions $R(\xi)$ defined by Eqs. (\[R(t)\]) and (\[y(t)\]) together with the dependencies $R_{\rm KMC}(t_{th})$ observed in our KMC simulations. Each curve $R_{\rm KMC}(t_{th})$ in these figures starts from the time of formation of the precipitate chosen observed in the KMC simulation, while the curve $R(\xi)=R[\xi(t_{th})]$ starts from the time $t_{th}^{f}$ of formation of the supercritical embryo defined by Eq. (\[t\_fs\]). Each frame in these figures corresponds to some of our simulations; for other simulations (not shown in Figs. 5 and 6), the results are similar. The parameter $A_c$ and the time $t_{th}^{f}$ used to draw the curve $R(\xi)$ in each frame have been estimated from the best fit of this $R(\xi)$ to the $R_{\rm
KMC}(t_{th})$ curve at this frame. In Fig. 7 we show the concentration and temperature dependencies of the acceleration diffusion parameter $A_c$ obtained in these KMC estimates.
Let us discuss the results presented in Figs. 5-7. First, we note that some of irregularities in dependencies $R_{\rm
KMC}(t_{th})$ seen in Figs. 5 and 6 can be related not to the real statistical fluctuations of sizes but to the methodical errors due to too long temporal intervals between sequent savings of KMC data. This seems to be the case, in particular, for initial stages of simulations shown in frames 5(a), 6(c) and 6(d), and also for some other frames, e. g., 6(a). At the same time, for the later stages of growth when the precipitate becomes supercritical, $R\gtrsim
(R_c+\Delta)$, these methodical distortions seem to be less significant. Second, Figs. 5 and 6 clearly illustrate the strong fluctuations of sizes in the “critical” region $R\lesssim
(R_c+\Delta)$ mentioned in the discussion of Eqs. (\[t\_fs\]) and (\[alpha\]). Such fluctuations are pronounced, in particular, in frames 5(b), 5(c), 6(c), 6(e), and 6(f). Third and most important, Figs. 5 and 6 show that the description of growth of precipitates by the phenomenological equations (\[dR/dt\]) and (\[R(t)\]) seems to agree well with the KMC simulations, at least up to $R\gtrsim 1.5
R_c$, that is, under increase of the number of copper atoms in the growing embryo by about four times.
Figs. 5 and 6 also clearly illustrate the effects of cluster mobility and their direct coagulation mentioned above. In particular, sudden increases (“jumps”) of $R(t)$ seen in Fig. 5(d) at $t_{th}=10.6\times 10^{9}$ s, as well as in Fig. 5(f) at $t_{th}=1.5\times 10^{9}$ and $t_{th}=1.75\times 10^{9}$ s, occur simultaneously with the disappearance (evidently, due to coagulation) of one of supercritical clusters in Figs. 2(b) and 2(f). Similarly, jumps of $R(t)$ in Fig. 6(a) at $t_{th}=6.56\times
10^{9}$ s and in Fig. 6(b) at $t_{th}=1.46\times 10^{9}$ s occur simultaneously with the disappearance of one supercritical cluster in Figs. 3(b) and 3(d), respectively. The smaller jumps in $R(t)$ seen in Figs. 5(d), 5(e), 6(a) and 6(b) can correspond to coagulation of subcritical clusters which are not registered in Figs. 2 and 3. At the same time, for simulations with $N_p=1$ shown in Figs. 5(a)-5(c) and 6(d)-6(f), for which only one supercritical cluster is present in the simulation box, the large and distinct jumps in $R(t)$ are not clearly seen. Inspection of atomic distributions for these simulations shows that growth of this supercritical cluster is mainly realized via its fast diffusion among almost immobile individual copper atoms which are sometimes “swept” and absorbed by this mobile cluster. Some subcritical clusters containing several copper atoms are also observed in these simulations, and they seem to diffuse notably slower than the supercritical cluster, in a qualitative agreement with Fig. 9 in [@SF-07].
The resulting acceleration diffusion parameter $A_c$ for dilute Fe-Cu alloys is shown in Fig. 7. It is rather high: $A_c\gtrsim
200$, having the same scale as the parameters of acceleration of precipitation in Fe-1.34%Cu alloys at $T=500^{\circ}$C due to the high mobility of copper clusters studied in Refs. [@SF-07] and [@Jourdan-10]. Fig. 7 also shows that the concentration and temperature dependencies of this acceleration are rather sharp. Fig. 7(a) illustrates the notable increase of $A_c$ with increase of copper concentration $x$; it can be explained by a probable enhancement of density of mobile copper clusters (both supercritical and subcritical) under increase of the copper content in an alloy. Fig. 7(b) shows a significant decrease of $A_c$ under elevating temperature $T$. This also seems natural, as elevating $T$ should lead to the weakening of the copper-vacancy binding proportional to the Mayer functions $[\exp\,(\beta E^{bn}_{v{\rm Cu}})-1]$ with $E^{bn}_{v{\rm Cu}}$ from (\[E\^b-SF\]) [@KSSV-11]. Hence the strong trapping of vacancies by copper clusters (which is the physical origin of their high mobility [@SF-07]) should weaken.
Comparison of nucleation barriers found using the STN calculations and the KMC simulations
==========================================================================================
Estimates of the nucleation rate $J_{\rm KMC}$ described in Sec. 3 and illustrated by Figs. 2 and 3, combined with the estimates of the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ discussed in Sec. 5 and illustrated by Figs. 5-7, enable us to find the reduced nucleation barriers $\beta F_c$ in Eq. (\[F\_c-KMC\]) basing on the kinetic Monte Carlo simulations. This equation (\[F\_c-KMC\]) also shows that for the large $\beta F_c$ considered which vary with $x$ and $T$ very sharply, possible errors of a relative order of unity in our estimates of parameters $\tilde{J}_0$, $J_{\rm KMC}$ and $D_{eff}$ make no significant effect on the $\beta F_c$ values obtained.
In table 4 we present the $(\beta F_c)_{\rm KMC}$ values estimated for all simulations shown in Figs. 2 and 3, together with the analogous $(\beta F_c)_{\rm STN}$ values calculated in Sec. 2 with the use of the statistical theory of nucleation [@DV-98a; @DV-98b]. In comparison of these KMC and STN results we should remember that the STN assumes the size and the nucleation barrier of the embryo to be large: $N_c\gg 1,\ \beta F_c\gg 1$. Therefore, the accuracy of this theory and its agreement with the KMC simulations should improve when the size of the embryo increases. The results presented in tables 1, 2 and 4 agree with these considerations. We see that at low concentrations $x\leq
0.2\%$ when both $N_c$ and $\beta F_c$ are sufficiently large: $N_c\gtrsim 12$, $\beta F_c\gtrsim 20$, the agreement between KMC and STN results is virtually perfect: for all nine simulations with $x\leq 0.2\%$ shown in table 4, differences between the $(\beta
F_c)_{\rm KMC}$ and the $(\beta F_c)_{\rm STN}$ values have the order of a percent. At the same time, at higher $x$ equal to 0.3 or 0.4%, the $N_c$ and $\beta F_c$ values notably decrease, and differences between $(\beta F_c)_{\rm KMC}$ and $(\beta F_c)_{\rm
STN}$ increase, which may reflect the lowering of accuracy of the STN.
Therefore, the results presented in table 4 enable us to make an important conclusion that at high values $\beta F_c\gtrsim 20$, the STN-based calculations of nucleation barriers are highly reliable. At the same time, as mentioned in Sec. 2, the homogeneous precipitation limit in dilute Fe-Cu alloys corresponds just to the values $\beta F_c> 20$. Therefore, the nucleation barriers near the homogeneous precipitation limits in these alloys can be reliably calculated using the STN.
Temperature dependencies of precipitation limits in dilute iron-copper alloys
=============================================================================
Calculations of nucleation barriers described in Secs. 2 and 6 can be used for tentative estimates of the homogeneous precipitation limit $x_l^{hom}(T)$ at different temperatures $T$. As mentioned in Sec. 2, it seems natural to suggest that the position of this limit is mainly determined by the value of the activation factor $\exp
(-\beta F_c)$, that is, by the reduced nucleation barrier $\beta
F_c$ which at $x=x_l^{hom}$ takes a certain high value $(\beta
F_c)_l$. It seems also natural to assume that these precipitation limits at different temperatures $T$ correspond to the similar values of the activation factor $\exp (-\beta F_c)$. It implies the following relation: $$(\beta F_c)_l\equiv\beta F_c\Big[x_l^{hom}(T),T\Big]\simeq
C_{hom}\label{F_cl-hom}$$ where $C_{hom}$ is a constant independent of temperature, and thus it can be estimated using the experimental value $x_l^{hom}(290^{\circ}{\rm C})\equiv x_l^{exp}$. For example, using estimates of $x_l^{exp}$ mentioned in Sec. 2, $x_l^{exp}\sim 0.08-0.09\%$ from [@Mathon-97] or $x_l^{exp}\sim
0.15\%$ from [@Auger-00], we obtain: $C_{hom}\simeq 28$ or $C_{hom}\simeq 23 $. Then equation (\[F\_cl-hom\]) with the function $F_c(x,T)$ calculated using the STN enable us to find the $x_l^{hom}(T)$ value. A high accuracy of the STN calculations of nucleation barriers combined with the above-mentioned physical considerations allow us to expect that such “semi-empirical” estimates of the homogeneous precipitation limit for temperatures $T$ of practical interest can be sufficiently reliable.
One can also try to extend this approach to the case of the heterogeneous precipitation of copper on clusters of irradiation-induced point defects, vacancies and self-interstitial atoms (that is, to the case of neutron or ion irradiation [@Akamatsu-95]-[@Meslin-10b]), to estimate the appropriate heterogeneous precipitation limit $x_l^{het}$, which is more interesting for applications. Even though kinetic paths of the heterogeneous and the homogeneous precipitation differ from each other (see, e. g., [@Martin-76b]), the main physical origin for suppressing precipitation at low solute concentrations $x$ seems to be the same for both processes. In both cases, formation of a precipitate needs overcoming the energetic barrier due to the surface loss in the free energy $F$ which is not compensated by the volume gain in $F$ until the precipitate volume becomes sufficiently large. Differences between these two processes are usually related mainly to some geometrical factors which depend on the structure of the heterogeneity [@Martin-76b].
Therefore, one may expect that the heterogeneous precipitation limit $x_l^{het}$ can also be estimated from a phenomenological relation similar to (\[F\_cl-hom\]), but the “limiting” value $F_{cl}$ in this relation should be higher as the nucleation barrier for the heterogeneous nucleation, $F_c^{het}$, is lower than that for the homogeneous nucleation, $F_c^{hom}$. However, if we assume that the difference between $F_c^{het}$ and $F_c^{hom}$ has mainly a geometrical origin (which is the case for the simplest models of heterogeneous nucleation [@Martin-76b]), then the ratio $F_c^{het}/F_c^{hom}$ can be supposed to weakly vary with temperature. Then the temperature dependence of the heterogeneous precipitation limit $x_l^{het}(T)$ can be estimated from a semi-empirical relation similar to (\[F\_cl-hom\]): $$\beta F_c\Big[x_l^{het}(T),T\Big]\simeq C_{het}\label{F_cl-het}$$ where $F_c(x,T)$ is again the STN calculated nucleation barrier for the homogeneous nucleation, while the constant $C_{het}$ is estimated using the experimental value $x_l^{het}(290^{\circ}{\rm
C})\equiv x_{l,exp}^{het}$. For numerical estimates we use the value $x_{l,exp}^{het}\simeq 0.06\%$ given in Refs. [@Miller-06] and [@Miller-09], which yields: $
C_{het}\simeq 35$.
In figure 8 we show positions of the homogeneous and the heterogenous precipitation limits in the $(x,T)$ plane, $T_l^{hom}(x)$ and $T_l^{het}(x)$, calculated for dilute Fe-Cu alloys using Eqs. (\[F\_cl-hom\]) and (\[F\_cl-het\]). For comparison, in Fig. 8 we also show the binodal curve $T_b(x)$ (the copper solubility limit) estimated in [@SF-07] from experimental data and $ab \ initio$ calculations. The results in Fig. 8 are presented for the temperature interval between 290 and 450$^{\circ}$C used for annealing of RPVs [@Auger-00; @Miller-09]. The value $C_{hom}=27.6$ used in Fig. 8 corresponds to $x_l^{hom}(290^{\circ}{\rm C})=0.088\%$ for which Radiguet et al. [@Radiguet-07] did not observe any homogeneous precipitation, while the constant $C_{het}=35$ used in Fig. 8 corresponds to the estimate $x_l^{het}= 0.06\%$ given by Miller et al. [@Miller-06; @Miller-09]. Our calculations also show that a slight variation of the constant $C_{hom}$ or $C_{het}$ leads to an “almost rigid” shift of the curve $T_l^{hom}(x)$ or $T_l^{het}(x)$ in Fig. 7. For example, when this variation of $C_{hom}$ leads to the shift $\delta x_l^{hom}$=0.05% to the right at $290^{\circ}$C, the analogous shift at $450^{\circ}$C is almost the same: $\delta
x_l^{hom}(450^{\circ}{\rm C})\simeq 0.06\%$.
The most interesting general feature seen in Fig. 8 seems to be a rather sharp temperature dependence of the precipitation limits, particularly for the heterogeneous precipitation. For example, the $x_l^{het}$ value at $T=450^{\circ}$C exceeds that at $T=290^{\circ}$C by almost five times, while the $x_l^{hom}$ value increases for this temperature interval by about 3.5 times. These qualitative conclusions can be useful, in particular, for the interpretation of microstructural observations related to the annealing of RPVs [@Miller-09]. Note also that the variations of both precipitation limits, $x_l^{het}(T)$ and $x_l^{hom}(T)$, with temperature for the temperature interval considered are much stronger than those for the solubility limit $x_b(T)$.
To conclude this section, we again note that our equations (\[F\_cl-hom\]) and (\[F\_cl-het\]) for temperature dependencies $x_l^{het}(T)$ and $x_l^{hom}(T)$ are of course tentative and have not been proved formally. At the same time, physical considerations about the dominant role of the activation factor $\exp\,(-\beta
F_c)$ in suppressing precipitation at low $x$ used in our derivation seem to be rather plausible, particularly for the homogeneous precipitation. In the derivation of Eq. (\[F\_cl-het\]) for the heterogeneous precipitation, we also used an assumption about a weak temperature dependence of the ratio $F_c^{het}/F_c^{hom}$ for the temperature interval considered which may seem to be less evident. Therefore, the accuracy of Eq. (\[F\_cl-het\]) for $x_l^{het}(T)$ can, generally, be lower than the accuracy of Eq. (\[F\_cl-hom\]) for $x_l^{hom}(T)$. However, one may expect that the main qualitative features of both dependencies, $T_l^{hom}(x)$ and $T_l^{het}(x)$, shown in Fig. 8 are correctly described by the simple model used.
Conclusions
===========
Let us summarize the main results of this work. We study kinetics of homogeneous nucleation and growth of copper precipitates under electron irradiation of iron-copper alloys at low concentrations $x=0.06-0.4$ at.% and temperatures $T=290-450^{\circ}$C used for service of a number of nuclear reactor pressure vessels [@Akamatsu-95]-[@Meslin-10b]. The earlier-described kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) modeling [@SF-07] and the statistical theory of nucleation (STN) [@DV-98a; @DV-98b] are used. The $ab \
initio$ model of interatomic interactions which describes well the available data about precipitation in Fe-Cu alloys at different $x$ and $T$ [@SF-07; @KVZ-13] is used for both the KMC simulations and the STN calculations. The conventional assumption [@Mathon-97] about the similarity of mechanisms of precipitation under electron irradiation and under thermal aging is also adopted. Then precipitation under electron irradiation can be described by the KMC codes developed by Soisson and Fu [@SF-07] for studies of precipitation during thermal aging but with the acceleration of kinetics under irradiation characterized by the acceleration factor $A_{irr}$ in Eqs. (\[D\_Cu\]) and (\[t\_irr\]). We estimate this acceleration factor for dilute iron-copper alloys considered, and our estimate reasonably agrees with the available experimental data [@Mathon-97].
Our STN-based calculations of the nucleation barrier $F_c$ in the Zeldovich-Volmer relation (\[J-J\_0\]) for the nucleation rate $J$ show that this nucleation barrier varies with $x$ and $T$ very sharply. Thus the concentration and temperature dependencies of the nucleation rate are mainly determined by the variations of the activation factor $\exp\,(-\beta F_c)$ with $x$ or $T$. We also found that at $T=290^{\circ}$C, the interval of concentrations $x$ for which this activation factor starts to fall off very rapidly just corresponds to the interval of positions of the homogeneous precipitation limit $x_l^{hom}$ estimated in experiments [@Mathon-97; @Auger-00; @Radiguet-07].
Our KMC simulations for the dilute alloys considered describe mainly the very initial stage of precipitation, that of the steady-state nucleation characterized by the constant nucleation rate $J$. We also use these KMC simulations to study kinetics of growth of a supercritical embryo and confirm the validity of the phenomenological equation of the classical theory of nucleation which describes this growth [@Lif-Pit-79]. Our simulations also enable us to estimate the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ which enters into the STN expression for the nucleation rate $J$. The $D_{eff}$ values are found to exceed the dilute alloy values $D_0(T)$ by two-three orders of magnitude. This effective acceleration of diffusion seems to be mainly due to the high mobility of small copper clusters found earlier for the precipitation in Fe-1.34%Cu alloy at $T=500^{\circ}$C [@SF-07; @Jourdan-10].
The KMC estimates of the nucleation rate $J$ and the effective diffusivity $D_{eff}$ described above enable us to determine the nucleation barrier $F_c$ using Eq. (\[F\_c-KMC\]) based on the KMC simulations. The resulting values of the reduced nucleation barrier $(\beta F_c)_{\rm KMC}$ are compared with the $(\beta F_c)_{\rm
STN}$ values calculated using the statistical theory of nucleation [@DV-98a; @DV-98b]. We find that for the dilute alloys with $x\leq 0.2\%$, the STN and the KMC results for the nucleation barrier $F_c$ coincide within about a percent. It seems to confirm a high reliability of the STN for this problem.
Making a plausible assumption that the position of the homogeneous nucleation limit $x_l^{hom}$ is mainly determined by the value of the activation factor $\exp\,[-\beta F_c(x,T)]$ which at $x=x_l^{hom}$ takes an approximately same value $\exp\,(-\beta
F_c)_l$ for all temperatures $T$ considered, we use our STN-based calculations of reduced nucleation barriers $\beta F_c$ to estimate the temperature dependence $x_l^{hom}(T)$. For temperatures between 290 and 450$^{\circ}$C, this dependence is found to be rather sharp, much sharper than that for the solubility limit $x_{sol}(T)$. Making an additional assumption about a weak temperature dependence of the ratio of nucleation barriers for the heterogeneous and the homogeneous nucleation, $F_c^{het}/F_c^{hom}$, we also estimate the temperature dependence of the heterogeneous precipitation limit $x_l^{het}(T)$ which corresponds to the neutron or ion irradiations. The dependence $x_l^{het}(T)$ is found to be still more sharp than that for the homogeneous precipitation. In spite of the evidently tentative character of these estimates, one can expect that the main qualitative features of both dependencies, $x_l^{hom}(T)$ and $x_l^{het}(T)$, are described by this model properly.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are very grateful to V. Yu. Dobretsov for his help in the computations using the STN, as well as to A. Barbu and K. Yu. Khromov, for fruitful discussions. The work was supported by the Russian Fund of Basic Research (grant No. 12-02-00093); by the fund for support of leading scientific schools of Russia (grant No. NS-215.2012.2); and by the program of Russian university scientific potential development (grant No. 2.1.1/4540).
[10]{}
M. Akamatsu, J. C. Van Duysen, P. Pareige, P Auger, J. Nucl. Mater. [**225**]{}, 192 (1995).
M.H. Mathon, A. Barbu, F. Dunstetter, F. Maury, N. Lorenzelli, and C.H. de Novion, J. Nucl. Mater. [**245**]{}, 224 (1997).
P. Auger, P. Pareige, S. Weltzel, J.-C. Van Duysen, J. Nucl. Mater. [**280**]{}, 331 (2000).
A. Harduin Duparc, C. Mingeon, N. Smetniansky-de-Grande, A. Barbu, J. Nucl. Mater. [**399**]{}, 143 (2002).
M.K. Miller, M.A. Sokolov, R.K. Nanstad, K. F. Russell, J. Nucl. Mater. [**351**]{}, 187 (2006).
B. Radiguet, A. Barbu, P. Pareige, J. Nucl. Mater. [**360**]{}, 104 (2007).
M.K. Miller, A.A. Chernobaeva. Y.I. Shtrombakh, K. F. Russell, R.K. Nanstad, D.Y. Erak, O.O. Zabuzov, J. Nucl. Mater. [**385**]{}, 615 (2009).
E. Meslin, B. Radiguet, P. Pareige, A. Barbu, J. Nucl. Mater. [**399**]{}, 137 (2010).
E. Meslin, M. Lambrecht, et al., J. Nucl. Mater. [**406**]{}, 73 (2010).
F. Soisson and C.-C. Fu, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 214102 (2007).
K.Yu. Khromov, V.G. Vaks and I.A. Zhuravlev, JETP [**116**]{}, 236 (2013).
V.Yu. Dobretsov and V.G. Vaks, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter [**10**]{}, 2261 (1998).
V.Yu. Dobretsov and V.G. Vaks, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter [**10**]{}, 2275 (1998).
E. M. Lifshits, L. P. Pitaevsky, [*Physical kinetics*]{} (Moscow, Nauka, 1979),
J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, J. Chem. Phys. [**31**]{}, 88 ( 1959)
J. S. Langer, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [**54**]{}, 228 (1969)
V. G. Vaks, Phys. Reports [**391**]{}, 157-242 (2004).
K.Yu. Khromov, F. Soisson, A.Yu. Stroev and V.G. Vaks, JETP [**112**]{}, 415 (2011).
T. Nagano and M. Enomoto, Scripta Mater. [**55**]{}, 223 (2006).
T. Philippe and D. Blavette, J. Chem. Phys. [**135**]{}, 134508 (2011).
T. Jourdan, F. Soisson, E. Clouet, A. Barbu, Acta Mat. [**58**]{}, 3400 (2010).
R. Sizmann, J. Nucl. Mater. [**69-70**]{}, 386-412 (1978).
V. G. Vaks, I. A. Zhuravlev, JETP [**115**]{}, 635 (2012).
F. Soisson and G. Martin, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 203 (2000).
A. D. Le Claire, J. Nucl. Mater. [**69-70**]{}, 70 (1978).
F. A. Nichols, J. Nucl. Mater. [**75**]{}, 32-41 (1978).
G. Lucas and R. Shaublin, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B [**267**]{}, 3009 (2009).
C. C. Fu, F. Willaime and P. Ordejon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 175503 (2004).
S.R. Goodman, S.S. Brenner and J.R. Low, Metall. Trans. [**4**]{}, 2363, 2371 (1973).
R. Kampmann and R. Wagner, in: [*Atomic Transport and defects in Metals by Neutron Scattering*]{}, ed. by C. Janot et al., Springer, New York (1986) p.73.
J. W. Martin, R. D. Doherty [*Stability of microstructure in metallic systems*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press (1976), Sec. 2.3.1.
J. W. Martin, R. D. Doherty [*Stability of microstructure in metallic systems*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press (1976), Sec. 2.2.3.
------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$x$, %
$T$, $^{\circ}$C
$L$ $L_1$ $L_3$ $L_1$ $L_2$ $L_3$ $L_1$ $L_2$
$(\beta F_c)_{\rm KMC}$ 20.1 20.0 21.0 22.1 21.5 22.1 21.9
$(\beta F_c)_{\rm STN}$ 19.8 19.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 21.6 21.6
------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
[^1]: $^\ast$Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'As for the humanoid robots, the internal noise, which is generated by motors, fans and mechanical components when the robot is moving or shaking its body, severely degrades the performance of the speech recognition accuracy. In this paper, a novel speech recognition system robust to ego-noise for humanoid robots is proposed, in which on/off state of the motor is employed as auxiliary information for finding the relevant input features. For this, we consider the bottleneck features, which have been successfully applied to deep neural network (DNN) based automatic speech recognition (ASR) system. When learning the bottleneck features to catch, we first exploit the motor on/off state data as supplementary information in addition to the acoustic features as the input of the first deep neural network (DNN) for preliminary acoustic modeling. Then, the second DNN for primary acoustic modeling employs both the bottleneck features tossed from the first DNN and the acoustics features. When the proposed method is evaluated in terms of phoneme error rate (PER) on TIMIT database, the experimental results show that achieve obvious improvement (11% relative) is achieved by our algorithm over the conventional systems.'
author:
- 'Moa Lee and Joon-Hyuk Chang, '
title: Augmenting Bottleneck Features of Deep Neural Network Employing Motor State for Speech Recognition at Humanoid Robots
---
Human-robot interaction, bottleneck feature, automatic speech recognition, ego-noise, Humanoid robot
Introduction
============
The automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology, the most natural and intuitive means of communication for human-robot interaction, becomes more essential because humanoid robots perform actions or responds according to human commands. Many humanoid robots or similar robots, in reality, including the Softbanks robot Pepper [@Pepper], the MITs home robot JIBO [@JIBO], and Intels Jimmy [@Jimmy] have been developed based on the ASR technology. Recently, many researches on this ASR technology, as an indispensable part for the humanoid robots, have been actively carried out, but still remains a challenging problem The humanoid robots, especially, generate strong internal noise, which results in a significant factor deteriorating the recognition performance. Indeed, because of the close distance between the microphone and the motor or joint than the human voice source, the internal noise incurred from motors, fans, and mechanical components noise is loudly recorded into the microphone installed on the robot especially while the robot is actively moving This self-created noise in humanoid robot is referred to as ego-noise [@Ince], which has been not been fully treated to be addressed while the robust speech recognition in the presence of background noise or external interference has been extensively studied thus far [@ego-noise1]-[@MOA].
As for ego-noise suppression, spectral subtraction [@SS] is one of the common methods. For instance, Ito *et al.* [@ego-noise1] developed an framewise prediction approach based on a neural network (NN), where the noise spectra are predicted by using angular velocities of the joints of the robot. Then, the estimated noise spectra are subtracted from the target signal spectra. One of the problem in this approach is that the ASR performance quite becomes poor when the noise power is not well-estimated especially when the ego-noise is non-stationary. Several researchers have tackled this problem by predicting and subtracting ego-noise using templates. Nishimura *et al.* [@ego-noise5] proposed a method to predict the ego-noise using motion like gesture and walking pattern template obtained from a pre-recorded motor noise corresponding to the motion pattern. With the labeled motion command, the appropriate ego-noise template matched to latest motion is selected from the template database and used for subtraction.
Ince *et al.* [@Ince] extended the small set of noise template database to larger ego-noise space in which the template database was enhanced by incorporating more information related to the joints such as angular positions, velocities and accelerations. Schmidt *et al.* [@ego-noise4] employed the motor data to predict the intrinsic harmonic structure of ego-noise and incorporate the ego-noise harmonics into a multichannel dictionary-based ego-noise reduction approach. These studies on ego-noise reduction show that, unlike the conventional background noise suppression method, the instantaneous motor data of the humanoid robot can be used as a secondary information source for dealing with the ego-noise problem. Recently, we originally devised an idea in [@MOA] to use the motor on/off state as the auxiliary information when designing the acoustic model of the deep neural network (DNN)-based speech recognition system for humanoid robots. However, the auxiliary information is simply designed as a one-hot vector, so the performance gain is limited.
In this paper, we propose a new approach based on the bottleneck features to further improve the speech recognition performance when using the on/off motor state as auxiliary information A first DNN is carefully designed to create motor state dependent bottleneck features for which the first DNN input is determined by concatenating the motor on/off state data in addition to the acoustic features contaminated by the ego-noise. Then, preliminary training is accomplished to yield the bottleneck features, which are fed into the second DNN input, designed for primary acoustic modeling under ego-noise environments. Finally, the second DNN is trained with the input including both the bottled features and acoustic features to fully represent the complex relationship between the audio signal and phoneme. In order to verify the performance of our new approach against the existing methods, experiments are extensively conducted on TIMIT corpus. The experimental results showed better performance in terms of phoneme error reduction (PER) reduction than the baseline models including [@MOA] and the method that used only acoustic features.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The related works and the proposed methods are described in Section II and Section III, respectively. Section IV presents the experimental setting and shows results. Then, Section V concludes the work.
Bottleneck features
===================
{height="2.8in"}
In the past several years, bottleneck features have been widely used in many tasks, such as speech recognition [@Grzl]-[@Sainath], audio classification [@Zhang], [@Seongkyu], speech synthesis [@Wu] and speaker recognition [@Yaman]. The bottleneck features are generated from a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) or deep neural network (DNN) with a middle bottleneck layer having small number of hidden units compared to the other hidden layers. This special hidden layer creates a constriction in the network to compress the task-related (classification or regression) information into a low dimensional representation. Therefore, the bottleneck features can be considered as nonlinear transformation and dimensionality reduction of the input features.
The bottleneck features can be derived using both unsupervised and supervised method. In unsupervised approach, classically, an autoencoder with one hidden layer trained to predicts input features themselves. The network consists of an encoder and a decoder as shown in Fig. 1. The autoencoder has three layers (input, output and hidden layer). The input vector of autoencoder $\mathbf{x}$ is encoded to hidden vector $\mathbf{h}$ by a nonlinear activation function $\sigma$, using learned weight matrix $\mathbf{W}^{(1)}$ and bias vector $\mathbf{b}^{(1)}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
\mathbf{h}=\sigma (\mathbf{W}^{(1)} \mathbf{x}+ \mathbf{b}^{(1)}).\end{aligned}$$ Then, the input vector is decoded from the hidden vector to produce a reconstructed vector $\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}$ using learned weight matrix $\mathbf{W}^{(2)}$ and bias vector $\mathbf{b}^{(2)}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
\mathbf{\widetilde{x}}=\sigma (\mathbf{W}^{(2)} \mathbf{h}+ \mathbf{b}^{(2)}).\end{aligned}$$ The autoencoder parameter $\theta = (\mathbf{W}^{(1)}, \mathbf{b}^{(1)}), (\mathbf{W}^{(2)}, \mathbf{b}^{(2)})$ is learned using back-propagation algorithm by minimizing the mean square error (MSE) loss as defined: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3}
L_{\rm{MSE}}(\theta)=\frac{1}{d}\sum_{x \in \rm{D}}{l_{\rm{ MSE}}}(x, \widetilde{x})=\frac{1}{d}\sum_{x \in \rm{D}}\left\| x-\widetilde{x} \right\| ^2.\end{aligned}$$
{height="2.8in"}
Further, a stacked autoencoder can be used to extract bottleneck features, which are progressively encoded using successive hidden layers. Firstly, each layer is pre-trained as a shallow autoencoder and the learned hidden layer vector $\mathbf{h}_{l}$ is used to learn the next hidden layer $\mathbf{h}_{l+1}$. Then, fine-tuning on the entire stack of hidden layers is performed using back-propagation algorithm. This allows each hidden layer to provide different levels of representation for the input feature. In stacked autoencoder, the hidden vectors are computed as in (1), for $l=1,2,\ldots,L$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4}
\mathbf{h}_{l}=\sigma (\mathbf{W}^{(l)} \mathbf{h}_{l-1}+ \mathbf{b}^{(l)}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{h}_{0}$ is the input vector $\mathbf{x}$ and $L$ denotes the number of hidden layers of stacked autoencoder.
In the supervised approach, bottleneck features are created by an MLP trained to predict the class label (e.g. phoneme states) as shown in Fig. 2. MLP is feed-forward neural network made of an input layer, output layer, and at least one hidden layer. Usually, for a classification task, the softmax function is adopted to convert the values of arbitrary ranges into a probabilistic representation as defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:5}
\sigma(\mathbf{y})=\frac{1}{\sum_{k=0}^{K}{{\rm{exp}}(y_{ k })}}\left[ {\rm{exp}}(y_{ 1 })\cdots {\rm{exp}}(y_{ k }) \right] ^{T},\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the number of elements in $\mathbf{y}$. The learning process attempts to minimize the prediction error $L(x, \widetilde{x})$ with respect to the parameter $\theta = (\mathbf{W}^{(1)}, \mathbf{b}^{(1)}), (\mathbf{W}^{(2)}, \mathbf{b}^{(2)}), \cdots, (\mathbf{W}^{(L)}, \mathbf{b}^{(L)})$. Typically the loss function in MLP is the cross entropy error function [@CE]. The supervised method can create a valuable information for classification task. These bottleneck features provide more effective information while preserving enough information of the original input features.
Proposed methods
================
Motor on/off state data
-----------------------
{height="2.5in"}
Since instantaneous motor state information of the robot is intuitively useful for handling the ego-noise problem, in this paper, we fuse acoustic information obtained from spoken utterances and the motor state information brought by the instantaneous motor on/off state data into a single framework. To do this, we propose a method to use the motor state data as auxiliary features, trains the bottleneck features. The motor data derived from the robot can be classified into a basic operation state in which only the fan and the motor are turned on (“motor off”), and a motion state in which the robot shakes its head or body according to the human command (“motor on”). Our robot transmits auxiliary information with the basic operation state as “state off” and the other state as “state on”. This auxiliary feature can be observed at each frame and contains instantaneous internal state information of the humanoid robot. The concatenated input with conventional spectral features $\mathbf{x'}=[\mathbf{x}; \mathbf{o}]$ is used for bottleneck feature learning.
Extracting motor state dependent bottleneck features
----------------------------------------------------
{height="3.8in"}
The elementary question is to how we fuse the motor data into the conventional acoustic features. Herein, we propose to extend the bottleneck feature-based ASR method, motivated in [@ego-noise5; @DongYu]. The key novelty is to learn the motor state dependent bottleneck features based on additional instantaneous motor data. In this work, 4 hidden layers of structure including bottleneck layer was selected on both unsupervised and supervised methods as shown in left-hand of Fig. 4. The MFCC and auxiliary features are concatenated at each frames and consecutive frames are used to train the bottleneck features. From this, the motor on/off state data can be encoded to more effective representation.
Acoustic model training
-----------------------
Fig. 4 illustrates the overall architecture of the proposed ASR system that employs motor state dependent bottleneck features. The left-hand network is the bottleneck network to extract ego-noise adaptive bottleneck features first. Then, the bottleneck features are stacked alongside the spectral features as input to the right-hand network in order to train the acoustic model. The concatenated features contain the motor state information that is needed to build ego-noise robust speech recognition system. We will investigate the performance of various such system configurations in the next section.
Experiments and Results
=======================
Corpus Description
------------------
**Hardware** **Specifications**
-------------- --------------------------------
Sensors 360 degrees sound localization
Movement 3 full-revolute axes
Sound 2 premium speakers
Processor High-end ARM-based mobile
: Hardware specifications of JIBO [@JIBO].[]{data-label="my-label"}
In order to evaluate the proposed approach, we conducted experiments with a JIBO humanoid robot which has 3 full-revolute axes [@JIBO]. A brief specification of the robot is introduced in Table I. We consider a scenario in which humans interact with a robot while the robot shakes his head. To simulate noisy environments in the humanoid robot, we recorded ego-noises using the single microphone located at the front side of the head. These noise signals involve two types: fan noise and movement noise. The mixing is conducted at various signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels including 5 dB, 10 dB, 15 dB and 20 dB, depending on the distance between the speaker and robot. These mixtures were then used to train and evaluate the ego-noise robust ASR algorithms described above. Our experiments were conducted on the TIMIT database [@TIMIT] divided into three subsets: 3969 utterances as training set, 400 utterances as development set, and 192 utterances as testing set. The waveform sampling rate of the corpus and the recorded noises was 16 kHz. We then measured the proposed algorithm in terms of phoneme error rate (PER) under the aformention environments.
Experimental Setup
------------------
In our experiments, the Kaldi toolkit [@Kaldi] was utilized to train the bottleneck network and the acoustic model. The systems implemented and used for comparison in our experiments are as follows:
*1) DNN* (*MFCC*): A baseline system using no motor data but conventional spectral features, obtained from the spoken utterances, as the input features for training acoustic model.
*2) DNN* (*MFCC + motor data*): A second baseline system using auxiliary features in addition to the conventional spectral features as the input features. The auxiliary features were given by the one-hot representation of the motor on/off state information.
*3) BN-DNN-PHN* (*MFCC + BN-PHN*): The proposed system using motor state dependent bottleneck features as auxiliary features. The ego-noise adaptive features, rather than the simple one-hot representation of motor data, were combined with conventional spectral features and used to train acoustic model. In order to extract ego-noise adaptive features, the one-hot encoded motor state data and the spectral features were utilized for the input features and phoneme (PHN) states were employed for the output features.
*4) BN-DNN-MS* (*MFCC + BN-MS*): Same as BN-DNN-PHN except the output features of the bottleneck network were one-hot representation of motor state (MS) data. It was trained to classify the motor on/off state of the robot.
*5) BN-DNN-MFCC* (*MFCC + BN-MFCC*): Same as BN-DNN-PHN except the output features of the bottleneck network were original MFCC features. It was considered as an autoencoder.
All the systems described above employed the same structure of acoustic model having 5 hidden layers each of which has 512 hidden units. The rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation functions were used in the lower layers, and a softmax function at the output layer. For the conventional spectral features, 13 dimensional MFCC features were extracted using 25ms analysis window with 10 ms frame shift. As for the input of acoustic model, in the baseline systems, the MFCC features stacked with 11 adjacent frames were used and the additional one-hot representation of the motor data was used for the second baseline system. ($13 \times 11 = 143$-dim. for the first baseline system and $15 \times 11 = 165$-dim. for the second respectively.)
In the proposed systems, the additional bottleneck networks with 4 hidden layers were trained separately. To compare the effect of the various bottleneck features, experiments were performed with different output features, bottleneck layer dimensions and bottleneck layer positions. Firstly, the PHN, MS label and original MFCC features were compared as output features. The sigmoid and tanh activation functions were used for classification and regression task, respectively. Also, the bottleneck sizes of 40-dim and 80-dim were compared. Finally, we varied the placement of the bottleneck layer from the bottom hidden layer (position 1) to the top hidden layer (position 4). For all the bottleneck networks, stacked MFCC and auxiliary features ($(13 + 2) \times 11 = 165$-dim.) were used for input. Then, the extracted motor state dependent bottleneck features were combined with the spectral features again and used to train the acoustic model as shown in Fig. 4.
Experimental Results and Analysis
---------------------------------
[lccccc]{} &\
& 5 dB & 10 dB & 15 dB & 20 dB & Avg.\
\
MFCC & 31.1 & 29.1 & 27.9 & 26.9 & 28.8\
MFCC + MS & 31.2 & 28.7 & 26.5 & 25.7 & 28.0\
\
MFCC + BN-PHN & 28 & 25.6 & 24.2 & 24.2 & **25.5**\
MFCC + BN-MS & 30.9 & 27.6 & 25.9 & 25.5 & 27.5\
MFCC + BN-MFCC & 30 & 27.6 & 26.7 & 26.1 & 27.6\
MFCC + BN2-PHN & 28.4 & 25.6 & 24.6 & 24.1 & **25.7**\
MFCC + BN2-MS & 29.7 & 27.2 & 25.9 & 25.8 & 27.1\
MFCC + BN2-MFCC & 30.5 & 27.9 & 26.5 & 25.6 & 27.6\
[lccccc]{} &\
& 5 dB & 10 dB & 15 dB & 20 dB & Avg.\
\
MFCC & 31.6 & 29.1 & 27.7 & 26.8 & 28.8\
MFCC + MS & 31.4 & 28.5 & 26.8 & 26.1 & 28.2\
\
MFCC + BN-PHN & 28.7 & 26.1 & 24.7 & 23.5 & **25.8**\
MFCC + BN-MS & 31 & 27.6 & 26 & 25.5 & 27.5\
MFCC + BN-MFCC & 30.8 & 27.9 & 26.7 & 26.2 & 27.9\
MFCC + BN2-PHN & 29.2 & 26 & 24.7 & 23.8 & **25.9**\
MFCC + BN2-MS & 29.7 & 27.2 & 26.1 & 25.6 & 27.2\
MFCC + BN2-MFCC & 30.3 & 27.8 & 26.7 & 25.4 & 27.6\
Table I and II present the PER results on the “motor on" and “motor off" state, respectively. It is worth noting first that the motor state data shows a better recognition performance on the both states. In particular, the auxiliary features, generated by using the bottleneck network, yielded superior performance when compared to one-hot encoded vectors. It indicates that the bottleneck network can create more valuable representation of the motor state data by fusing along with the spectral features and being compressed.
For comparison of the proposed algorithms, the PER is reported for each output features. The results show that the phoneme states are appropriate as target features. The model with bottleneck features predicting phonemes (BN-PHN) achieved relative PER reduction of 11.5% and 10.4% over the baseline model using no motor data on the “motor off" and “motor on" states respectively. Furthermore, we examined the effect of the bottleneck feature size and it did not show any significant performance differences. Therefore, considering the computational complexity, 40 dimensional bottleneck feature is suitable for extracting motor state dependent bottleneck features.
In addition, the effect of bottleneck layer position is presented in Fig. 5 on both (a) 40 and (b) 80 dimensional bottleneck hidden layer experiments. From the results, It is evident that the middle (second or third) layer is reasonable for the phoneme class and the first hidden layer is moderate for the others.
[0.5]{} {height="2.4in"}
[0.5]{} {height="2.4in"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed a novel method to incorporate the instantaneous motor on/off state information into a ego-noise robust ASR system, which results in a better performance than exploiting no motor data. For this, we employed a bottleneck network to create motor state dependent bottleneck features to effectively integrate the motor data along with conventional speech signals. These ego-noise adaptive bottleneck features provide a significant improvement than one-hot encoded motor state features. We investigated the effect of output features of the bottleneck network and shown that the phoneme states classification output is most effective to extract ego-noise adaptive bottleneck features. Additionally, we compared the effect of the bottleneck layer position and concluded that the middle (second or third) layer is reasonable for the phoneme class and the first hidden layer is moderate for the others. From the experimental results, we concluded that the robot’s instantaneous motor state information is advantageous for human-robot communication. In particular, the bottleneck network can generate more valuable representation of motor data than one-hot encoding method. In a future work, more varied states of the robot will be considered as motor data, e.g. walking state, right/left arm rotating state, head shaking state, or multiple state.
[1]{}
B. Wang, “IBM putting Watson into Softbank Pepper robot," *Next Big Future*, 2016.
P. Rane, V. Mhatre, and L. Kurup, “Study of a home robot: Jibo," *International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology*, vol. 3. No. 10, pp. 490-493. 2014.
21st Century Robot\[Website\]. (2018, Feb. 26). https://www. 21stcenturyrobot.com.
A. Ito, T. Kanayama, M. Suzuki, and S. Makino, “Internal noise suppression for speech recognition by small robots," in *Proc. European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech)*, 2005.
Y. Nishimura, M. Nakano, K. Nakadai, H. Tsujino and M. Ishizuka, “Speech Recognition for a Robot under its Motor Noises by Selective Application of Missing Feature Theory and MLLR," *ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Statistical And Perceptual Audition*, 2006.
G. Ince *et al.*, “Ego noise suppression of a robot using template subtraction," in *Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)*, 2009.
A. Schmidt *et al.*, “A novel ego-noise suppression algorithm for acoustic signal enhancement in autonomous systems," in *IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2018.
M. Lee, J-H. Chang, “DNN-based Speech Recognition System dealing with Motor State as Auxiliary Information of DNN for Head Shaking Robot," to appear in *IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems(IROS)*, 2018.
S. F. Boll, “Supression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction," in *IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing*, vol.27, pp. 113-120, 1979.
F. Grzl, M. Karafit, S. Kontr, and J. Cernocky, “Probabilistic and bottleneck features for LVCSR of mettings," in *IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2007.
D. Yu, M. L. Seltzer, “Improved bottleneck features using pretrained deep neural networks," in *Proc. Interspeech*, 2011.
T. N. Sainath, B. Kingsbury, and B. Ramabhadran, “Auto-encoder bottleneck features using deep belief networks," in *IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*, 2012.
B. Zhang, L. Xie, Y. Ming, H. Huang, and M. Song, “Deep neural network derived bottleneck features for accurate audio classification," in *Proc. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW)*, 2016.
S. Mun, S. Shon, W. Kim, and H. Ko, “Deep Neural Network Bottleneck Features for Acoustic Event Recognition," in *Proc. Interspeech*, 2016.
Z. Wu and S. King, “Improving trajectory modelling for DNNbased speech synthesis by using stacked bottleneck features and minimum generation error training," in *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing*, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1255-1265, 2016.
S. Yaman, J. Pelecanos and R. Sarikaya, “Bottleneck features for speaker recognition," *Odyssey 2012-The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop*, 2012.
G. E. Nasr, E. Badr, and C. Joun, “Cross entropy error function in neural networks: Forecasting gasoline demand," in *Proc. FLAIRS Conference*, 2002.
V. Zue, S. Seneff, and J. R. Glass, “Speech database development at MIT: Timit and beyond," *Speech communication*, vol. 9, iss. 4, pp. 351-356, 1990.
D. Povey *et al.*, “The Kaldi speech recognition toolkit," in *Proc. IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU)*, 2011.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we investigate the influence of ultra thin water layer ($\sim 1-1.5\; nm$) on the van der Waals/Casimir force between gold surfaces. Adsorbed water is inevitably present on gold surfaces at ambient conditions as jump-up-to contact during adhesion experiments demonstrate. Calculations based on the Lifshitz theory give very good agreement with the experiment in absence of any water layer for surface separations $d\gtrsim 10\; nm$. However, a layer of thickness $h\lesssim 1.5\; nm$ is allowed by the error margin in force measurements. At shorter separations, $d\lesssim 10\; nm$, the water layer can have a strong influence as calculations show for flat surfaces. Nonetheless, in reality the influence of surface roughness must also be considered, and it can overshadow any water layer influence at separations comparable to the total sphere-plate rms roughness $w_{shp}+w$.'
author:
- 'G. Palasantzas'
- 'V. B. Svetovoy'
- 'P. J. van Zwol'
title: 'Influence of water adsorbed on gold on van der Waals/Casimir forces'
---
Introduction {#Sec1}
============
When material objects such as electrodes in micro/nanoelectromechanical system are separated by distances of $100\;nm$ or less forces of quantum origin become operative [@Ser97; @Cle03; @Cha01]. These are the van der Waals (vdW) and Casimir forces originating from the same physical basis, but having different names due to historical reasons. The van der Waals force is the short-distances asymptotic of this general force, for which one can neglect the retardation of electromagnetic fields, but the Casimir force is realized at larger distances where the retardation is important. The common origin of the forces is nicely explained by the Lifshitz theory [@Lif56], which is able to describe the transition between the two regimes. It predicts transition between the Casimir and van der Waals forces at separations $d\sim
\lambda_p/10$, where $\lambda_p=2\pi c/\omega_p$ is the plasma wave length and $\omega_p$ is the plasma frequency [@Gen04; @Lam00]. Keeping in mind the common origin of the forces, in what follows we will also use a generalized name [*dispersive forces*]{}.
At separations below $100\;nm$ the Casimir force is very strong and becomes comparable to electrostatic forces corresponding to voltages in the range $0.1-1\;V$ [@Ser97; @Cle03; @Cha01], while for separations below $10\;nm$ the van der Waals force dominates any attraction [@Tab69; @Ede00; @Zwo08a]. These properties make the dispersive force an important player in nanosciencies. Moreover, from the fundamental point of view, measurements of the forces from nano to microscales have attracted strong interest in a search of hypothetical fields beyond the standard model [@Ono06].
In the experiments the dispersive forces are usually measured between a sphere and a plate. In the vdW regime the force depends on distance $d$ as $A_H R/6d^2$, where $R$ is the radius of the sphere. Fits of the experimental data yielded an effective Hamaker constant $A_H\approx (7-25)\times 10^{-20}\;J$ for gold-water-gold systems [@Ton91]. On the other hand, for $Au$-air-$Au$ surfaces studies by Tonckt et al. [@Ton91] using the surface force apparatus in the plane-sphere geometry with millimeter size spheres yielded an effective Hamaker constant of $A_H\approx 28\times 10^{-20}\;J$ for separations $d>8.5\;nm$. Similar values $A_H\approx 29\times
10^{-20}\;J$ [@Pal08] were obtained from AFM force measurements at separations between $12\;nm$ - $17\;nm$. We are using here the term “effective Hamaker constant” because in this distance range the van der Waals asymptotic regime is not fully reached. Fitting the curve force vs distance following from the Lifshitz theory in the range $d=1-5\;nm$ one would find the Hamaker constant to be $A_H\approx 40\times 10^{-20}\;J$ as it is expected between metal surfaces [@But05]. However, in this distance range the experimental determination of the constant for $Au$-air-$Au$ is problematic due to the strong influence of surface roughness and the strong jump-up-to-contact by formation of capillary bridges due to adsorbed water [@Zwo08d]. It was found that even for the lowest attainable relative humidity $\sim2\% \pm 1\%$ large capillary forces are still present.
In this paper we use the term adsorption in sense of physisorption when the electronic structure of atoms or molecules is barely perturbed upon adsorption. Formation of capillary bridges takes place due to water adsorbed on $Au$. We can expect that the surface of $Au$ is covered with an ultra thin water layer, which is present on almost all surfaces exposed to air. Experiment [@Zwo08d] suggest that the thickness of this layer is in the nanometer range. The natural questions one could ask is how thick the water layer is, and what is the influence of this layers on the dispersive force? At short separations, $d\lesssim 20\;nm$, these questions become of crucial importance because they place doubts on our understanding of the dispersive forces when experiments under ambient conditions are compared with predictions of the Lifshitz theory. In this paper we are performing the first steps to answer these questions comparing experimental data at short separations with the theoretical predictions for $Au$ covered with a thin layer of water. The problem is rather nontrivial since surface wettability can be influenced by other adsorbates (e.g., hydrocarbons leading to incomplete wetting), the optical properties of real films must be measured correctly [@Sve08], as well as the influence of surface roughness has to be taken into account [@Zwo08a; @Zwo08b]. The latter lead to uncertainties in the separation distance of real surfaces, and its contribution to the force has to be carefully scrutinized [@Zwo08b; @Zwo08c].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[Sec2\] we provide information on surface roughnesses and force measurements in the AFM experiment, and discuss the distance upon the contact deduced from the measured roughness. In Sec. \[Sec3.1\] the main definitions of the Lifshitz theory are given, and the roughness correction is related with the measured roughness profile. The dielectric function of water at the imaginary frequencies is described in Sec. \[Sec3.2\]. In Sec. \[Sec3.3\] we discuss optical data for gold in relation with the adsorbed water, and in Sec. \[Sec3.4\] the results of the dispersive force calculations are given for nonzero adsorbed water layer. Our conclusions are presented in Sec. \[Sec4\].
Experimental {#Sec2}
============
The dispersive force is measured using the PicoForce AFM [@veeco], between a sphere with a diameter of $100\;\mu m$ attached on a $240\;\mu m$ long cantilever of stiffness $k=4\; N/m$ (as given by the manufacture), and an $Au$ coated silicon plate. Both sphere and plate are coated with $100\; nm$ of $Au$, and afterwards their root-mean-square (rms) roughness was measured by AFM (see Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\]). Analysis of the area on the sphere where the contact with the substrate occurs was performed by inverse imaging (Fig. \[fig1\]) [@Pal08; @Zwo08c]. The histograms in Fig. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\] show the number of pixels corresponding to a given height.
![(a) Reverse AFM scan of a sphere that has been used for measurement. (b) Surface scan and and height distribution with large spots. (c) Surface scan and and height distribution without large spots. The full width of the roughness distribution of the sphere without the spots in (c) is about $6\;
nm$. (d) Grid used for the inverse AFM scans of the contact area.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Notably the sphere roughness of $1.8\pm 0.2\; nm$ rms [@Zwo08b] is an average over a large area where relatively high spots are observed (see Fig. \[fig1\]a,b), which increase the rms roughness value. For plates surfaces (Fig. \[fig2\]) these spots were absent leading to the rms roughness $1.3\pm 0.2\; nm$ [@Zwo08b]. Although the high spots within the contact area may increase the contact separation between bodies, $d_0$, they deform fast when pushing surfaces into contact to determine the deflection sensitivity. This is demonstrated by inverse imaging (see [@Zwo08d] for detailed explanations) and mechanics calculations also confirm it [@Stress]. Locally without the spots or with the deformed spots the roughness obtained by inverse imaging was $0.8-1.2\; nm$ rms or $w_{sph}=1\pm 0.2\; nm$ within the contact area of size $1\; \mu m$ (Fig. \[fig1\]c).
![Scan areas and height distributions of the $Au$ films deposited on $Si$ substrate used for the force measurements.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.ps){width="45.00000%"}
Stiff cantilevers used in this experiment do not allow low voltage electrostatic calibration ($<0.5\; V$) at small separations. To obtain the contact separation due to roughness $d_0$ we used a different procedure. One can define the distance between rough bodies as the distance between zero roughness levels. From the histograms in Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\] it is clear that the zero roughness level corresponds to the maximum of the distribution. Without the spots mentioned above these distributions are approximately symmetric. Two rough surfaces in contact are separated by the distance $d_0$, which is half of the distance between lowest and highest points of the rough profile (full width of the histogram) for the sphere plus the same for the plate. In this way we found $d_0=7.5\pm 1\; nm$ from multiple AFM scans at different locations.
It has to be stressed that this direct way (from the definition) to determine $d_0$ is in good correspondence with what we would expect from the electrostatic calibration. In Refs. [@Zwo08a; @Zwo08b] the relation $d_0\approx (3.7\pm 0.3)\times (w+w_{sph})$ was found from the electrostatic calibration. In our case the total rms roughness (sphere and plate) is $w+w_{sph}=1.3+1=2.3\; nm$. Using this relation we can find $d_0$ within one standard deviation from that found above from the first principle definition.
![Experimental data for the force vs distance (circles) and theoretical prediction without water layer (red curve). Errors in the absolute separation are shown for some points by the bars. The continuous black curve is the prediction for $1.5\;
nm$ continuous water layer. The dashed black curve corresponds to the same water layer with 50% of voids.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The calibration of the deflection sensitivity, cantilever stiffness $k$, and contact potential $V_0$ was done in the same way as in previous work [@Zwo08a]. Electrostatic fitting in the range of distances $1-4\;\mu m$ and voltage interval $\pm (3-4.5)\;V$ yielded the cantilever stiffness $k=8.55\pm 0.38\;N/m$ (with the sphere attached) and contact potential $V_0=10\pm 10\; mV$. After calibration, the dispersive force was measured and averaged (using 40 force curves at 20 different locations yielding an average of 800 curves). The result is shown in Fig. \[fig3\] together with the theoretical curves (see Sec. \[Sec3\]) without (red) or with (black) adsorbed water layer. Each experimental point (circles) is defined with rather large uncertainty in distance, which are shown by the horizontal bars for some points. Indeed, the main uncertainty $\Delta F$ in the dispersive force at short distances comes from the uncertainty $\Delta d =1\; nm$ in the separation upon contact $d_0=7.5\pm 1\; nm$. The error in the force due to error in $d_0$ can be estimated as $(\Delta F/F) \approx c(\Delta d_0/d_0) $, where $c\simeq 2.5$ in the investigated range of distances. Other sources of errors include the error of the cantilever spring constant $\Delta k/k\approx 4\%$ and the error in the radius of the sphere $\Delta R/R=2 \%$. These errors propagated to the force are negligible in comparison with that arising from $\Delta d_0/d_0$. Finally, at separations $d>100\; nm$ the force is rather weak, and the error is dominated by thermomechanical noise as it was explained in former studies [@Zwo08b].
Evaluation of the force based on the Lifshitz theory requires the use of the optical properties of the interacting materials as input data. The optical properties of gold films were measured in air with ellipsometry in the wavelength range $137\;nm-33\;\mu m$ [@Sve08]. Outside of this interval at low frequencies ($\lambda
>33\;\mu m$) the data were extrapolated according to the Drude model with the plasma frequency $\omega_p=7.84\pm 0.07\; eV$ and the relaxation frequency $\gamma=49.0\pm 2.1\; meV$. The Drude parameters were determined from the measured part of the dielectric function [@Sve08]. At high frequencies ($\lambda <137\; nm$) the method of extrapolation did not play any role, and the data were taken from the handbook [@HB].
Theory {#Sec3}
======
Gold-gold interaction in the Lifshitz theory {#Sec3.1}
--------------------------------------------
First we are going to calculate the interaction energy between two plates $E_{pp}^{flat}$. To be more precise it must be the free energy if we consider the interaction at finite temperature $T$. Here, however, we will neglect the thermal effect because our intention is to calculate the force in the short-distance range $d<
100\; nm$. It is known that for these separations and at room temperature the thermal correction is small [@Mil04]. Physically it means that the zero-point quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field give the main contribution to the interaction, while thermally excited fields can be neglected. In this case instead of summation over the discrete set of Matsubara frequencies, one can integrate over a continuous imaginary frequency [@Lif56]. The resulting interaction energy corresponding to zero temperature can be presented in the following form: $$\label{Lif}
E_{pp}^{flat}(d)=\frac{\hbar}{2\pi}\sum\limits_{\mu}\int
\limits_0^{\infty}d\zeta\int\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2}
\ln\left(1-R_{\mu}e^{-2dk_0} \right).$$ Here the index $\mu=s,p$ is running two possible polarization states of the electromagnetic field, and $R_{\mu}$ is the product of the Fresnel reflection coefficients for plates 1 and 2: $R_{\mu}=r_{1\mu}r_{2\mu}$. The integration variables have the physical meaning of the imaginary frequency $\zeta$, and the wave vector $q=|{\rm{ \bf q}}|$ along the plates.
Here it will be assumed that both interacting surfaces are the same: $r_{1\mu}=r_{2\mu}=r_{\mu}$. For what follows it will be convenient to use index [*2*]{} for quantities related to gold. If no additional layer on the gold surface exists, then the Fresnel coefficients can be written as $$\label{r_def}
r_s=\frac{k_0-k_2}{k_0+k_2},\ \ \
r_p=\frac{\varepsilon_2 k_0-k_2}{\varepsilon_2 k_0+k_2},$$ where $k_0$ and $k_2$ are defined as the normal components of the wave vector in vacuum and in $Au$, respectively. These components are $$\label{k_def}
k_0=\sqrt{\zeta^2/c^2+q^2},\ \ \
k_2=\sqrt{\varepsilon_2\zeta^2/c^2+q^2}.$$ In Eqs. (\[Lif\])-(\[k\_def\]) the dielectric function of gold $\varepsilon_2$ has to be understood as the function at imaginary frequencies: $\varepsilon_2 = \varepsilon_2(i\zeta)$. This function cannot be directly measured, but it can be expressed with the Kramers-Kronig relation via the observable dielectric function $\varepsilon_2(\omega)$ at real frequencies $\omega$ $$\label{K-K}
\varepsilon_2(i\zeta)=1+\frac{2}{\pi}\int\limits_0^{\infty}d\omega
\frac{\omega\varepsilon_2^{\prime\prime}(\omega)}{\omega^2+\zeta^2}.$$ Note that only the imaginary part of the dielectric function $\varepsilon_2^{\prime\prime}(\omega)$ contributes to $\varepsilon_2(i\zeta)$. The fact that the dispersive force depends on $\varepsilon_2(i\zeta)$ makes the material dependence of the force sometimes confusing. For example, thin metallic film transparent for visible light gives very significant contribution to the force [@Sve00a]. On the other hand, a hydrogen-switchable mirror that changes from reflection to transmission in visible light does not give a measurable effect [@Ian04].
For practical evaluation of the interaction energy it is convenient to change variables in (\[Lif\]). Namely, instead of $q$ one can introduce $x=2dk_0$. With this variable the integral will run from $\xi=\zeta/\omega_c$ to $\infty$, where $$\label{omc_def}
\omega_c=\frac{c}{2d}$$ is the characteristic imaginary frequency (it is not a characteristic frequency in real domain). Because of exponent in the integrand the integral over $x$ converges fast. However the integral over $\zeta$ running from 0 to $\infty$ is not convenient for numerical evaluation. This problem can be solved by substituting $\zeta=xt\omega_c$. Now $t$ will run from 0 to 1, and in terms of $x$ and $t$ numerical calculation of the integral in (\[Lif\]) becomes convenient: $$\label{E_conv}
E_{pp}^{flat}(d)=\frac{\hbar c}{32\pi^2d^3}\sum\limits_{\mu}
\int\limits_0^1
dt\int\limits_0^{\infty}dxx^2\ln\left(1-R_{\mu}e^{-x}\right).$$ The roughness correction can be calculated as follows. The force between a sphere and a plate $F_{sp}$ is related with the interaction energy per unit area between two plates $E_{pp}$ by the relation: $$\label{F-E}
F_{sp}(d)=2\pi R E_{pp}(d),$$ where $d$ is the minimal distance between bodies and $R$ is the sphere radius. Relation (\[F-E\]) holds true in the limit $R\gg d$ that is the case for our experiment. Roughness gives contribution to the energy $E_{pp}$, which can be presented as $$\label{Efull}
E_{pp}=E_{pp}^{flat}+\delta E_{pp}^{rough},$$ where the first term corresponds to the interaction energy between plates.
The second term in Eq. (\[Efull\]) is responsible for the roughness correction. It can be presented in the form [@Mia05] $$\label{corr}
\delta E_{pp}^{rough}=\int\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}G(k,d)\sigma(k).$$ Here $\sigma(k)$ is the roughness spectrum and $G(k,d)$ is the response function derived in [@Mia05] both are functions of the wave number $k$. For self-affine roughness $\sigma(k)$ scales as [@Kri95] $\sigma (k)\propto k^{-2-2H}$ for $k\xi\gg 1$ and $\sigma (k)\propto const$ for $k\xi\ll 1$. The parameters $\xi$ and $H$ are the correlation length and roughness exponent, respectively. For the roughness calculations we used the roughness model in Fourier space [@Pal93]: $$\label{r_model}
\sigma(k)=\frac{AHw^2\xi^2}{(1+k^2\xi^2)^2},
\ \ \ A=\frac{2}{\left[1-(1+k_c^2\xi^2)^{-H}\right]},$$ where $w$ is the rms roughness, and $k_c\sim 1\;nm^{-1}$ is a lower roughness cutoff.
For actual calculations we took for the roughness parameters in $\sigma (k)$ the values: $w_{sph}=1.0\; nm$, $w=1.3\; nm$, lateral correlation lengths $\xi=20\; nm$, and roughness exponent $H=0.9$ [@Zwo08b]. At separations $d>10\; nm$ roughness can still play significant role by increasing the force. It has to be noted that relation (\[corr\]) derived within the scattering theory [@Mia05] is applicable for $d\gg w+w_{sph}$ and small local surface slopes. For smaller $d$ a much stronger roughness effect is expected increasing the force up to five times or more with respect to that of flat surfaces as former studies indicated [@Zwo08a].
We performed calculations of the force between a sphere of radius $R=50\; \mu m$, and a plate without any water layers using Eqs. (\[E\_conv\])-(\[r\_model\]). As the dielectric function of $Au$ film we used the data for sample 3 from Ref. [@Sve00a]. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig3\] by the red line. One can see that the force without any water layer agrees reasonably well with the experimental data. The question is what restriction can be derived from this agreement on the thickness of the water layer on the gold surface?
Dielectric function of water {#Sec3.2}
----------------------------
In order to understand how the water layer will contribute to the force, we have to know first the dielectric function of water at imaginary frequencies $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$. Water is a well investigated medium, and there are a few works where the dielectric function was calculated. Parsegian and Weiss [@Per81] fitted $\varepsilon_1(\omega)$ by a number of Lorentzian oscillators as it is traditionally used by spectroscopists. Then the function $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$ can be found by analytic continuation. This method, however, does not always give sufficient precision. For example, refitting of the same input data used in [@Per81] gave considerably different result [@Rot96]. Recently a new analytical model for the dielectric function was proposed [@Shu07].
A more reliable approach can be based on the direct use of the optical data of water. It was realized in Ref. [@Dag00] where $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$ was found from available optical data in a wide range of frequencies. The authors were directed to calculation of the van der Waals force at rather small separations $d\sim
1\;nm$. The important imaginary frequencies where $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$ has to be known with the best possible precision are around $\zeta\sim\omega_c=c/2d$. For $d\sim 1\; nm$ important frequencies are $\zeta\sim 100\; eV$. To have $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$ in this frequency range one has to integrate in the dispersion relation (\[K-K\]) (but for $\varepsilon_1$) at $\omega\gtrsim 100\; eV$. For these high frequencies the directly measured quantity is ${\rm Im}\left(1/\varepsilon(\omega)\right)$. The real part of $1/\varepsilon(\omega)$ must be restored with the Kramers-Kronig relation. The complete procedure for calculation of $\varepsilon(i\zeta)$ is rather complex [@Dag00]. In our case, for $d\gtrsim 10\;nm$ this procedure can be significantly simplified.
Segelstein [@Seg81] compiled the data for the absorption coefficient of water in very wide range of wavelengths from $10\;
nm$ to $1\; m$. These data can be used instead of $\varepsilon_1^{\prime\prime}(\omega)$ to calculate $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$. The absorption coefficient $\mu(\omega)$ is related with the imaginary part of the complex refractive index $\tilde{n}(\omega)=n(\omega)+ik(\omega)$ by the relation $\mu(\omega)=2\omega k(\omega)/c$. Between $n(\omega)$ and $k(\omega)$ exists similar dispersion relation as between $\varepsilon_1^{\prime}(\omega)$ and $\varepsilon_1^{\prime\prime}(\omega)$: $$\label{refr}
\tilde{n}(i\zeta)=1+\frac{2}{\pi}\int\limits_0^{\infty}d\omega
\frac{\omega k(\omega)}{\omega^2+\zeta^2}.$$ If we know $\tilde{n}(i\zeta)$ then $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$ can be expressed as $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)=\tilde{n}^2(i\zeta)$. This is true because both functions $\tilde{n}$ and $\varepsilon_1$ are analytical.
The resulting dielectric function of water calculated at the imaginary frequencies is presented in Fig. \[fig4\]. The inset shows the compiled data [@Seg81] for the absorption coefficient of water $\mu(\lambda)$. Our result is close to that in Ref. [@Dag00] and deviates from both in [@Per81] and [@Rot96]. It is interesting to note that $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$ is still far from its static value $\varepsilon_1(0)\approx 80$ even at $\zeta=0.01\; eV$. The static value is reached only at $\zeta
\sim 10^{-6}\; eV$. This is a specific property of water.
![The dielectric function of water at imaginary frequencies. The blue curve is for bulk water (no free volume, $f=0$). The red curve corresponds to water with 50% of free volume, $f=0.5$ (see Sec. \[Sec3.4\]). The inset shows the compiled data for absorption coefficient used as input data to calculate $\varepsilon_1(i\zeta)$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Water film and optical data {#Sec3.3}
---------------------------
The optical properties of our gold films were measured at ambient conditions [@Sve08]. An ultrathin film of water is already incorporated in the optical response of these films. It means that the force calculated with the dielectric function of nominal gold could already include some effect of water. Then the agreement between forces measured and predicted theoretically for pure gold becomes questionable. Therefore, the first question to answer is how well we may know the dielectric function of gold samples from measurements in ambient conditions? This question has also an independent interest for the community dealing with the Casimir effect. Moreover, one could try to extract information on thickness of water films from optical measurements. These problems are closely related and we will analyze them in this subsection.
The ellipsometry can give the “pseudodielectric” function of the investigated material as $$\label{ps_diel}
\langle \varepsilon\rangle=\sin^2\vartheta\left[1+\tan^2\vartheta
\left(\frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}\right)^2\right],$$ where $\vartheta$ is the angle of incidence, and $\rho$ is the directly measured complex ratio of the reflection coefficients $\rho=r_p/r_s$. If the investigated material is a pure gold film, then $\langle \varepsilon\rangle$ as calculated from (\[ps\_diel\]) will correspond to the dielectric function of $Au$ and the reflection coefficients $r_{s,p}$ will coincide with that in (\[r\_def\]).
If there is a water layer of thickness $h$ on top of gold film, then the reflection coefficients entering in (\[ps\_diel\]) will be different. Let us enumerate the media air-water-gold by increasing indexes 0-1-2. Then for both polarizations we have $$\label{r_multi}
r=\frac{r_{01}-r_{21}e^{2ik_1h}}{1-r_{01}r_{21}e^{2ik_1h}},$$ where the reflection coefficients $r_{ij}$ on the border between media $i$ and $j$ are defined as $$\label{rij}
r_{s,ij}=\frac{k_i-k_j}{k_i+k_j},\ \ \ r_{p,ij}=
\frac{\varepsilon_jk_i-\varepsilon_ik_j}
{\varepsilon_jk_i+\varepsilon_ik_j}.$$ Since we expect that the thickness of the water layer is small ($\sim 1\; nm$) then the phase factor $k_1h$ will be small $|k_1h|\ll 1$ at all frequencies covered by the ellipsometers. This is true because in the investigated frequency range $|\varepsilon_1(\omega)|\lesssim 2$. For this reason the measured “pseudodielectric” function $\langle\varepsilon\rangle$ only slightly deviates form the dielectric function of gold $\varepsilon_2$: $$\label{de}
\langle\varepsilon\rangle=\varepsilon_2+
\delta\varepsilon,\ \ \
\left|\frac{\delta\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_2}\right|\ll 1.$$ Using the perturbation theory in $\delta\varepsilon$ one can find from (\[ps\_diel\])-(\[rij\]) the expression for the relative correction to the dielectric function of $Au$: $$\label{deps}
\frac{\delta\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_2}=i\frac{4\pi h}{\lambda}
\sqrt{\langle \varepsilon\rangle-\sin^2\vartheta}\;
\frac{ \langle \varepsilon \rangle - \varepsilon_1 }
{\langle \varepsilon \rangle-1}\cdot
\frac{\varepsilon_1-1}{\varepsilon_1}.$$ This equation precisely coincides with that presented by Aspnes in Ref. [@Asp82].
If the dielectric functions of gold $\varepsilon_2$ and water $\varepsilon_1$ are known, then using Eqs. (\[de\]) and (\[deps\]) one could find the film thickness $h$. This can be performed by the best fit of the known $\varepsilon_2$ with the calculated $\langle \varepsilon\rangle-\delta\varepsilon$. However, as it was demonstrated [@Sve08] the optical properties of opaque $Au$ films depend on the preparation method on the level, which cannot be ignored. For this reason $\varepsilon_2$ is essentially unknown.
The relative correction (\[deps\]) is not negligible at low and high frequencies. At low frequencies the ratio $h/\lambda$ is small but $ \langle \varepsilon \rangle $ is large as it is the case for all good conducting materials. At the largest investigated wavelength $\lambda=30\; \mu m$ and $h=1\; nm$, the correction is about 3%. However, for $\lambda>20\; \mu m $ the noise in the data becomes significant, and this correction is below the noise level. If $h$ is larger, we could in principle determine its value. This is because at low frequencies $\varepsilon_2$ can be described by the Drude model, and we can determine $h$ together with the Drude parameters $\omega_p$ and $\gamma$. This procedure was applied for all investigated $Au$ films but minimization gave unreasonable values of the parameters including a negative water layer thickness. Moreover, the target function used in the minimization is larger than that in the case $h=0$. This probably means that $h$ is small enough so that the correction $\delta \varepsilon $ is on the noise level.
In the high frequency limit the correction is defined by the ratio $h/\lambda$, which is not very small. This frequency range corresponds to the interband absorption of gold where the dielectric function $\varepsilon_2$ cannot be predicted. For this reason we cannot determine $h$ because we have no reliable value to compare with $\langle \varepsilon\rangle-\delta\varepsilon$.
We can conclude that the dielectric function measured ellipsometrically is a good approximation for the dielectric function of pure gold even if there is a layer of adsorbed water. Information on the thickness of the water layer $h\sim 1\;nm$ cannot be extracted from the data since it is below the noise level.
The dispersive force for nonzero water layer {#Sec3.4}
--------------------------------------------
![The force between a flat sphere ($R=50\;\mu
m$) and a plate in the range of small separations between gold surfaces. The curves correspond to different thicknesses $h$ of the water layer.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In the evaluation of the force it will be assumed that water forms a continuous film on the gold surface. In general it can be not the case because water can wet metal surface incompletely due to presence of hydrocarbons and other chemicals on the surface. In the case of incomplete wetting one can use the approach of effective dielectric functions [@Asp82], which reduces the problem to a continuous layer with an effective dielectric function. If $\varepsilon_1$ is the dielectric function of water in its homogeneous form, then the effective dielectric function $\tilde{\varepsilon}_1$ of the material containing a volume fraction of voids $f$ can be found from the equation $$\frac{\tilde{\varepsilon}_1 -\varepsilon _{H}}{
\tilde{\varepsilon}_1 +2\varepsilon _{H}}=f\frac{1-\varepsilon _{H}}{%
1+2\varepsilon _{H}}+(1-f)\frac{\varepsilon_1 -\varepsilon _{H}}{%
\varepsilon_1 +2\varepsilon _{H}}, \label{EMA}$$ where $\varepsilon _{H}$ is the dielectric function of the ”host” material. In the Bruggman approximation it is assumed that the host material coincides with the effective medium, $\varepsilon
_{H}=\tilde{\varepsilon}_1 $, so it treats both void and material phases on an equal basis. At the imaginary frequencies $\tilde{\varepsilon}_1$ with 50% of voids ($f=0.5$) is shown in Fig. \[fig4\] as the red line.
We can calculate the force between flat surfaces using the formulas (\[E\_conv\]) and (\[F-E\]). Now for the reflection coefficients we have to use Eqs. (\[r\_multi\]) and (\[rij\]) taken at imaginary frequencies.
Figure \[fig5\] shows the force at small distances between $Au$ surfaces when both of them are covered with a continuous water layer of thickness $h=0,\;1,\;{\rm and}\;1.5\;nm$. Indeed, the force versus distance between $Au$ surfaces increases with the water layer. This is because the external boundaries of the bodies (water surfaces) are separated by the smaller distance $d-2h$. As one can see the effect of water becomes very significant at separations $d$ below $10\;nm$, which are not accessible in this study. We presented only the forces between flat surfaces because at these small separations there is no a reliable way to estimate the roughness correction. The method developed in [@Mia05] can be applied only for $d\gg w+w_{sph}$; for the system under investigation this condition is $d\gg 2.3\;nm$. At distances where the theory is not applicable it was demonstrated experimentally [@Zwo08a] that the roughness correction increases very significantly, although it was proven for much rougher surfaces than those in the present study.
The effect of water layer on the dispersive force for experimentally investigated separations is shown in Fig. \[fig3\] by continuous and dashed black curves, where we included also the effect of roughness. As one can see a continuous layer of a thickness of $h=1.5\; nm$ is already excluded by the experiment on the level of one standard deviation. However, if there is a discontinuous layer of water containing 50% of air, it is still in agreement with the experiment. We can conclude that the effect of water layer on the dispersive force is considerably masked by large error in the separation upon contact $d_0$. On the other hand, for the distances $d<10\; nm$ the force measurements are rather limited due to strong jump-up-to contact by formation of capillary bridges [@Zwo08d]. In addition for these distances not only water layer but also roughness is a significant factor, which increases the force up to five times with respect to flat surfaces as our former studies [@Zwo08a] indicated. All this lead to a rather complex situation at $d<10\; nm$.
Conclusions {#Sec4}
===========
In conclusion, we investigated the influence of an ultra thin water layer on the dispersive force between $Au$ surfaces. Evaluation of the force in terms of the Lifshitz theory predicts a strong influence of the water layer on the force, especially for small separations $d<10\; nm$, where a higher force is obtained because the effective distance between the $Au$ surfaces decreases. Furthermore, the theoretical predictions are compared to the experimental measurements for distances $d\geq 13\; nm$ (limited due to strong jump-up-to contact by formation of capillary bridges). It is shown that although the water layer increases the force, it falls within the error margins of the measured force. The errors are shown to arise mainly from the experimental uncertainty in determining the separation upon contact due to nanoscale surface roughness.
Notably at short separations (comparable to the total sphere-plate rms roughness $w_{sph}+w$) the influence of surface roughness is also significant. The roughness can also strongly increase the force that complicates the situation to a significant degree. In any case, further experimental work is necessary in combination with smoother surfaces to minimize roughness contributions. Roughness is a rather strong barrier because the measurements we did already are at the limits of realistically possible sphere smoothness. The influence of the water layer will be weaker if it wets incompletely the metal surfaces. It can happen due to presence of hydrocarbons and other chemicals leading to a relatively large contact angles $80^{\circ}$ [@But05; @Zwo08d].
[**Acknowledgements**]{} The research was carried out under project number MC3.05242 in the framework of the Strategic Research programme of the Materials innovation institute M2i (the former Netherlands Institute for Metals Research (NIMR)). Financial support from the Materials innovation institute M2i is gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{}
A. Cleland, [*Foundations of Nanomechanics*]{} (Springer, New York, 2003); P. Ball, Nature [**447**]{}, 772 (2007); F. Capasso, J. N. Munday, D. Iannuzzi, and H. B. Chan, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. [**13**]{}, 400 (2007).
H. B. Chan, V. A. Aksyuk, R. N. Kleiman, D. J. Bishop, F. Capasso, Science [**291**]{}, 1941 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 211801 (2001); R. S. Decca, D. López, E. Fischbach, and D. E. Krause, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 050402 (2003).
F. M. Serry, D. Walliser, and G. J. Maclay, J. Appl. Phys. [**84**]{}, 2501 (1998); E. Buks and M. L. Roukes, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 033402 (2001); Wen-Hui Lin, Ya-Pu Zhao, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [**23**]{}, 1777 (2005); J. Barsenas, L. Reyes, and R. Esquivel-Sirvent, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**87**]{}, 263106 (2005).
E. M. Lifshitz, Sov. Phys. JETP [**2**]{}, 73 (1956); I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Adv. Phys. [**10**]{}, 165 (1961); E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, [*Statistical Physics, Part 2*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980).
C. Genet, F. Intravaia, A. Lambrecht, and S. Reynaud, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 29, no 1-2 (2004)
A. Lambrecht and S. Reynaud, Eur. Phys. Journal D [**8**]{}, 309 (2000).
D. Tabor and R.H. S. Winterton, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**312**]{}, 435 (1969); J. Israelachvili and D. Tabor, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**331**]{}, 19 (1972).
T. Ederth, Phys. Rev. A, [**62**]{}, 062104 (2000).
P.J. van Zwol, G. Palasantzas, J. Th. M. DeHosson, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 075412 (2008).
R. Onofrio, New J. Phys. [**8**]{}, 237 (2006); R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 021301(2005).
A. Tonckt, F. Houze, L. Boyer, J.-L. Loubet, and J. -M. Georges, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**3**]{}, 519 (1991).
G. Palasantzas, P.J. van Zwol, J. Th. M. DeHosson, Appl. Phys. Lett. (2008).
H.-J. Butt, B. Cappella, M. Kappl, Surf. Sci. Reports [**59**]{}, 1 (2005); J.N. Israelachvili, [*Intermolecular and Surface Forces*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1992).
P.J. van Zwol, G. Palasantzas, J. Th. M. DeHosson, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 031606 (2008).
V. B. Svetovoy, P.J. van Zwol, G. Palasantzas, J. Th. M. DeHosson, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 035439 (2008).
P.J. van Zwol, G. Palasantzas, M. van de Schootbrugge, J. Th. M. De Hosson, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**92**]{}, 054101 (2008).
P.J. van Zwol, G. Palasantzas, M. van de Schootbrugge, J. Th. M de Hosson, V. S. J. Craig, Langmuir [**24**]{}, 7528 (2008).
see http://www.veeco.com/
The yield stress for $Au$ is $<100\; Mpa$ (the ultimate strength of $Au$). A $4\;N/m$ cantilever bends $100\;nm$ after contact with the surface (to dermine the deflection sensitivity $m$) exerts a force of $400\; nN$ onto the surface upon contact. The pressure on a local spot of size say $50\; nm$ is about $160\;Mpa$, which is above the ultimate stress for $Au$. Therefore, the features will deform and they do not pose a problem for determing $d_0$.
, edited by E. D. Palik (Academic Press, 1995).
K. A. Milton, J. Phys. A [**37**]{}, R209 (2004).
V. B. Svetovoy and M. V. Lokhanin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**15**]{}, 1013 (2000); M. Lisanti, D. Iannuzzi, and F. Capasso, Proc. Natinonal Acad. Sci. USA [**102**]{}, 11989 (2005).
D. Iannuzzi, M. Lisanti, and F. Capasso, Proc. Natinonal Acad. Sci. USA [**101**]{}, 4019 (2004).
P. A. Maia Neto, A. Lambrecht, and S. Reynaud, Phys. Rev A [**72**]{}, 012115 (2005); Europhys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 924 (2005); C. Genet, A. Lambrecht, P. Maia Neto, and S. Reynaud, Europhys. Lett. [**62**]{}, 484 (2003).
J. Krim and G. Palasantzas, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. B [**9**]{}, 599 (1995); P. Meakin Phys. Rep. [**235**]{}, 1991 (1994).
G. Palasantzas, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 14472 (1993); [**49**]{}, 5785 (1994).
V. A. Parsegian and G. H. Weiss, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**81**]{}, 285 (1981).
C. M. Roth and A. M. Lenhoff, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**179**]{}, 637 (1996).
D. J. Segelstein, M. S. Thesis [*The complex refractive index of water*]{} (University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1981); see also http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html and http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/index.html
R. R. Dagastine, D. C. Prieve, and L. R. White, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**231**]{}, 351 (2000).
F. Shubitidze and U. Österberg, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 046608 (2007).
D. E. Aspnes, Thin Solid Films, [**89**]{}, 249 (1982).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a quantum generalisation of a classical neural network. The classical neurons are firstly rendered reversible by adding ancillary bits. Then they are generalised to being quantum reversible, i.e. unitary. (The classical networks we generalise are called feedforward, and have step-function activation functions.) The quantum network can be trained efficiently using gradient descent on a cost function to perform quantum generalisations of classical tasks. We demonstrate numerically that it can: (i) compress quantum states onto a minimal number of qubits, creating a quantum autoencoder, and (ii) discover quantum communication protocols such as teleportation. Our general recipe is theoretical and implementation-independent. The quantum neuron module can naturally be implemented photonically.'
author:
- Kwok Ho Wan
- Oscar Dahlsten
- Hlér Kristjánsson
- Robert Gardner
- 'M.S. Kim'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography\_bibtex.bib'
title: Quantum generalisation of feedforward neural networks
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Artificial neural networks mimic biological neural networks to perform information processing tasks. They are highly versatile, applying to vehicle control, trajectory prediction, game-playing, decision making, pattern recognition (such as facial recognition, spam filters), financial time series prediction, automated trading systems, mimicking unpredictable processes, and data mining [@Nielsen15; @Azoff94]. The networks can be trained to perform tasks without the programmer necessarily detailing how to do it. Novel techniques for training networks of many layers (deep networks) is credited with giving impetus to the neural networks approach [@LecunBengioHinton15].
The field of quantum machine learning is rapidly developing though the focus has aruably not been on the connection to neural networks. Quantum machine learning, see e.g. [@LloydMR13; @LloydMR13ii; @Montanaro15; @Aaronson15; @GarneroneZL12; @HarrowHL09; @LloydGZ16; @RebenstrostML13; @WiebeBL12; @Adcock15; @HeimRIT15; @GrossYFBE10; @Dunjko16; @Wittek14] employs quantum information processing (QIP) [@NielsenChuang00]. QIP uses quantum superpositions of states with the aim of faster processing of classical data as well as tractable simulation of quantum systems. In a superposition each bit string is associated with two numbers: the probability of the string and the [*phase*]{} [@GarnerDNMV15], respectively. The phase impacts the future probabilities via a time evolution law. There are certain promising results that concern quantum versions of recurrent neural networks, wherein neurons talk to each other in all directions rather than feeding signals forward to the next layer, e.g. with the purpose of implementing quantum simulated annealing [@Lechnere1500838; @quantum-deep-learning; @HeimRIT15; @GarneroneZL12]. In [@Schuld14] several papers proposing quantum neural network designs are discussed and critically reviewed. A key challenge to overcome is the clash between the nonlinear, dissipative dynamics of neural network computing and the linear, reversible dynamics of quantum computing [@Schuld14]. A key reason for wanting well-functioning quantum neural networks is that these could do for quantum inputs what classical networks can do for classical inputs, e.g. compressing data encoded in quantum superpositions to a minimal number of qubits.
We here accordingly focus on creating quantum generalisations of classical neural networks, which can take quantum inputs and process them coherently. Our networks contribute to a research direction known as [ *quantum learning*]{} [@Bisio10; @Sasaki02; @Sentis15; @Banchi16; @Palittapongarnpim16] which concerns learning and optimising with truly quantum objects. The networks provide a route to harnessing the powerful neural network paradigm for this purpose. Moreover they are strict generalisations of the classical networks, providing a clear framework for comparing the power of quantum and classical neural networks.
The networks generalise classical neural networks to the quantum case in a similar sense to how quantum computing generalises classical computing. We start with a common classical neural network family: feedforward perceptron networks. We make the invidual neurons reversible and then naturally generalise them to being quantum reversible (unitary). This resolves the classical-quantum clash mentioned above from [@Schuld14]. An efficient training method is identified: global gradient descent for a quantum generalisation of the cost function, a function evaluating how close the outputs are to the desired outputs. To illustrate the ability of the quantum network we apply it to (i) compressing information encoded in superpositions onto fewer qubits (an autoencoder) and (ii) re-discovering the quantum teleportation protocol—this illustrates that the network can work out QIP protocols given only the task. To make the connection to physics clear we describe how to simulate and train the network with quantum photonics.
We proceed as follows. Firstly, we describe the recipe for generalising the classical neural network. Then it is demonstrated how the network can be applied to the tasks mentioned above, followed by a design of a quantum photonic realisation of a neural module. We discuss the results, followed finally by a summary and outlook.
Quantum neural networks {#quantum-neural-networks .unnumbered}
=======================
Classical neural networks are composed of elementary units called neurons. We begin with describing these, before detailing how to generalise them to quantum neurons.
The classical neuron {#the-classical-neuron .unnumbered}
--------------------
A classical neuron is depicted in FIG. \[fig:classical\_neuron\]. In this case, it has two inputs (though there could be more). There is one output, which depends on the inputs (bits in our case) and a set of weights (real numbers): if the weighted sum of inputs is above a set threshold, the output is 1, else it is 0.
![\[fig:classical\_neuron\]A classical neuron taking two inputs $in_{1}$ and $in_{2}$ and giving a corresponding output $out$ [@Nielsen15]. $a_j^{(l)}$ labels the output of the $j^{th}$ neuron in the $l^{th}$ layer of the network. ](classical_neuron1.png){height="2cm"}
We will use the following standard general notation. The $j^{th}$ neuron in the $l^{th}$ layer of a network takes a number of inputs, $a^{(l-1)}_{k}$, where $k$ labels the input. The inputs are each multiplied by a corresponding weight, $w^{(l)}_{jk}$, and an output, $a_{j}^{(l)}$, is fired as a function of the weighted input $z_{j}^{(l)}=\sum_{k=1}^{n} w^{(l)}_{jk} a^{(l-1)}_{k} $, where $n$ is the number of inputs to the neuron (FIG. \[fig:classical\_neuron\]). The function relating the output to the weighted input is called the activation function, which has most commonly been a Heaviside step function or a sigmoid [@Nielsen15]. For example, the neuron in FIG. \[fig:classical\_neuron\] with a Heaviside activation function gives an output of the form: $$a_{j}^{(l)} = \left\{\begin{matrix}
1, ~$if$~ z_{j}^{(l)} > 0.5\\
\!\!\! 0, ~$otherwise.$\\
\end{matrix}\right.$$ This paper aims to generalise the classical neuron to a quantum mechanical one. In the absence of measurement, quantum mechanical processes are required to be reversible, and more specifically, unitary, in a closed quantum system [@Feynman86; @NielsenChuang00]. This suggests the following procedure for generalising the neuron first to a reversible gate and finally to a unitary gate:
[*Irreversible $\rightarrow$ reversible:*]{} For an $n$-input classical neuron having $(in_1, in_2, ..., in_n )\rightarrow out$, create a classical reversible gate taking ($in_1, in_2, ..., in_n, 0) \rightarrow (in_1, in_2, ..., in_n, out)$. Such an operation can always be represented by a permutation matrix [@Muthukrishnan99]. This is a clean way of rendering the classical neuron reversible. The extra ‘dummy’ input bit is used to make it reversible [@Feynman86]; in particular, some of the ‘2 bits in – 1 bit out’ functions the neuron can implement require 3 bits to be made reversible in this manner.
[*Reversible $\rightarrow$ unitary:*]{} Generalise the classical reversible gate to a quantum unitary taking input ($\ket{\psi_{in}}_{1,2,...,n}\ket{0}) \rightarrow \ket{\psi_{out}}_{1,2,...,n,out}$, such that the final output qubit is the output of interest. This is the natural way of making a permutation matrix unitary.
If the input is a mixture of states in the computational basis and the unitary a permutation matrix [@CurtisReiner62], the output qubit will be a mixture of $\ket{0}$ or $\ket{1}$: this we call the [*classical special case*]{}. This way the quantum neuron can simulate any classical neuron as defined above. The generalisation recipe summarised in FIG. \[fig:neuron\_generalisation\] also illustrates how any irreversible classical computation can be recovered as a special case from reversible classical computation (by ignoring the dummy and copied bits), which in turn can be recovered as a special case from quantum computation.
![\[fig:neuron\_generalisation\]Diagram summarising our method of generalising the classical irreversible neuron with Heaviside activation function, first to a reversible neuron represented by a permutation matrix (P), and finally to a quantum reversible computation, represented by a unitary operator (U).](neuron_generalisation_greybox_small.png){width="\linewidth"}
### The network {#the-network .unnumbered}
In order to form a neural network, classical neurons are connected together in various configurations. Here, we consider feedforward classical networks, where neurons are arranged in layers and each neuron in the $l^{th}$ layer is connected to every neuron in the $(l-1)^{th}$ and $(l+1)^{th}$ layers, but with no connections within the same layer. For an example of such a classical network, see FIG. \[fig:cl\_autoencoder\]. Note that in this case the same output of a single neuron is sent to all the neurons in the next layer [@Nielsen15; @Azoff94].
To make the copying reversible, in line with our approach of firstly making the classical neural network reversible, we propose the recipe:\
\
[*Irreversible $\rightarrow$ reversible:*]{} For a classical irreversible copying operation of a bit $b \rightarrow (b, b)$, create a classical reversible gate, which can be represented by a permutation matrix [@Feynman86], taking $(b, 0) \rightarrow (b, b)$.\
\
In the quantum case the no-cloning theorem shows one cannot do this in the most naive way [@NielsenChuang00]. For a 2-qubit case, one can use a CNOT for example to copy in the classical computational basis [@Feynman86]: $\ket{b}\ket{0}\rightarrow \ket{b}\ket{b}$, if $\ket{b}\in \{\ket{0}, \ket{1} \}$. Thus one may consider replacing the copying with a CNOT. However when investigating applications of the network we realised that there are scenarios (the autoencoder in particular) where entanglement between different neurons is needed to perform the task. We have therefore chosen the following definition:\
\
[*Reversible $\rightarrow$ unitary:*]{} The classical CNOT is generalised to a general 2-qubit ‘fan-out’ unitary $U_F$, with one dummy input set to $\ket{0}$, such that $\ket{b}\ket{0}\rightarrow U_F\ket{b}\ket{0}$. As this unitary does not in general copy quantum states that are non-orthogonal we call it a ‘fan-out’ operation rather than a copying operation, as it distributes information about the input state into several output qubits. Note that a quantum network would be *trained* to choose the unitary in question.
![\[fig:cl\_autoencoder\]A classical autoencoder taking two inputs $in_{1}=a^{(0)}_{1}$ and $in_{2}=a^{(0)}_{2}$ and compressing them to one hidden layer output $a^{(l)}_{1}$. The final output layer is used in training and is trained to reconstruct the inputs. The notation here is in accordance with [@Nielsen15]. The blue box represents the data compression device after the training procedure.](cl_autoencoder.png){height="3cm"}
### Efficient training with gradient descent {#efficient-training-with-gradient-descent .unnumbered}
A classical neural network is trained to perform particular tasks. This is done by randomly initialising the weights and then propagating inputs through the network many times, altering the weights after each propagation in such a way as to make the network output closer to the desired output. A cost function, $C$, relating the network output to the desired output is defined by $$\label{eq:cost}
C = \frac{1}{2}\Big|\vec{y}^{\:(L)}-\vec{a}^{\:(L)}\Big|^2,$$ where $\vec{y}^{\:(L)}$ is a vector of the desired outputs from each of the final layer $l=L$ neurons and $\vec{a}^{\:(L)}$ is the vector of actual outputs, which depends on the network weights, and $\Big|(.)\Big|$ is the $l^2$-norm. The cost function is minimised to zero when the weights propagate the input in such a way that the network output vector equals the desired output vector.
Since the weights are continuous variables, the numerical partial derivatives of the cost function w.r.t. each weight can be found by approximating $\frac{\partial C}{\partial w}\approx \frac{ C(w+\epsilon)-C(w)}{ \epsilon}$. After each propagation, these partial derivatives are computed and the weights are altered in the direction of greatest decrease of the cost function. Specifically, each weight $w^{(l)}_{jk}$ is increased by $\mathrm{\delta} w^{(l)}_{jk}$, with $$\label{eq:learningrule}
\mathrm{\delta} w^{(l)}_{jk}=-\eta\frac{\partial C}{\partial w^{(l)}_{jk}},$$ where $\eta$ is an adjustable non-negative parameter. This training procedure is known as gradient descent [@Nielsen15].
Note that gradient descent normally also requires a continuous and differentiable activation function, to allow small changes in the weights to relate to small changes in the cost. For this reason, the Heaviside activation function has traditionally been replaced by a sigmoid function [@Nielsen15; @Azoff94]. Nevertheless, gradient descent has also been achieved using Heaviside activation functions, by taking the weights as Gaussian variables and taking partial derivatives w.r.t. the means and standard deviations of the appropriate Gaussian distributions [@BartlettDowns92; @DownsGaynier95].
In the reversible generalisation, where each neuron is replaced by a permutation matrix, we find that the output is no longer a function of the inputs and *continuous* weights, but rather of the inputs and a *discrete set* of permutation matrices. However, in the generalisation to unitaries, for a gate with $n$ inputs and outputs, there exist an infinite number of unitaries, in contrast with the discrete set of permutation matrices. This means that the unitaries can be parametrised by continuous variables, which once again allows the application of gradient descent.
Given that any unitary matrix $U$ can be expressed as $U=e^{iH}$, where $H$ is a Hermitian matrix [@NielsenChuang00], and that such matrices can be written as linear combinations of tensor products of the Pauli matrices and the identity, it follows that a general $N$-qubit unitary can be expressed as $$\label{eq:u_n}
U_{N} \! = \! \exp \! \Bigg[ \! i \Bigg(\!
\sum_{j_{1},...,j_{N}=0,...,0}^{3,...,3} \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\alpha_{j_{1},...,j_{N}} \! \times \! (\sigma_{j_{1}} \!
\otimes ... \otimes \sigma_{j_{N}}) \! \Bigg) \! \Bigg],$$ where $\sigma_{i}$ are the Pauli matrices for $i \in \{1,2,3\}$ and $\sigma_0$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix. This parametrisation allows the use of the training rule of Eq. \[eq:learningrule\], but replacing the weight $w^{(l)}_{jk}$ with a general parameter $\alpha_{j_{1},...,j_{N}}$ of the unitary $U_{N}$: $$\label{eq:learningruleq}
\mathrm{\delta} \alpha_{j_{1},...,j_{N}}=-\eta\frac{\partial C}{\partial \alpha_{j_{1},...,j_{N}}}.$$
A simpler and less general form of $U_{N}$ has been sufficient for the tasks discussed in this paper: $$\label{eq:u_nrestr}
U_{3} = \sum_{j=1}^4\ket{\tau_j}{\bra{\tau_j}\otimes T_j},$$ where $\{\ket{\tau_j}\}_{j=1}^4= \{ V\ket{00},V\ket{01}, V\ket{10}, V\ket{11}\}$. $V$ is a general 2-qubit unitary of the form of Eq. \[eq:u\_n\]. Each $T_j$ is similarly a general 1-qubit unitary and one can see, using the methods of [@Rowell04] on Eq. \[eq:u\_n\], that this can be expressed as a linear combination of the Pauli matrices, $\sigma_{j}$: $$U_{1-qubit}=e^{i \alpha_{0}} \Bigg( \cos
\Omega ~\mathbb{1} + i
\frac{\sin{\Omega}}{\Omega} \sum_{j=1}^{3} \alpha_{j} \sigma_{j} \Bigg),$$ where $\Omega = \sqrt{\alpha_{1}^2+\alpha_{2}^2+\alpha_{3}^2}$ [@Rowell04]. To extend this to higher dimensional unitaries, see e.g. [@Hedemann13].
The cost function we use for the quantum neural networks is, with experimental feasibility in mind, determined by the expectation values of local Pauli matrices $ (\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2}, \sigma_{3})$ on individual output qubits, $j$. It has the form $$C=\sum_{i,j} f_{ij} (\langle \sigma_i^{(j)} \rangle_{\mathrm{actual}} -\langle \sigma_i^{(j)} \rangle_{\mathrm{desired}})^2$$ where $f_{ij}$ is a real non-negative number (in the examples to follow $f_{ij}\in \{0,1\}$). We note in the classical mode of operation, where the total density matrix state is diagonal in the computational basis, only $\sigma_3$ will have non-zero expectation, and the cost function becomes the same as in the classical case (Eq. \[eq:cost\]) up to a simple transformation.
It is important to note that the number of weights grow polynomially in the number of neurons. Each weight shift is determined by evaluating the cost function twice to get the RHS of Eq. \[eq:learningruleq\]. Thus the number of evaluations of the cost function for a given iteration of the gradient descent grows polynomially in the number of neurons. The training procedure is efficient in this sense. We do not here attempt to provide a proof that the convergence to zero cost-function, where possible, will always take a number of iterations that grows polynomially in the number of neurons. Note also that the statements about the efficiency of the training procedure refer to the physical implementation with quantum technology: the simulation of quantum systems with a classical computer is, with the best known methods, in general inefficient.
Example: Autoencoder for data compression {#example-autoencoder-for-data-compression .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
We now demonstrate applications of our quantum generalisation of neural networks described in the previous section. We begin with autoencoders. These compress an input signal from a given set of possible inputs onto a smaller number of bits, and are ‘work-horses’ of classical machine learning [@Azoff94].
### Classical autoencoder {#classical-autoencoder .unnumbered}
Autoencoders are commonly achieved by a feedforward neural network with a bottleneck in the form of a layer with fewer neurons than the input layer. The network is trained to recreate the signal at a later layer, which necessitates reversibly compressing it (as well as possible) to a bit size equal to the number of neurons in the bottleneck layer [@Azoff94]. The bottleneck layer size can be varied as part of the training to find the smallest compression size possible, which depends on the data set in question. After the training is complete, the post-bottleneck part of the network can be discarded and the compressed output taken directly from after the bottleneck.
In FIG. \[fig:cl\_autoencoder\] a basic autoencoder designed to compress two bits into a single bit is shown. (Here the number of input bits, $j_{max}=2$.) The basic training procedure consists of creating a cost function: $$C = \sum_{j = 1}^{j_{max}} (in_{j}-out_{j})^{2},$$ with which the network is trained using the learning rule of Eq. \[eq:learningrule\]. If the outputs are identical to the inputs (to within numerical precision), the network is fully trained. The final layer is then removed, revealing the second last layer, which should enclose the compressed data. The number of neurons in a given hidden layer for a classical neuron will not exceed $j_{max}$. Once the network is trained, the removal of the post-bottleneck layer(s) will yield a second last layer of fewer neurons, achieving dimensional reduction [@Azoff94].
### Quantum autoencoder {#quantum-autoencoder .unnumbered}
We now generalise the classical autoencoder as shown in FIG. \[fig:cl\_autoencoder\] to the quantum case. We generalise the neurons labelled 1, 2 and 3 in FIG. \[fig:cl\_autoencoder\] into unitary matrices $U_{1}$, $U_{2}$ and $U_{3}$, respectively, with the addition of a ‘fan-out’ gate, $U_{F}$, as motivated in the previous sections. The result is shown in FIG. \[fig:quantum\_autoencoder\] as a quantum circuit model. (We follow the classical convention that this neural network is drawn with the input neurons as well, but they are identity operators which let the inputs through regardless, and can be ignored in the simulation of the network.) The input state of interest $\ket{in_{12}}$ is on 2 qubits, each fed into a different neuron, generalising the classical autoencoder in FIG. \[fig:cl\_autoencoder\]. From each of these neurons, one output qubit each is led into the bottleneck neuron $U_1$, followed by a fan-out of its output. We add as an extra desideratum that the compressed bit, the output of $U_1$, is diagonal in the computational basis. The final neurons have the task of recreating $\ket{in_{12}}$ on the outputs labelled 6 and 8 respectively. The result is shown in FIG. \[fig:quantum\_autoencoder\].
![\[fig:quantum\_autoencoder\]Neural network implementing a quantum autoencoder that can accomodate two input qubits that are entangled. The blue box represents the quantum compression device after training.](curly_212_autoencoder_u_f.png){height="3.2cm"}
This means that a natural and simple cost function is $$C=\sum_{j=0, k=0}^3 (\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_{6,8}\sigma_{j}\otimes \sigma_{k}) - \mathrm{Tr}(\rho_{in_{1,2}}\sigma_{j}\otimes \sigma_{k}))^{2}.$$ Training is then conducted via global gradient descent of the cost w.r.t. the $\alpha_{j_{1},...,j_{N}}$ parameters, as defined in Eq. \[eq:learningruleq\]. During the training the network was fed states from the given input set, picked independently and identically for each step (i.i.d). Standard speed-up techniques for learning were used, e.g. a momentum term [@Azoff94; @Nielsen15]. In training with a variety of 2 possible orthogonal input states including superposition states, the cost function of the quantum autoencoder converged towards zero through global gradient descent in every case, starting with uniformly randomised weights, $\alpha_{j_{1},...,j_{N}} \in [-1,1]$. For 2 non-orthogonal inputs and a 1-qubit bottleneck the cost-function will not converge to zero as is to be expected, but the training rather results in an approximately compressing unitary. FIG. \[fig:quantum\_autoencoder\] shows the network learning to compress in the case of two possible inputs: $(\ket{00} +\ket{11})/\sqrt{2}$ and $(\ket{00} -
\ket{11})/\sqrt{2}$. One can force the compressed output to be diagonal in a particular basis by adding an extra term to the cost-function (e.g. desiring the expectation value of Pauli X and Y to be zero in the case of a single qubit will push the network to give an output diagonal in the Z-basis).
Example: Neural network discovers teleportation protocol {#example-neural-network-discovers-teleportation-protocol .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:teleport\_circuit\]A circuit diagram of a quantum neural network that can learn and carry out teleportation of the state $\ket{\psi}$ from Alice to Bob using quantum entanglement. The standard teleportation protocol allows only classical communication of 2 bits [@NielsenChuang00]; this is enforced by only allowing two connections, which are dephased in the Z-basis ($D$). $U_{1}, U_{2}$ and $U_{3}$ are unitaries,. The blue line is the boundary between Alice and Bob.](teleportation_fixed.png){height="3.6cm"}
With quantum neural networks already shown to be able to perform generalisations of classical tasks, we now consider the possibility of quantum networks discovering solutions to existing and potentially undiscovered quantum protocols. We propose a quantum neural network structure that can, on its own, work out the standard protocol for quantum teleportation [@NielsenChuang00].
The design and training of this network is analogous to the autoencoder and the quantum circuit diagram is shown in FIG. \[fig:teleport\_circuit\]. The cost function used was: $$C=\sum_{j=0}^3(\mathrm{Tr}(\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}\sigma_{j}) - \mathrm{Tr}(\rho_6 \sigma_{j}))^{2}.$$ A fully trained network can teleport the state $\ket{\psi}$ (from Alice) to the output port of qubit 6 (to Bob). Once trained properly, $\rho_{out_{1}}$ will no longer be $\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}$, as the teleportation has ‘messed up’ Alice’s state [@Wilde13].
In order to train the teleportation for any arbitrary state $\ket{\psi}$ (and to avoid the network simply learning to *copy* $\ket{\psi}$ from Alice to Bob), the training inputs are randomly picked from the axis intersection states on the surface of the Bloch sphere [@NielsenChuang00]. FIG. \[fig:teleportation\_cost\] shows the convergence of the cost function during training, simulated on a classical computer. As can be seen, the training was found to be successful, i.e. the cost function converged towards zero. This held for all tests with randomly initialised weights.
![\[fig:teleportation\_cost\]A plot of the teleportation cost function w.r.t. the number of steps used in the training procedure. The cost function can be seen to converge to zero. The non-monotonic decrease is to be expected as we are varying the input states. The network now teleports any qubit state: picking 1000 states at random from the Haar measure (uniform distribution over the Bloch sphere) gives a cost function distribution with mean $5.0371\times 10^{-4}$ and standard deviation $1.7802\times 10^{-4}$, which is effectively zero.](teleportation_cost.png){height="5cm"}
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Quantum vs. classical {#quantum-vs.-classical .unnumbered}
---------------------
Can these neural networks show some form of quantum supremacy? The comparison of classical and quantum neural networks is well-defined within our set-up, as the classical networks correspond to a particular parameter regime for the quantum networks. A key type of quantum supremacy is that the quantum network can take and process quantum inputs: it can for example process $\ket{+}$ and $\ket{-}$ differently. Thus, there are numerous quantum tasks it can do that the classical network cannot, including the two examples above. We anticipate that they will moreover, in some cases be able to process classical inputs faster, by turning them into superpositions—investigating this is a natural follow-on from this work.
We also mention that we term our above design a [*quantum*]{} neural network with [*classical learning parameters*]{}, as the parameters in the unitaries are classical. It seems plausible that allowing these parameters to be in superpositions, whilst experimentally more challenging, could give further advantages.
Whilst adding the ancillary qubits ensures that the network is a strict generalisation of the classical network, it can of course be experimentally and numerically simpler to omit these. Then one would sacrifice performance in the classical mode of operation, and the network may not be as good as a classical network with the same number of neurons for all tasks.
Visualising the cost function landscape {#visualising-the-cost-function-landscape .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
To gain intuitive understanding, one can visualise the gradient descent in 3D by reducing the number of free parameters. We sampled the cost surface and gradient descent path of a one-input neuron ($4 \times4$ unitary matrix). With the second qubit expressed as the dummy-then-output qubit, the task for the neuron was $\ket{+
}\otimes\ket{0}\rightarrow
\ket{+}\otimes\ket{0}$ and $\ket{-}\otimes\ket{0} \rightarrow
\ket{-}\otimes\ket{1}$. We optimised, similarly to Eq. \[eq:u\_nrestr\], over unitaries of the form $$U=\ket{\tau}\bra{\tau}\otimes \mathbb{1} + \ket{\tau^{\perp}}\bra{\tau^{\perp}}\otimes\sigma_{1},$$ where $\ket{\tau} = \cos(\theta/2)\ket{0} +
e^{i\phi}\sin(\theta/2)\ket{1}$ and $\ket{\tau^{\perp}} = \sin(\theta/2)\ket{0} -
e^{i\phi}\cos(\theta/2)\ket{1}$. We performed gradient descent along the variables $\theta$ and $\phi$ as shown by the red path in FIG. \[fig:grad\_des\_path\].
![\[fig:grad\_des\_path\]A 3-D plot of the cost function (vertical axis) of a 2-qubit unitary as a function of $\theta$ and $\phi$ (horizontal axes). The red line represents the path taken when carrying out gradient descent from a particular starting point.](grad_des_path.png){height="5.75cm"}
Scaling to bigger networks {#scaling-to-bigger-networks .unnumbered}
--------------------------
The same scheme can be used to make quantum generalisations of networks whose generalised neurons have more inputs/outputs and connections. FIG. \[fig:general\_neuron\] illustrates an $M$-qubit input quantum neuron with a subsequent $N$-qubit fan-out gate.
![\[fig:general\_neuron\] Diagram of the quantum generalisation of a classical neuron with $M$ inputs and $N$ outputs. The superscripts inside the square brackets of the unitaries represent the number of qubits the respective unitaries act on. $U^{[M+1]}$ is the unitary that represents the quantum neuron with an $N$-qubit input and $U^{[N]}$ is the fan-out gate that fans out the output in the final port of $U^{[M+1]}$ in a particular basis.](general_neuron.png){height="6cm"}
If one wishes the number of free parameters of a neuron to grow no more than polynomially in the number of inputs, one needs to restrict the unitary. It is natural to demand it to be a polynomial length circuit of some elementary universal gates, in particular if the input states are known to be generated by a polynomial length circuit of a given set of gates, it is natural to let the unitary be restricted to that set of gates.
The evaluation of the cost function can be kept to a sensible scaling if we restrict it to be a function of local observables on each qubit, in particular a function of the local Pauli expectation values, as was used in this paper, for which case a vector of $3n$ expectation values suffices for $n$ qubits.
Quantum photonics neuron module {#quantum-photonics-neuron-module .unnumbered}
===============================
To investigate the physical viability of these quantum neural networks we consider quantum photonics. This is an attractive platform for quantum information processing: it has room temperature operation, the possibility of robust miniaturisation through photonic integrated circuits; in general it harnesses the highly developed optical fibre-related technology for QIP purposes [@silicon]. Moreover optical implementations have been viewed as optimal for neural networks, in the classical case, due to the low design cost of adding multiple connections (as light passes through light without interacting) [@Rojas]. A final motivation for choosing this platform is that the tuning can be naturally implemented, as detailed below.
We design a neuron as a module that can then be connected to other neurons. This makes it concrete how experimentally complex the network would be to build and operate, including how it could be trained.
The design employs the Cerf-Adami-Kwiat (C-A-K) protocol [@CAK], where a single photon with polarisation and multiple possible spatial modes encodes the quantum state; the scheme falls into the category of hyper-entangling schemes, which entangle different degrees of freedom. One qubit is the polarisation; digital encodings of the spatial mode labels give rise to the others. With four spatial modes this implements 3 qubits, with basis $\ket{0/1}\ket{H/V}\ket{0/1}$, where $H/V$ are two different polarisation states, and the other bits label the four spatial modes. The first bit says whether it is in the top two or bottom two pairs of modes and the last bit whether it is the upper or lower one in one of those pairs. This scheme and related ones such as [@Reck; @Clements] are experimentally viable, theoretically clean and can implement any unitary on a single photon spread out over spatial modes. In such a single photon scenario they do not scale well however. The number of spatial modes grows exponentially in the number of qubits. Thus for larger networks our design below would need to be modified to something less simple, e.g. accepting probabilistic gates in the spirit of the KLM scheme [@klm], or using measurement-based cluster state quantum computation approaches [@silicon].
Before describing the module we make the simplifying restriction that there is one input qubit to the neuron and one dummy input. We will ensure that the designated output qubit can be fed into another neuron, as in FIG. \[fig:onn\] and FIG. \[fig:ocircuit\].
![\[fig:onn\] The first neuron takes one input and one dummy input and its designated output is fed into the next neuron.](neural_net.png){height="2cm"}
![\[fig:ocircuit\] A circuit diagram of our neural module. Following C-A-K there are three qubits, with basis $\ket{0/1}\ket{H/V}\ket{0/1}$, where $H/V$ label different polarisation states, and the other bits label the four spatial modes. We define the input to the module to be carried by the middle (polarisation) qubit. The neuron $U_1$ has the form of Eq. \[eq:u\_nrestr\], modifying the output conditional on the input state. The swaps ensure that the next neuron module $U_2$ also gets the input via the polarisation.](circuit.png){width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
We propose to update the neural network by adjusting both variable polarisation rotators, and spatial phase shifters in a set of Mach-Zehnder interferometers as shown in FIG. \[fig:optics\_circuit\]. In this we are able to change the outputs from each layer of the network. The spatial shift could be induced by varying the strain or temperature on the waveguides at given locations, to change their refractive indices and hence the relative phase; this may have additional difficulties in that silicon waveguides are birefringent [@strain]. Alternatively we can tune both polarisation and spatial qubits via the electro-optic effect.
This circuit can be made more robust and minitaturised using silicon or silica optical waveguides [@silicon]. They have been extensively used to control spatial modes and recently also polarisation [@polarisationstates]. Several labs can implement the phase shifting via heaters or the electro-optic effect. Conventionally phase shifters built upon the electro-optic effect are known to work in the megahertz region and have extremely low loss [@silicon]. For many applications this would be considered slow, but our tuning only requires (in the region of) a few thousand steps of tuning, meaning learning tasks for neural networks this small could be completed in milliseconds. While it appears that this effect will be the limiting factor in terms of speed, photodetectors are able to reach reset times in the tens of nanoseconds, while the production of single photons through parametric down conversion have megahertz repetion rates [@polarisationshift].
Summary and Outlook {#summary-and-outlook .unnumbered}
===================
We have given a protocol for generalising classical feedforward step-function neural networks to networks that take and process quantum inputs. We have shown that these networks can perform the natural quantum generalisation of the classical network in the case of an autoencoder, being able for example to compress entangled inputs. We have shown that they can be used to work out a quantum information processing protocol: teleportation, without being told how to do it, only the task. Based on these results we think that these networks will be highly versatile tools for quantum information scientists, similar to the classical networks’ role in classical information processing.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge discussions with Stefanie Baerz, Abbas Edalat, William Clements, Alex Jones, Mio Murao, Maria Schuld, Vlatko Vedral, Alejandro Valido and discussions and detailed comments from Doug Plato, Mihai Vidrighin, Peter Wittek. We are grateful for funding from the the EU Collaborative Project TherMiQ (Grant Agreement 618074), the London Institute for Mathematical Sciences, a Leverhulme Trust Research Grant (No. RPG-2014-055), a programme grant from the UK EPSRC (EP/K034480/1).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Bourgain [@BO1] proved that the periodic modified KdV equation (mKdV) is locally well-posed in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s \geq 1/2$, by introducing new weighted Sobolev spaces $X^{s, b}$, where the uniqueness holds [*conditionally*]{}, namely in $C([0, T]; H^s) \cap X^{s, \frac{1}{2}}([0, T]\times {\mathbb{T}})$. In this paper, we establish [*unconditional*]{} well-posedness of mKdV in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, i.e. in addition we establish [*unconditional*]{} uniqueness in $C([0, T]; H^s)$, $s \geq 1/2$, of solutions to mKdV. We prove this result via differentiation by parts. For the endpoint case $s = \frac{1}{2}$, we perform careful quinti- and septi-linear estimates after the second differentiation by parts.'
address:
- |
Soonsik Kwon\
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology\
335 Gwahangno\
Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea
- |
Tadahiro Oh\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Toronto\
40 St. George St, Toronto, ON M5S 2E4, Canada
author:
- Soonsik Kwon and Tadahiro Oh
title: 'On unconditional well-posedness of modified KdV '
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We consider the Cauchy problem for the modified Korteweg-de Vries (mKdV) equation on the one-dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}/2\pi \mathbb{Z}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MKDV1}
\begin{cases}
{\partial_t}u = {\partial_x}^3 u \pm u^2 {\partial_x}u, \\
u\big|_{t = 0} = u_0,
\end{cases}
\quad (x, t) \in {\mathbb{T}}\times {\mathbb{R}}\end{aligned}$$
where $u$ is a real-valued function. The mKdV has received a great deal of attention both from applied and theoretical fields and is known to be completely integrable in the sense that it enjoys the Lax pair structure and so infinitely many conservation laws. In particular, if $u$ is a “nice” solution of , then the $L^2$-norm is conserved. i.e. $\|u(t)\|_{L^2} = \|u_0\|_{L^2}$. Then, by the change of variables $x \to x\mp\mu t$ with $\mu = \frac{1}{2\pi}\|u_0\|^2_{L^2}$, we can rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MKDV2}
\begin{cases}
{\partial_t}u = {\partial_x}^3 u \pm \Big(u^2 - \tfrac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{T}}u^2\Big){\partial_x}u, \\
u\big|_{t = 0} = u_0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
In this paper, we study the unconditional local well-posedness of .
Let us briefly go over recent results on the well-posedness theory of the periodic mKdV. In [@BO1], Bourgain introduced a new weighted space-time Sobolev space $X^{s,b}$ (also known as [*dispersive-Sobolev space*]{}), whose norm is given by $$\label{XSB}
\|u\|_{X^{s, b}({\mathbb{T}}\times{\mathbb{R}})} = \|{\langle k \rangle}^s {\langle \tau+k^3 \rangle}^b {\widehat}{u}(k, \tau)\|_{l^2_k L^2_\tau(\mathbb{Z}\times{\mathbb{R}})},$$
where ${\langle \, \cdot \, \rangle} = 1 +|\cdot|$. By the fixed point argument in an appropriate $X^{s, b}$ space, he proved that is locally well-posed in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Then, Colliander-Keel-Staffilani-Takaoka-Tao [@CKSTT4] proved global well-posedness in $H^s$, $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, via the $I$-method. We point out that the solution map $\mathcal{S}_t: u_0 \in H^s \mapsto u(t)\in H^s$ constructed in [@BO1; @CKSTT4] is smooth. Indeed, it was shown in [@BO2] that the solution map to can not be smooth in $H^s$ for $s < \frac{1}{2}$. See [@CCT; @TT] for related results. Nonetheless, Takaoka-Tsutsumi [@TT] successfully modified the $X^{s, b}$ space to reduce the nonlinear effect from the resonant term (see ${\mathcal{R}}$ in below) and proved local well-posedness in $H^s$, $s >\frac{3}{8}$. Nakanishi-Takaoka-Tsutsumi [@NTT] further improved the result and proved local well-posedness in $H^s \cup \mathcal{F}L^{\frac{1}{2}, \infty}$, $s> \frac{1}{3}$, where $\|f\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{1}{2}, \infty}} = \sup_k {\langle k \rangle}^\frac{1}{2} |{\widehat}{f}(k)| <\infty$. (Existence alone holds in $H^s$ for $s>\frac{1}{4}$.) Note that the solution map constructed in [@TT; @NTT] is not uniformly continuous. There is also a result using the complete integrability of the equation. Kappeler-Topalov [@KT1] proved that defocusing mKdV, with the $-$ sign, is globally well-posed in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$ via the inverse spectral method.
Now, let us examine the uniqueness of solutions in the above results. In [@BO1; @TT], the uniqueness (with prescribed $L^2$-norm) holds in (a ball in) $C([0,T];H^s)\cap X$, where $X$ is an auxiliary function space, i.e. only within the (modified) $X^{s, b}$ space. Thus, the uniqueness holds [*conditionally*]{}, since uniqueness may not hold without the restriction of the auxiliary space $X$. In [@KT1], the uniqueness holds in the class of solutions obtained by a limiting procedure of smooth solutions.
Recall the following definition from Kato [@KATO]. We say that a Cauchy problem is [*unconditionally well-posed*]{} in $H^s$ if for every initial condition $u_0 \in H^s$, there exist $T>0$ and a [*unique*]{} solution $u \in C([0, T];H^s)$ such that $u(0) = u_0$. Also, see [@FPT]. We refer to such uniqueness in $C([0, T];H^s)$ without intersecting with any auxiliary function space as [*unconditional uniqueness*]{}. Unconditional uniqueness is a concept of uniqueness which does not depend on how solutions are constructed. See, for example, Zhou [@Z] for unconditional uniqueness of KdV in $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$[^2] or Tao [@Ta] for focusing mass-critical NLS with spherical symmetry in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $d \geq 5$.
The main result of the paper is the following:
\[thm1\] Let $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Then, mKdV is unconditionally locally well-posed in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$.
Our result provides another proof of the local well-posedness. We think that this proof is more natural and elementary since we do not use any auxiliary function spaces but only rely on simple [*differentiation by parts*]{} and [*Cauchy-Schwarz inequality*]{}. As a result, we can establish unconditional uniqueness of solution to mKdV in $H^{s}({\mathbb{T}})$, $s \geq\frac{1}{2}$, which is an improvement of Bourgain’s result [@BO1] in the aspect of uniqueness.
In the proof of Theorem \[thm1\], we show existence and uniqueness of solutions to the renormalized mKdV in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$. From this, one can deduce existence and uniqueness of solutions to the original mKdV in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Indeed, for a given $u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}})$ with $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, a function $u(x,t) \in L^\infty([0,T];H^s)$ is a solution to the original mKdV with the initial condition $u_0$ if and only if $v$ is a solution to the renormalized mKdV with the same initial condition $u_0$, where $v$ is defined by $$\label{gauge}
v(x,t):= u\big(x\mp \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^t \|u(t')\|_{L^2}^2dt' ,t\big).$$
(Here, we used the fact that $\|v(t)\|_{L^2} = \|u(t)\|_{L^2}$ for $v$ defined in .)
Now, suppose that $u_1$ and $u_2$ are two solutions to the original mKdV in $C([0, T]; H^s)$ with the same initial condition $u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}})$ with $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$. Then, $t \mapsto \|u_j(t) \|_{L^2}^2 $ is locally integrable and $v_1$ and $v_2$ defined via are solutions to the renormalized mKdV in $C([0, T]; H^s)$ with the same initial condition $u_0$. Hence, by Theorem \[thm1\], we have $v_1 = v_2$ in $C([0, T]; H^s)$. In particular, $\|v_j(t) \|_{L^2}^2 $, $j = 1, 2$, is constant in time.[^3] In view of , we see that $\|u_j(t)\|_{L^2}^2$, $j = 1, 2$, is also constant in time, and the transformation can be written as $$\label{gauge2}
v_j(x,t)= u_j\big(x\mp \tfrac{t}{2\pi} \|u_0\|_{L^2}^2,t\big),
\quad \text{ for }j = 1, 2.$$
Therefore, from (the inverse of) and $v_1 = v_2$ in $C([0, T]; H^s)$, we obtain $u_1 = u_2$ in $C([0, T]; H^s)$. This shows unconditional uniqueness of the original mKdV .
Lastly, we discuss the regularity of the solution map$: u_0 \mapsto u(t)$ of the original mKdV (for sufficiently small $t$ depending on the size of initial data.) From the proof of Theorem \[thm1\], it follows that the solution map of the renormalized mKdV is locally Lipschitz continuous. Consequently, this yields local Lipschitz continuity of the solution map of the original mKdV in the class $$\label{L2}
\{u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}}) : \|u_0\|_{L^2({\mathbb{T}})}=c \}$$
with a fixed $c$. (Two initial data of distinct $L^2$-norms give rise to two different renormalized mKdV , and thus their solutions are not comparable. In general, one can show that the uniform continuity of the solution map of the original mKdV fails without prescribing the $L^2$-norm.)
Many of the unconditional uniqueness results use some auxiliary function spaces (e.g. $X^{s, b}$ spaces in [@Z], Strichartz spaces in [@Ta]), which are designed to be large enough to contain $C([0, T];H^s)$ such that desired nonlinear estimates hold. However, we simply use the $C([0, T];H^s)$-norm in the proof of Theorem \[thm1\].
We also point out that Theorem \[thm1\] does [*not*]{} imply unconditional well-posedness for KdV in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s \geq -\frac{1}{2}$ even under the Miura map. Indeed, the issue of unconditional uniqueness of the periodic KdV is settled in view of the non-uniqueness result by Christ [@CHRIST] for KdV in $C_tH^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s < 0$, and an (implicitly implied) positive result in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$ by Babin-Ilyin-Titi [@BIT].
Theorem \[thm1\] with global well-posedness of mKdV in $H^s$, $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, by [@CKSTT4] yields the following corollary.
\[cor1\] Let $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Then, mKdV is unconditionally globally well-posed in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$.
We prove Theorem \[thm1\] by establishing [*a priori*]{} estimates, where we use only the $C_tH^s_x$-norm of solutions. In the following, we briefly describe the idea of differentiation by parts introduced in Babin-Ilyin-Titi [@BIT].
Let $S(t) = e^{t{\partial_x}^3}$ denote the semigroup to the Airy equation (= linear part of mKdV .) We apply a change of coordinates: $v(t) = S(-t) u(t)$. In terms of the spatial Fourier coefficients, this can be written as $v_k (t) = e^{ik^3t}u_k(t)$, where $v_k(t)$ denotes the $k$-th (spatial) Fourier coefficient of $v(\cdot, t)$. i.e. $v_k (t)= {\widehat}{v}(k,t)$. Working in terms of $v$ has certain advantages. Ginibre [@G] says “In the language of Quantum Mechanics, this consists in working in the so-called interaction representation.” In [@BO1], Bourgain made an effective use of this coordinate by introducing the $X^{s, b}$ spaces. From the definition , we have $\|u\|_{X^{s, b}} = \|v\|_{H^b_tH^s_x}$, i.e. a function $u$ is in $X^{s, b}$ if and only if its interaction representation $v(t) = S(-t) u(t)$ is in the classical Sobolev space $H^b_t H^s_x$. A similar idea has been applied to study equations in hydrodynamics. See [@BIT Section 2] for a nice discussion.
With $v (t) = S(-t)u(t)$, it follows from (see [@BO1]) that $v$ satisfies[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v1}
{\partial_t}v_k & = \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\k_1+k_2\ne0}} i k_3 e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})} v_{k_1}v_{k_2}v_{k_3} \notag \\
& = \frac{i}{3}\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\ \Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0}} k e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})} v_{k_1}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}
- i k |v_k|^2 v_k
=: {\mathcal{N}}+ {\mathcal{R}}.\end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi(\bar{k}) = \Phi(k, k_1, k_2, k_3) := k^3 - k_1^3 - k_2^3 - k_3^3$. With $k = k_1 + k_2+k_3$, we have $$\label{PHI}
\Phi(\bar{k}) = 3 (k_1 + k_2) (k_2+k_3) (k_3+k_1).$$
In this framework, the usual Duhamel formulation of corresponds to $$\label{S1}
v(t) = v_0 + \int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}(v)(t') + {\mathcal{R}}(v)(t') dt',$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}(t')$ stands for ${\mathcal{N}}(v)(t') = {\mathcal{N}}\big(v(t'),v(t'),v(t')\big)$, and so on. Due to the presence of ${\partial_x}$ in the nonlinearity, a direct estimate in $H^{s}$ on the nonlinear part in does not work.
Assume that $v$ is smooth in the following, since our goal is to obtain a priori estimates on solutions. As in [@BIT], we can differentiate ${\mathcal{N}}$ by parts, Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v2}
{\mathcal{N}}_k & = {\partial_t}\bigg[\frac{i}{3}\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0}}
\frac{k e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} v_{k_1}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}\bigg] \notag\\
& \hphantom{X} - \frac{i}{3} \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\ \Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0}}
\frac{k e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})}
( {\partial_t}v_{k_1}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}+v_{k_1}{\partial_t}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}+ v_{k_1}v_{k_2}{\partial_t}v_{k_3})\\
& =: {\partial_t}({\mathcal{N}}_1)_k + ({\mathcal{N}}_2)_k. \notag\end{aligned}$$
Note that this corresponds to integration by parts on $\int {\mathcal{N}}(t) dt$. With , we see that smooth solutions to satisfy $$\label{S2}
v(t) = v_0 + {\mathcal{N}}_1(t)-{\mathcal{N}}_1(0) + \int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}_2(t') + {\mathcal{R}}(t') dt'.$$
In , both terms have $\Phi(\bar{k}) (\ne 0)$ in the denominators, and this provides smoothing.
Now, suppose that we have $C_t H^s_x$ estimates on ${\mathcal{N}}_1$, ${\mathcal{N}}_2$, and ${\mathcal{R}}$ in . For ${\mathcal{N}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$, we obtain smallness thanks to the time integration (for small $t$.) However, there is no small constant for ${\mathcal{N}}_1$. Thus, we can not close the argument to obtain a contraction.
In order to fix this problem, we use the idea from Section 6 in [@BIT]. The idea is to separate the low frequency part of the non-resonant part ${\mathcal{N}}$ before differentiating by parts. Let $v^{(n)} = P_n v$, where $P_n$ is the Dirichlet projection onto the frequencies $\{\,|k| \leq n\}$. Then, write ${\mathcal{N}}= {\mathcal{N}}^{(n)} + {\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)}$, where ${\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}$ is given by $$\label{v4}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}
= \frac{i}{3}\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\ \Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0}} k e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})}
v^{(n)}_{k_1}v^{(n)}_{k_2}v^{(n)}_{k_3}$$
and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)} = {\mathcal{N}}- {\mathcal{N}}^{(n)} $. Differentiating ${\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)}$ by parts, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v5}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)} = {\partial_t}\big({\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)}\big)+ {\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)},\end{aligned}$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)}$ and ${\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}$ are as in with an extra condition $$\label{v55}
k^* := \max (|k_1|,|k_2|,|k_3|) > n.$$
Hence, smooth solutions to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v6}
v(t) & =v_0+ {\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)}_{1}(t)-{\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{(-n)}(0)
+ \int_0^t {\mathcal{R}}(t')
+ {\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(t')+ {\mathcal{N}}_{2}^{(-n)}(t')dt'.\end{aligned}$$
It turns out that provides a small constant $n^{-{\alpha}}$ for some ${\alpha}>0$ in estimating ${\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{(-n)}$ (see Lemma \[LEM:N3\] below), and we can close the argument for $s > \frac{1}{2}$.
Unfortunately, this turns out not to be sufficient when $s = \frac{1}{2}$. In particular, the estimate on ${\mathcal{N}}_{2}^{(-n)}$ fails when $ s= \frac{1}{2}$. (See Lemma \[LEM:N2\] below.) Thus, we need to proceed one step further. We hoped to take a differentiation by parts once more. A direct differentiation by parts, however, does not work because the corresponding resonance function $\Phi(\bar{k}) + \Phi(\bar{j})$ does not have a good factorization. (See below.) In this case, we restrict ${\mathcal{N}}_{2}^{(-n)}$ into a part and then perform differentiation by parts once more, but in a slightly more complicated manner. See and . Namely, in and [@BIT], we perform differentiation by parts to simply move the time derivative from a complex exponential to a product of $v_{k_j}$. However, in , we need to perform integration by parts[^5] to move the time derivative ${\mathcal{N}}_1 (=$ product of $e^{it\Phi(\bar{\jmath})}$ and $v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}$) to $e^{it\Phi(\bar{k})}$ [*and*]{} $v_{k_2}v_{k_3}$, which leads to further quinti- and septi-linear estimates. See Section \[SEC:endpoint\] for details.
Lastly, we point out that the restriction $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$ on the regularity is due to the resonant term ${\mathcal{R}}$ (see [@BO1 p.228] and Lemma \[LEM:R\].) As pointed out in [@TT], if we define $v$ by $$\label{S4}
v_k (t)= e^{i k^3 t + i k \int_0^t |u_k(t')|^2 t' }u_k(t),$$
then this would formally eliminate the resonant term. However, it is difficult to make sense of this transformation for nonsmooth functions. Instead, following [@TT; @NTT], one may try to use $$\label{S5}
v_k (t)= e^{i k^3 t + i k |u_k(0)|^2 t }u_k(t)$$
as the first order approximation to in order to weaken the nonlinear effect of the resonant term ${\mathcal{R}}$. For further improvement, one may consider the second order approximation: $v_k (t)= e^{i k^3 t + i k (|u_k(0)|^2 t + \frac{1}{2} {\partial_t}|u_k(0)|^2 t^2) }u_k(t) $ or higher order approximations.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove a priori estimates needed for $s > \frac{1}{2}$. Then, we present the proof of Theorem \[thm1\] for $s > \frac{1}{2}$ in Section 3. In Section 4, we present the argument for the endpoint case $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions.
Nonlinear estimates for $s > \frac{1}{2}$
=========================================
In this section, we present nonlinear estimates controlling the terms in . Without loss of generality, we assume that $v_k$ is nonnegative in the following.
\[LEM:R\] Let ${\mathcal{R}}$ be as in . Then, for any $s \in{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R1}
\|{\mathcal{R}}(v)\|_{H^s} & \lesssim \|v\|^2_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}}\|v\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$
Also, for $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R2}
\|{\mathcal{R}}(v) - {\mathcal{R}}(w) \|_{H^s}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^s}+ \|w\|_{H^s}\big)^2 \|v-w\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. Clearly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{R}}(v)\|_{H^s}
= \bigg(\sum_k |k|^{2+ 2s} v_k^6 \bigg)^\frac{1}{2}
\leq \big\||k|^\frac{1}{2} v_k \big\|_{l^\infty_k}^2\|v\|_{H^s},\end{aligned}$$
which is bounded by RHS of .
In the following, fix $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
\[LEM:N1\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}$ be as in . Then, for $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N11}
\|{\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(v)\|_{H^s} & \lesssim n \ln n \, \|v\|_{H^s}^3 \\
\label{N12}
\|{\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(w) \|_{H^s}
& \lesssim n \ln n\, \big(\|v\|_{H^s}+ \|w\|_{H^s}\big)^2 \|v-w\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. Without loss of generality, assume $|k_1| \gtrsim |k|$. Then, by $|k| \lesssim n $ and Young’s inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(v)\|_{H^s}
& \leq
\bigg(\sum_k |k|^{2+2s} \Big( \sum_{k_1+k_2+k_3=k}
v^{(n)}_{k_1}v^{(n)}_{k_2}v^{(n)}_{k_3} \Big)^2 \bigg)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \lesssim n
\bigg(\sum_k \Big( \sum_{k_1+k_2+k_3=k}
|k_1|^s v^{(n)}_{k_1}v^{(n)}_{k_2}v^{(n)}_{k_3} \Big)^2 \bigg)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \leq n \|v^{(n)}\|_{H^s} \|v^{(n)}_{k_2}\|_{l^1_{k_2}} \|v^{(n)}_{k_3}\|_{l^1_{k_3}}
\lesssim n \ln n \, \|v^{(n)}\|_{H^s} \|v^{(n)}\|^2_{H^\frac{1}{2}}\end{aligned}$$
where we used Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and $|k_j|\leq n$ in the last step.
Recall the following [@BO1 (8.21), (8.22)]: Suppose $\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0$ when $k = k_1 + k_2 + k_3$. Then, we have the following two possibilities:
- With $ k^* = \max (|k_1|, |k_2|, |k_3|)$, $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi (k)|
& \geq
\max (|k_1 + k_2||k_2 + k_3|,|k_2 + k_3||k_3 + k_1|,|k_3 + k_1||k_1 + k_2|) \notag \\
& \gtrsim
(k^*)^2, \quad \label{PHI1}\end{aligned}$$
In this case, we have $ |\Phi (k)| \gtrsim (k^*)^2 {\lambda}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\lambda}= {\lambda}_k:= \min(|k_1 + k_2|,|k_2 + k_3|,|k_3 + k_1|). \label{LD1}\end{aligned}$$
- $|k_1|\sim |k_2|\sim|k_3| \sim k^*$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi (k)| \geq &\max (|k_1 + k_2|,|k_2 + k_3|,|k_3 + k_1|)
\gtrsim k^*. \label{PHI2}\end{aligned}$$
In this case, we have $ |\Phi (k)| \gtrsim k^*{\Lambda}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LD2}
{\Lambda}= {\Lambda}_k := \min &(|k_1 + k_2||k_2 + k_3|,|k_2 + k_3||k_3 + k_1|,|k_3 + k_1||k_1 + k_2|).\end{aligned}$$
\[LEM:N2\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}$ be as in . Then, for $s> \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N21}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}(v)\|_{H^s} & \lesssim \, \|v\|_{H^s}^5 \\
\label{N22}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}(w) \|_{H^s}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^s}+ \|w\|_{H^s}\big)^4 \|v-w\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$
The same estimates hold for ${\mathcal{N}}_2$ in .
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. From and , we can separate ${\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}$ into two parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N23}
\big({\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}\big)_k & = -\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0 \\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} |v_{k_1}|^2 v_{k_1}v_{k_2}v_{k_3} \notag \\
& + \frac{1}{3}\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t(\Phi(\bar{k})+\Phi(\bar{\jmath}))}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}
=: \big({\mathcal{N}}_{21}^{(-n)}\big)_k+\big({\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)}\big)_k,\end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi(\bar{\jmath}) := \Phi(k_1, j_1, j_2, j_3)$.
$\bullet$ [**Part 1:**]{} First, we estimate ${\mathcal{N}}_{21}^{(-n)}$. By duality, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N24}
\sum_k \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0 \\k^* > n}}
M_1 |u_{k_1}|^2 u_{k_1}u_{k_2}u_{k_3} z_k
\lesssim \|u\|_{L^2}^5\end{aligned}$$
where $\|z\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $M_1 $ is given by $$M_1 = M_1(k_1, k_2, k_3) : = \frac{|k|^{1+s} |k_1|}{|\Phi(\bar{k})||k_1|^{3s} |k_2|^s|k_3|^s}.$$
By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{LHS of }\eqref{N24}
& \leq \bigg(
\sum_{k_1, k_2, k_3}
|u_{k_1}|^6 |u_{k_2}|^2|u_{k_3}|^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2}
\bigg( \sum_k \sum_{k_1 + k_2 +k_3 = k} M_1^2 z_k^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \leq
\mathcal{M}_1
\|u\|_{L^2}^5,\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{M}_1 = \big( \sum_k \sum_{k_1 + k_2 +k_3 = k} M_1^2 z_k^2\big)^\frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 1.a: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_1^2 \sim \frac{1}{(k^*)^{2-2s} |k_1|^{6s-2}|k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s}
{\lambda}^2}
\leq \frac{1}{(k_*)^{8s} {\lambda}^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_* = \min (|k_1|, |k_2|, |k_3|)$. Thus, for $ s > \frac{1}{8}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_1 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_i \, ( \ne k_*)$ in ${\lambda}^{-2}$, $k_*$ for $(k_*)^{-8s}$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s > \frac{1}{8}$.
$\circ$ Case 1.b: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_1^2 \sim \frac{1}{(k^*)^{8s-2}
{\Lambda}^2}
\leq \frac{1}{(k_*)^{8s-2} {\Lambda}^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, for $ s \geq \frac{1}{4}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_1 \lesssim 1$ by summing over two frequencies in ${\Lambda}^{-2}$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s \geq \frac{1}{4}$.
Therefore, the estimates and for $\mathcal{N}^{(-n)}_{21}$ hold as long as $s\ge \frac 14$.
$\bullet$ [**Part 2:**]{} Next, we estimate ${\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)}$. By duality, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N25}
\sum_k \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
M_2 u_{j_1}u_{j_2}u_{j_3} u_{k_2}u_{k_3} z_k
\lesssim \|u\|_{L^2}^5\end{aligned}$$
where $\|z\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $M_2 $ is given by $$M_2 = M_2(j_1, j_2, j_3, k_2, k_3)
: = \frac{|k|^{1+s} |k_1|}{|\Phi(\bar{k})||j_1|^s|j_2|^s|j_3|^s |k_2|^s|k_3|^s}.$$
By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{LHS of }\eqref{N25}
& \leq \bigg(
\sum_{j_1,j_2, j_3, k_2, k_3}
|u_{j_1}|^2|u_{j_2}|^2|u_{j_3}|^2 |u_{k_2}|^2|u_{k_3}|^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2}
\bigg( \sum_k
\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1}}
M_2^2 z_k^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \leq
\mathcal{M}_2
\|u\|_{L^2}^5,\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{M}_2 =
\big( \sum_k
\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1}}
M_2^2 z_k^2\big)^\frac{1}{2}$. Without loss of generality, assume $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z1}
|j_1| = \max (|j_1|, |j_2|, |j_3|)
\gtrsim |k_1|.\\
\intertext{Also, we assume}
|k_1| = \max (|k_1|, |k_2|, |k_3|) \label{Z2}\end{aligned}$$
in the following, since this corresponds to the worst case.
$\circ$ Case 2.a: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N26}
M_2^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s} |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}^2},\end{aligned}$$
where ${\lambda}$ is as in . (Note that ${\lambda}$ is of no help if ${\lambda}= |k_2 + k_3|$ and $|k_1| \gg |j_2|, |j_3|\gg |k_2|, |k_3|$.) Thus, for $ s >\frac{1}{2}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $j_2, j_3, k_2, k_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s > \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 2.b: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $ k^* \sim |k_1| \sim |k_2|\sim |k_3| \gtrsim |k|$. Then, for $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N27}
M_2^2 \lesssim \frac{|k_1|^2 }{(k^*)^{2s} |j_1|^{2s}|j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s}{\Lambda}^2}
\lesssim \frac{1}{ |j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s}{\Lambda}^2},\end{aligned}$$
where ${\Lambda}$ is as in . Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_2, k_3$ for ${\Lambda}^{-2}$, $j_2, j_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s > \frac{1}{2}$.
\[LEM:N3\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)}$ be as in . Then, for $s>0$, there exists ${\alpha}> 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N31}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)}(v)\|_{H^s} & \lesssim n^{-{\alpha}} \|v\|_{H^s}^3 \\
\label{N32}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)}(w) \|_{H^s}
& \lesssim n^{-{\alpha}} \big(\|v\|_{H^s}+ \|w\|_{H^s}\big)^2 \|v-w\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. Recall that $${\mathcal{N}}_1^{(-n)} =
\frac{i}{3}\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k e^{i t\Phi(\bar{k})}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} v_{k_1}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}.$$
By duality, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N33}
\sum_k \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0 \\k^* > n}}
M_3 u_{k_1}u_{k_2}u_{k_3} z_k
\lesssim n^{-{\alpha}} \|u\|_{L^2}^3\end{aligned}$$
where $\|z\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $M_3 $ is given by $$M_3 = M_3(k_1, k_2, k_3) : = \frac{|k|^{1+s} }{|\Phi(\bar{k})||k_1|^{s} |k_2|^s|k_3|^s}.$$
As before, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{LHS of }\eqref{N33}
& \leq
\mathcal{M}_3
\|u\|_{L^2}^3,\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{M}_3 = \big( \sum_k \sum_{k_1 + k_2 +k_3 = k} M_3^2 z_k^2\big)^\frac{1}{2}$. Without loss of generality, assume $k^* = |k_1|$.
$\circ$ Case 1: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $$M_3^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{(k^*)^2 |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}^2}
\leq n^{-1}\frac{1}{|k_2|^{1+ 2s} {\lambda}^2},$$
where ${\lambda}$ is as in . Thus, for $ s > 0 $, we have $\mathcal{M}_3 \lesssim n^{-1}$ by summing over $k_j (\ne k_2)$ appearing in ${\lambda}^{-2}$, $k_2$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s > 0$.
$\circ$ Case 2: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . For ${\Lambda}$ as in , we have $ \max(|k_2|, |k_3|, {\Lambda}) \gtrsim |k_1|>n$, since we have $|k_2|\sim |k_1|$ or $|k_3|\sim |k_1|$ if ${\Lambda}\ll |k_1|$. Then, we have $$M_3^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{ |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\Lambda}^2}
\lesssim \max(n^{-2s}, n^{-1+{\varepsilon}}) \frac{1}{{\Lambda}^{1+{\varepsilon}}},$$
Thus, for $ s > 0 $, we have $\mathcal{M}_3 \lesssim n^{-{\alpha}}$ by summing over two frequencies for ${\Lambda}^{-1-{\varepsilon}}$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s > 0$.
Unconditional local well-posedness for $s > \frac{1}{2}$ {#SEC:LWP1}
========================================================
In this section, we put together all the lemmata in the previous section and prove unconditional local well-posedness of mKdV (with prescribed $L^2$-norm) in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s >\frac{1}{2}$. Some parts of the argument below are standard. However, we include them for completeness.
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, define $F_n(v, v_0)$ by $F_n(v, v_0) = F_n^{(1)}(v, v_0)+F_n^{(2)}(v, v_0)$, where $F_n^{(1)}$ and $F_n^{(2)}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_n^{(1)}& = {\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)}_{1}(v)(t)-{\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{(-n)}(v_0)\\
F_n^{(2)}& = \int_0^t {\mathcal{R}}(v)(t') + {\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(v)(t')+ {\mathcal{N}}_{2}^{(-n)}(v)(t')dt',\end{aligned}$$
Then, if $v$ is a solution to , then we have $$\label{M1}
v(t) = v_0 + F_n(v, v_0)(t).$$
Given an initial condition $v_0 \in H^s$, $s>\frac{1}{2}$, take a sequence $\big\{v_0^{[m]}\big\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ of smooth functions such that $v_0^{[m]} \to v_0$ in $H^s$. Let $R = \|v_0\|_{H^s} + 1$. Then, without loss of generality, we can assume $\big\|v_0^{[m]}\|_{H^s} \leq R$.
Let $v^{[m]}$ denote the smooth global-in-time solution of mKdV with smooth initial condition $v_0^{[m]}$.[^6] Then, by Lemmata \[LEM:R\]–\[LEM:N3\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M2}
\|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}
\leq & R + C \big\{n^{-{\alpha}} \big(\|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}
+ \|v_0^{[m]}\|_{H^s}\big)^2 \notag \\
& + n \ln n \, T (\|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}^2 +\|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}^4) \big\}
\|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}\end{aligned}$$
First, choose $n$ sufficiently large such that $$\label{M21}
C n^{-{\alpha}} (3R)^2 < \tfrac{1}{4}.$$
Next, choose $T$ sufficiently small such that $$\label{M22}
C n \ln n \, T \big( (2R)^2 + (2R)^4\big) <\tfrac{1}{4}.$$
Then, from with the continuity argument , we have $$\|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)} \leq 2R, \quad m \in \mathbb{N}.$$
Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M3}
\| F_n(v^{[m_1]}, v_0^{[m_1]}) & - F_n(v^{[m_2]}, v_0^{[m_2]})\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)} \notag\\
& \leq C_R
\|v^{[m_1]}- v^{[m_2]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}
+ (1+ C_R)\|v_0^{[m_1]}-v_0^{[m_2]}\|_{H^s}\end{aligned}$$
where $C_R <\frac{1}{2}$ (by possibly taking larger $n$ and smaller $T$.) Since $v^{[m_j]}$ is a (smooth) solution with initial condition $v_0^{[m_j]}$, it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M4}
\|v^{[m_1]}- v^{[m_2]}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}
\leq C'\|v_0^{[m_1]}-v_0^{[m_2]}\|_{H^s}\end{aligned}$$
for some $C' >0$. Hence, $\{v^{[m]}\}$ converges in $C([0, T]; H^s)$.
Let $v^\infty$ denote the limit. Then, we need to show that $v^\infty$ satisfies or $$\label{M6}
v(t) = v_0 + \int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}(v)(t') + {\mathcal{R}}(v) (t') dt'$$
as a space-time distribution. First, observe the following lemma. We present the proof at the end of this section.
\[LEM:H2\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$ be as in . Then, we have, for any ${\varepsilon}> 0$, $$\label{H21}
\|{\mathcal{N}}+{\mathcal{R}}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}-{\varepsilon}}}
\lesssim \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^3.$$
In particular, if $v$ satisfies , then we have $\|{\partial_t}v\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}-{\varepsilon}}}
\lesssim \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^3.$
Given a test function $\phi$, consider $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}}\bigg\{ v^\infty(t) - v_0 - \int_0^t {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{N}}}(v^\infty)(t') dt' \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXX}
- \Big[ v^{[m]}(t) - v_0^{[m]} - \int_0^t {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{N}}}(v^{[m]})(t') dt'
\Big] \bigg\} \phi(x, t) dx dt \notag \\
& \hphantom{XX}
= \int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}}(v^\infty(t) - v^{[m]}(t))\phi \, dx dt
- \int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}}(v_0 - v_0^{[m]}) \phi \, dx dt \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXX}
+ \int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}}\int_0^t \Big[{\widetilde}{{\mathcal{N}}}(v^\infty)(t') - {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{N}}}(v^{[m]})(t')\Big] dt' \phi(x, t)dx dt \notag \\
& \hphantom{XX}
=: I_1 - I_2 + I_3
\label{M7}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{N}}} = {\mathcal{N}}+ {\mathcal{R}}$. By convergence of $v^{[m]} \to v^\infty$ in $C([0, T];H^s)$ and $v_0^{[m]} \to v_0$ in $H^s$, we have $I_1, I_2 \to 0$ as $m \to \infty$. By Lemma \[LEM:H2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
|I_3|
\lesssim T (\|v^\infty\|_{C([0, T];H^s)}^2 + \|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T];H^s)}^2 )
\|v^\infty - v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, T];H^s)} \|\phi\|_{L^1_t H^{\frac{1}{2}+{\varepsilon}}_x}
\to 0\end{aligned}$$
as $m\to \infty$. Therefore, $v^\infty$ is a solution to . It follows from and that the time of existence $T$ satisfies $T \gtrsim \|v_0\|_{H^s}^{-\beta}$ for some $\beta > 0$. Also, the Lipschitz dependence on initial data follows from .
Let $T$ be given. Suppose that both $v$ and ${\widetilde}{v}$ are solutions in $C([0, T]; H^s)$ to with the same initial condition $v_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s >\frac{1}{2}$. First, assume that $\|v\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}, \|{\widetilde}{v}\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)} \leq 2R$ where $R = \|v_0\|_{H^s} + 1$. Choose $n$ and $\tau$ satisfying and (in place of $T$.) Then, from , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| v -{\widetilde}{v}\|_{C([0, \tau]; H^s)}
= \| F_n(v, v_0) - F_n({\widetilde}{v}, v_0)\|_{C([0, \tau]; H^s)}
\leq \tfrac{1}{2}
\|v- {\widetilde}{v}\|_{C([0, \tau]; H^s)}.\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $v = {\widetilde}{v}$ in $C([0, \tau]; H^s)$. By iterating the argument, we obtain $v = {\widetilde}{v}$ in $C([0, T]; H^s)$. Now, suppose that ${\widetilde}{R}:= \frac{1}{2}\max(\|v\|_{C([0, T]; H^s)}, \|{\widetilde}{v}\|_{C([0, t]; H^s)}) > R$. Then, use ${\widetilde}{R}$ (in place of $R$) to determine $n$ and $\tau$ (in place of $T$) in and . The rest follows as before. This proves the unconditional uniqueness (with prescribed $L^2$-norm.)
We conclude this section by presenting the proof of Lemma \[LEM:H2\].
\[Proof of Lemma \[LEM:H2\]\] The contribution from ${\mathcal{R}}$ is bounded by Lemma \[LEM:R\]. Without loss of generality, assume $|k_1| = \max(|k_1|, |k_2|, |k_3|) \gtrsim |k|$. Then, by Young’s inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{N}}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}-{\varepsilon}}}
& \lesssim
\bigg(\sum_k \Big( \sum_{k_1+k_2+k_3=k}
|k_1|^{\frac{1}{2}} v_{k_1}
|k_2|^{-\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}}v_{k_2}|k_2|^{-\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}}v_{k_3} \Big)^2 \bigg)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \leq \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
\big\||k|^{-\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}} v_{k}\big\|_{l^1_{k}}^2
\lesssim \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}} ^3.\end{aligned}$$
where we used Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the last step.
Endpoint case: $s = \frac{1}{2}$ {#SEC:endpoint}
================================
The previous argument fails at the endpoint regularity $ s= \frac{1}{2}$ precisely because ${\mathcal{N}}_{2}^{(-n)}$ does not satisfy the required estimate when $ s= \frac{1}{2}$. See Lemma \[LEM:N2\]. However, when $s= \frac{1}{2}$, Lemma \[LEM:N2\] still holds for ${\mathcal{N}}_{21}^{(-n)}$ defined in . Moreover, if any of the following conditions holds, then Lemma \[LEM:N2\] holds for ${\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)}$ defined in , even when $ s= \frac{1}{2}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{(a)} &
\max(|k_2|, |k_3|) &\gtrsim \min( |k|^\frac{1}{100}, |k_1|^\frac{1}{100}),
\text{ if }\Phi(\bar{k}) \text{ satisfies }\eqref{PHI1},\\
\textup{(b)} &
\max(|k_2|, |k_3|)& \gtrsim\min(|j_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |j_3|^\frac{1}{100}),
\text{ if }\Phi(\bar{k}) \text{ satisfies }\eqref{PHI1},\\
\textup{(c)}& |j_1|& \gtrsim \min(|k|^{1+\frac{1}{100}}, |k_1|^{1+\frac{1}{100}}), \\
\textup{(d)}& {\Lambda}_j& \lesssim \max(|k_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |k_3|^\frac{1}{100}), \\
&&\hspace{+50pt}\vphantom{\Big|}
\text{if } \Phi(\bar{k}) \text{ satisfies }\eqref{PHI1}
\text{ and }\Phi(\bar{j}) \text{ satisfies }\eqref{PHI2}, \\
\textup{(e)}& {\Lambda}_k& \gtrsim \max(|j_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |j_3|^\frac{1}{100}), \text{ if }\Phi(\bar{k}) \text{ satisfies }\eqref{PHI2},\end{aligned}$$
where ${\Lambda}_j$ is as in with $\{j_i\}$ in place of $\{k_i\}$.
By symmetry, assume $|k_2| \geq |k_3|$ and $|j_2| \geq |j_3|$. First, suppose that (a) holds. Then, in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O11}
M_2^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_1|^{2{\varepsilon}} |j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s} |k_2|^{2s-200{\varepsilon}}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}^2}
\lesssim \frac{1}{ |j_2|^{2s+{\varepsilon}}|j_3|^{2s+{\varepsilon}} |k_2|^{2s-201{\varepsilon}}|k_3|^{2s+{\varepsilon}} {\lambda}^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, for $ s = \frac{1}{2}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_i \,(\ne k_3)$ for ${\lambda}^{-2}$, $k_3$, $j_2, j_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$. Secondly, suppose that (b) holds. By $|k_2|^{200{\varepsilon}} \gtrsim |j_2|^{\varepsilon}|j_3|^{\varepsilon}$, we have $M_2^2 \lesssim$ RHS of as before. Next, suppose that (c) holds. Then, we have a small additional power of $|j_1|$ in the denominators of and Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
Now, suppose (d) holds. This implies that either $$\begin{aligned}
\text{(d.1)} & |j_2 + j_3|& \lesssim \max(|k_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |k_3|^\frac{1}{100}),
\text{ or } \\
\text{(d.2)} &
|j_1 + j_2||j_1 + j_3|& \lesssim \max(|k_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |k_3|^\frac{1}{100})\end{aligned}$$
By symmetry, assume $|k_2| \geq |k_3|$. If (d.1) holds, then for fixed $j_3$, there are at most $O\big(|k_2|^\frac{1}{100}\big)$ possible choices for $j_2$. Then, by going back to Case 2.a in Lemma \[LEM:N2\], we have $$M_2^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s} |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}^2},
\lesssim \frac{1}{|j_3|^{4s} |k_2|^\frac{1}{100}|k_3|^{4s-\frac{1}{100}} {\lambda}^2}.$$
Thus, for $ s >\frac{101}{400}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_i \, (\ne k_3)$ for ${\lambda}^{-2}$, $k_3$, then, $j_2$ and $j_3$, and finally $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
If (d.2) holds, then then for fixed $j_1$, there are at most $O\big(|k_2|^\frac{1}{100}\big)$ possible choices for $j_3$. Since $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfies , we have $|j_1|\sim |j_2|$. Then, by going back to Case 2.a in Lemma \[LEM:N2\], we have $$M_2^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_1|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s} |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}^2},
\lesssim \frac{1}{|j_1|^{4s} |k_2|^\frac{1}{100}|k_3|^{4s-\frac{1}{100}} {\lambda}^2}.$$
Once again, for $ s >\frac{101}{400}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_i \, (\ne k_3)$ for ${\lambda}^{-2}$, $k_3$, then, $j_3$ and $j_1$, and finally $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
Finally, suppose (e) holds. Then, in , we have $$M_2^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_2|^{2s+{\varepsilon}}|j_3|^{2s+{\varepsilon}}
{\Lambda}_k^{2-200{\varepsilon}}}.$$
Thus, for $ s =\frac{1}{2}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over two frequencies for ${\Lambda}_k$, then, $j_2$ and $j_3$, and finally $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
Hence, letting ${\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)}$ be the restriction of ${\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)}$ such that at least one of the above conditions (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) holds, we have the following estimates.
\[LEM:O1\] There exists $s_0 <\frac{1}{2}$ such that the following estimates hold for $s >s_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O111}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)}(v)\|_{H^s} & \lesssim \, \|v\|_{H^s}^5 \\
\label{O112}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)}(w) \|_{H^s}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^s}+ \|w\|_{H^s}\big)^4 \|v-w\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, letting ${\mathcal{N}}_{222}^{(-n)} := {\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)} - {\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)}$, we have $$\label{O13}
{\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)} = {\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)} + {\mathcal{N}}_{222}^{(-n)}.$$
In the following, we concentrate on estimating the contribution from ${\mathcal{N}}_{222}^{(-n)}$. Note that ${\mathcal{N}}_{222}^{(-n)}$ is the restriction of ${\mathcal{N}}_{22}^{(-n)}$ such that [*all*]{} of the conditions below hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{(a')} &
\max(|k_2|, |k_3|) &\ll \min( |k|^\frac{1}{100}, |k_1|^\frac{1}{100}), \label{O14}\\
\textup{(b')} &
\max(|k_2|, |k_3|)& \ll\min(|j_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |j_3|^\frac{1}{100}),\label{O15}\\
\textup{(c')}& |j_1|& \ll \min(|k|^{1+\frac{1}{100}}, |k_1|^{1+\frac{1}{100}}), \label{O16}\\
\text{(d')} & {\Lambda}_j & \gg \max(|k_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |k_3|^\frac{1}{100}) \label{O166},\\
\text{(e')} & {\Lambda}_k & \ll \max(|j_2|^\frac{1}{100}, |j_3|^\frac{1}{100}), \label{O167}\end{aligned}$$
where (a’) and (b’) hold when $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies , (d’) holds when $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfies , and (e’) holds when $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . (Recall that we also assume –.) Henceforth, we assume that the frequencies are restricted such that the conditions (a’)–(e’) hold. By and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\big({\mathcal{N}}_{222}^{(-n)}\big)_k
& = \frac{1}{3}\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t(\Phi(\bar{k})+\Phi(\bar{\jmath}))}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}v_{k_2}v_{k_3} \\
& = -i \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\
\Phi(\bar{k})\ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k e^{i t(\Phi(\bar{k}))}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} {\partial_t}({\mathcal{N}}_1)_{k_1} v_{k_2}v_{k_3}
+i \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\
\Phi(\bar{k})\ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k e^{i t(\Phi(\bar{k}))}}{i \Phi(\bar{k})} ({\mathcal{N}}_2)_{k_1} v_{k_2}v_{k_3} \notag\\
& = : ({\mathcal{N}}_3)_k +({\mathcal{N}}_4)_k. \label{O17}\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma shows that ${\mathcal{N}}_4$ can be controlled in $H^\frac{1}{2}$.
\[LEM:O2\] The following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O221}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_4(v)\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}} & \lesssim \, \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^7 \\
\label{O222}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_4(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_4(w) \|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}+ \|w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}\big)^6 \|v-w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Before proving this lemma, let us present the following corollary to Lemma \[LEM:N2\].
\[COR:H1\] For $s < \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H11}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_2(v)\|_{H^s} & \lesssim \, \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^5 \\
\label{H12}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_2(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_2(w) \|_{H^s}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}+ \|w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}\big)^4 \|v-w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
We omit the proof of this corollary, since it follows from a slight modification of the proof of Lemma \[LEM:N2\].
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. In view of Corollary \[COR:H1\], it suffices to prove $$\|{\mathcal{N}}_4\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
\lesssim \|{\mathcal{N}}_2\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}} \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^2.$$
By duality, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O223}
\sum_k \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k\\\Phi(\bar{k}) \ne 0 \\k^* > n}}
M_4 u_{k_1}u_{k_2}u_{k_3} z_k
\lesssim \|u\|_{L^2}^3\end{aligned}$$
where $\|z\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $M_4 $ is given by $$M_4 = M_4(k_1, k_2, k_3) : = \frac{|k|^\frac{3}{2}|k_1|^\frac{1}{2} }{|\Phi(\bar{k})||k_2|^\frac{1}{2}|k_3|^\frac{1}{2}}.$$
As before, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $\text{LHS of }\eqref{O223}
\leq
\mathcal{M}_4
\|u\|_{L^2}^3$, where $\mathcal{M}_4 = \big( \sum_k \sum_{k_1 + k_2 +k_3 = k} M_4^2 z_k^2\big)^\frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 1: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $ M_4^2 \lesssim |k_2|^{-1}|k_3|^{-1} {\lambda}^{-2}
\leq |k_3|^{-2} {\lambda}^{-2}$, where ${\lambda}$ is as in . Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_4 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_i \, (\ne k_3)$ appearing in ${\lambda}^{-2}$, $k_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds.
$\circ$ Case 2: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies . By $|k_2|\sim|k_1| \sim k^*$, we have $M_4^2 \lesssim {\Lambda}^{-2}$ where ${\Lambda}$ is as in . Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_4 \lesssim 1$ by summing over two frequencies for ${\Lambda}^{-2}$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds.
Now, we need to estimate the contribution from ${\mathcal{N}}_3$. In doing so, we actually estimate $\int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}_3(t')dt'$. Integrating by parts, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}_3(t')dt'
& = -\frac{1}{3}\int_0^t
\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t'(\Phi(\bar{k})+\Phi(\bar{\jmath}))}}{i \Phi(\bar{\jmath})} \big(v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}v_{k_2}v_{k_3}\big) (t') dt'\notag \\
& +\frac{1}{3} \int_0^t \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t'(\Phi(\bar{k})+\Phi(\bar{\jmath}))}}{ \Phi(\bar{k})\Phi(\bar{\jmath})} \big(v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}\big)(t')
{\partial_t}\big(v_{k_2}v_{k_3}\big) (t') dt' \notag\\
& -\frac{1}{3} \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t(\Phi(\bar{k})+\Phi(\bar{\jmath}))}}{\Phi(\bar{k})\Phi(\bar{\jmath})} \big(v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}
v_{k_2}v_{k_3}\big)(t')\bigg|_0^t \notag\\
& =: \int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}_5 (t') dt'+ \int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}_6 (t') dt' + {\mathcal{N}}_7(v)(t) - {\mathcal{N}}_7(v)(0). \label{O333}\end{aligned}$$
First, note that ${\mathcal{N}}_5$ looks like ${\mathcal{N}}_2^{(-n)}$ in Lemma \[LEM:N2\]. However, it satisfies a better estimate thanks to the conditions (b’)–(e’).
\[LEM:O3\] The following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O31}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_5(v)\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}} & \lesssim \, \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^5 \\
\label{O32}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_5(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_5(w) \|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}+ \|w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}\big)^4 \|v-w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. By duality, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O33}
\sum_k
\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
M_5 u_{j_1}u_{j_2}u_{j_3}u_{k_2}u_{k_3} z_k
\lesssim \|u\|_{L^2}^5\end{aligned}$$
where $\|z\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $M_5 $ is given by $$M_5 = M_5(j_1,j_2,j_3, k_2, k_3) : =
\frac{|k|^{1+s}|k_1| }{|\Phi(\bar{\jmath})||j_1|^s|j_2|^s|j_3|^s|k_2|^s|k_3|^s}$$
with $s = \frac{1}{2}$. As before, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $\text{LHS of }\eqref{O33}
\leq
\mathcal{M}_5
\|u\|_{L^2}^5$, where $\mathcal{M}_5 = \big( \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1}}
M_5^2 z_k^2\big)^\frac{1}{2}$.
By symmetry, assume $|k_2| \geq |k_3|$ and $|j_2| \geq |j_3|$.
$\circ$ Case 1: Both $\Phi(\bar{k})$ and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfy . Let ${\lambda}_j$ be as in with $\{j_i\}$ in place of $\{k_i\}$. Then, as in Case 2.a in Lemma \[LEM:N2\], we have $$M_5^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s} |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}_j^2}
\ll \frac{1}{|j_3|^{4s-\frac{2{\varepsilon}}{100}} |k_2|^{2s+{\varepsilon}}|k_3|^{2s+{\varepsilon}} {\lambda}_j^2},$$
since $|j_2| \gg |k_2|^{100} \geq |k_3|^{100}$ by the condition (b’). Thus, for $s = \frac{1}{2}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_5 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_2, k_3$, then $j_i \,(\ne j_3)$, for ${\lambda}_j^{-2}$, $j_3$, and $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 2: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfies . By (e’), given $k_3$, there are at most $O(|j_2|^\frac{1}{50})$ possible choices for $k_2$. Then, by (c’) with $|k_2|\sim|k_1|$, given $k_3$, there are at most $O(|k_2|^\frac{101}{5000})$ possible choices for $k_2$. As in Case 2.a in Lemma \[LEM:N2\], we have $$M_5^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{|j_2|^{2s}|j_3|^{2s} |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s} {\lambda}_j^2}
\ll \frac{1}{|j_3|^{4s} |k_2|^{\frac{1}{40}}|k_3|^{4s-\frac{1}{40}} {\lambda}_j^2}.$$
Thus, for $s = \frac{1}{2}$, we have $\mathcal{M}_5 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_2, k_3$, then $j_i \,(\ne j_3)$, for ${\lambda}_j^{-2}$, $j_3$, and $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 3: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $ j^* \sim |j_1| \sim |j_2|\sim |j_3| \gtrsim |k_1|$. By (d’) in , we have $$M_5^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{ |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s}{\Lambda}_j^2}
\ll \frac{1}{ |k_2|^{2s+{\varepsilon}}|k_3|^{2s+{\varepsilon}}{\Lambda}_j^{2-200{\varepsilon}}}$$
for $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$. Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_2 \lesssim 1$ by summing over two frequencies for ${\Lambda}_j^{-2+200{\varepsilon}}$, $k_2, k_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 4: Both $\Phi(\bar{k})$ and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfy . As in Case 2, given $k_3$, there are at most $O(|k_2|^\frac{1}{40})$ possible choices for $k_2$. Thus, we have $$M_5^2 \lesssim \frac{1}{ |k_2|^{2s}|k_3|^{2s}{\Lambda}_j^2}
\ll \frac{1}{ |k_2|^{\frac{1}{40}}|k_3|^{4s-\frac{1}{40}}{\Lambda}_j^{2-200{\varepsilon}}}$$
for $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
\[LEM:O4\] Suppose that $v$ and $w$ satisfy . Then, the following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O41}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_6(v)\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}} & \lesssim \, \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^7 \\
\label{O42}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_6(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_6(w) \|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
& \lesssim \big(\|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}+ \|w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}\big)^6 \|v-w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that the time derivative falls on $v_{k_2}$ in . i.e. we have $${\mathcal{N}}_6(t) \sim \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
\frac{k k_1e^{i t'(\Phi(\bar{k})+\Phi(\bar{\jmath}))}}{ \Phi(\bar{k})\Phi(\bar{\jmath})} \big(v_{j_1}v_{j_2}v_{j_3}\big)
{\partial_t}v_{k_2} v_{k_3}.$$
Moreover, assume $|j_2| \geq |j_3|$ and $|k_2| \geq |k_3|$. We only prove since follows in a similar manner. In view of Lemma \[LEM:H2\], it suffices to prove $$\|{\mathcal{N}}_6\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
\lesssim \|{\partial_t}v \|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}-{\varepsilon}}} \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^4$$
for some small ${\varepsilon}>0$. By duality, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O43}
\sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 \\ \Phi(\bar{k}), \Phi(\bar{\jmath}) \ne 0\\k^* > n}}
M_6 u_{j_1}u_{j_2}u_{j_3}u_{k_2}u_{k_3} z_k
\lesssim \|u\|_{L^2}^5\end{aligned}$$
where $\|z\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $M_6 $ is given by $$M_6 = M_6(j_1,j_2,j_3, k_2, k_3) : =
\frac{|k|^\frac{3}{2} |k_1| |k_2|^{\frac{1}{2}+{\varepsilon}} }
{|\Phi(\bar{k})||\Phi(\bar{\jmath})||j_1|^\frac{1}{2}|j_2|^\frac{1}{2}|j_3|^\frac{1}{2}|k_3|^\frac{1}{2}}.$$
As before, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $\text{LHS of }\eqref{O43}
\leq
\mathcal{M}_6
\|u\|_{L^2}^5$, where $\mathcal{M}_6 = \big( \sum_{\substack{k_1+ k_2+ k_3 = k \\
j_1 + j_2 +j_3 = k_1 } }
M_6^2 z_k^2\big)^\frac{1}{2}$. Let ${\lambda}_k$ and ${\lambda}_j$ (and ${\Lambda}_k$ and ${\Lambda}_j$) be as in (and as in ) for $\{k_i\}$ and $\{j_i\}$, respectively.
$\circ$ Case 1: Both $\Phi(\bar{k})$ and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfy . By (b’) and $|j_1| \geq \max(|j_2|, |j_3|)$, we have $$M_6^2 \lesssim
\frac{1 }
{|j_1|^{4-\frac{1}{50}(\frac{1}{2}+{\varepsilon})}|j_2||j_3||k_3|{\lambda}_k^2 {\lambda}_j^2}
\leq \frac{1 }
{|j_1|^{1+{\varepsilon}}|j_2|^{1+{\varepsilon}}|j_3|^{1+{\varepsilon}}|k_3|^{1+{\varepsilon}}{\lambda}_k^2 {\lambda}_j^2}$$
for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_6 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_3, j_1,j_2,j_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 2: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $$M_6^2 \lesssim
\frac{1 }
{|j_1|^{2-\frac{1}{50}(\frac{1}{2}+{\varepsilon})}|j_2||j_3||k_3|{\lambda}_k^2 {\Lambda}_j^2}
\leq \frac{1 }
{|j_1|^{1+{\varepsilon}}|j_2|^{1+{\varepsilon}}|j_3|^{1+{\varepsilon}}|k_3|^{1+{\varepsilon}}{\lambda}_k^2 {\Lambda}_j^2}$$
for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_6 \lesssim 1$ by summing over $k_3, j_1,j_2,j_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 3: $\Phi(\bar{k})$ satisfies and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfies . In this case, we have $$M_6^2 \lesssim
\frac{1}
{|j_1||j_2||j_3||k_3|^{1-2{\varepsilon}} {\Lambda}_k^2 {\lambda}_j^2}
\leq
\frac{1}
{|j_2|^\frac{3}{2}|j_3|^\frac{3}{2}|k_3|^{1-2{\varepsilon}} {\Lambda}_k^2 {\lambda}_j^2}.$$
Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_6 \lesssim 1$ by summing over two frequencies for ${\Lambda}_k^{-2}$, $j_2, j_3$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
$\circ$ Case 4: Both $\Phi(\bar{k})$ and $\Phi(\bar{\jmath})$ satisfy . In this case, we have $|k_1|\sim|k_2|\sim|k_3|$ and $|j_1|\sim|j_2|\sim|j_3|$. In this case, we have $M_6^2 \lesssim |j_1|^{-1+{\varepsilon}} {\Lambda}_k^{-2}{\Lambda}_j^{-2}$ Thus, we have $\mathcal{M}_6 \lesssim 1$ by summing over two frequencies for ${\Lambda}_k^{-2}$, two frequencies for ${\Lambda}_j^{-2}$, and then $k$ for $z_k^2$. Hence, holds for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.
Before we present the estimate on ${\mathcal{N}}_7$, recall that we have $|k_1| > n$. Thus, we have $|j_1| \gtrsim n$ since $|j_1| \gtrsim |k_1|$.
\[LEM:O5\] There exists ${\alpha}> 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O51}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_7(v)\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}} & \lesssim n^{-{\alpha}} \, \|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}^5 \\
\label{O52}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_7(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_7(w) \|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
& \lesssim n^{-{\alpha}} \, \big(\|v\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}+ \|w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}\big)^4 \|v-w\|_{H^\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
This lemma immediately follows from the proof of Lemma \[LEM:O4\] once we note that there is an extra (small) power of $|j_1|$ in the denominator except for Case 3. In Case 3, we have an extra (small) power of $|k_3| \sim |k_1| > n$.
The remaining part of the argument is basically the same as in Section \[SEC:LWP1\]. For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, define $G_n(v, v_0)$ by $G_n(v, v_0) = G_n^{(1)}(v, v_0)+G_n^{(2)}(v, v_0)$, where $G_n^{(1)}$ and $G_n^{(2)}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
G_n^{(1)} = & \, {\mathcal{N}}^{(-n)}_{1}(v)(t)-{\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{(-n)}(v_0)
+ {\mathcal{N}}_7(v)(t)-{\mathcal{N}}_7(v_0)\\
G_n^{(2)} = & \, \int_0^t {\mathcal{R}}(v)(t') + {\mathcal{N}}^{(n)}(v)(t')+ {\mathcal{N}}_{21}^{(-n)}(v)(t') \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXX}+ {\mathcal{N}}_{221}^{(-n)}(v)(t')+ {\mathcal{N}}_4(v)(t')+{\mathcal{N}}_5(v)(t')+{\mathcal{N}}_6(v)(t')dt'.\end{aligned}$$
From , , , , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
v(t) = v_0 + G_n(v, v_0)(t).\end{aligned}$$
if $v$ is a solution to . It follows from Lemmata \[LEM:R\]–\[LEM:N3\], \[LEM:O1\],\[LEM:O2\], and \[LEM:O3\]–\[LEM:O5\] that we obtain a priori bounds and for $s = \frac{1}{2}$ (with $G_n$ in place of $F_n$ and with a higher power in .) Then, the unconditional local well-posedness in $H^\frac{1}{2}$ with Lipschitz dependence on initial data follows as in Section \[SEC:LWP1\].
[99]{}
A. Babin, A. Ilyin, E. Titi, [*On the regularization mechanism for the periodic Korteweg-de Vries equation*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 64 (2011), no. 5, 591–648.
J. Bourgain, [*Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations II*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal., 3 (1993), 209–262.
J. Bourgain, [*Periodic Korteweg de Vries equation with measures as initial data,*]{} Selecta Math. (N.S.) 3 (1997), no. 2, 115–159.
M. Christ, [*Nonuniqueness of weak solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation,*]{} arXiv:math/0503366v1 \[math.AP\].
M. Christ, J. Colliander, T. Tao, [*Asymptotics, frequency modulation, and low regularity ill-posedness for canonical defocusing equations,*]{} Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), no. 6, 1235–1293.
J. Colliander, M. Keel, G. Staffilani, H. Takaoka, T. Tao, [*Sharp Global Well-Posedness for KdV and Modified KdV on $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{T}$,*]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), no. 3, 705–749.
G. Furioli, F. Planchon, E. Terraneo, [*Unconditional well-posedness for semilinear Schrödinger and wave equations in $H^s$,*]{} Harmonic analysis at Mount Holyoke (South Hadley, MA, 2001), 147–156, Contemp. Math., 320, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003.
J. Ginibre, [*An introduction to nonlinear Schrödinger equations,*]{} Nonlinear waves (Sapporo, 1995), 85–133, GAKUTO Internat. Ser. Math. Sci. Appl., 10, Gakkōtosho, Tokyo, 1997.
T. Kappeler, P. Topalov, [*Global well-posedness of mKdV in $L^2(\mathbb{T},\mathbb{R})$,*]{} Comm. PDE 30 (2005), no. 1-3, 435–449.
T. Kato, [*On nonlinear Schrödinger equations. II. $H^s$-solutions and unconditional well-posedness,*]{} J. Anal. Math. 67 (1995), 281–306.
K. Nakanishi, H. Takaoka, Y. Tsutsumi, [*Unique local existence of solution in low regularity space of the Cauchy problem for the mKdV equation with periodic boundary condition,*]{} Séminaire: Équations aux Dérivées Partielles. 2007–2008, Exp. No. XVII, 7 pp., Sémin. Équ. Dériv. Partielles, École Polytech., Palaiseau, 2009.
H. Takaoka, Y. Tsutsumi, [*Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the modified KdV equation with periodic boundary condition,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. (2004), no. 56, 3009–3040.
T. Tao, [*Global existence and uniqueness results for weak solutions of the focusing mass-critical non-linear Schrodinger equation,*]{} Anal. PDE 2 (2009), no.1, 61 – 81.
Y. Zhou, [*Uniqueness of weak solution of the KdV equation,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. (1997), no. 6, 271–283.
[^1]: The first author is supported by NRF grant 2010-0024017.
[^2]: This is uniqueness of weak solutions in the space of $L^\infty_tL^2_x({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}})$
[^3]: For (unique) solutions to in $C([0, T]; H^s)$, $s\geq \frac{1}{2}$, constructed in this paper, one can easily check that the $L^2$-norm is conserved in time.
[^4]: In the following, we only deal with the focusing case, i.e. with the $+$ sign in , since our analysis is local-in-time and thus the focusing/defocusing nature of the equation is irrelevant.
[^5]: Indeed, we keep in the form of integration by parts to emphasize this point.
[^6]: For smooth initial data, there exists a global smooth solution thanks to either the theory of complete integrability or the energy method. Instead of using smooth solutions, we could directly construct a solution by Galerkin approximation and compactness argument. Here, we use smooth solutions for conciseness of the presentation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Robustness of spatial pattern against perturbations is an indispensable property of developmental processes for organisms, which need to adapt to changing environments. Although specific mechanisms for this robustness have been extensively investigated, little is known about a general mechanism for achieving robustness in reaction-diffusion systems. Here, we propose a buffered reaction-diffusion system, in which active states of chemicals mediated by buffer molecules contribute to reactions, and demonstrate that robustness of the pattern wavelength is achieved by the dynamics of the buffer molecule. This robustness is analytically explained as a result of the scaling properties of the buffered system, which also lead to a reciprocal relationship between the wavelength’s robustness and the plasticity of the spatial phase upon external perturbations. Finally, we explore the relevance of this reciprocity to biological systems.'
author:
- 'Tetsuhiro S. Hatakeyama'
- Kunihiko Kaneko
title: |
Robustness of spatial patterns in buffered reaction-diffusion systems\
and its reciprocity with phase plasticity
---
Robustness is ubiquitous in biological systems. Developmental processes are robust to environmental changes, a property described as canalization [@Waddington1942]. The robustness of each individual developmental process, including regulation in signaling, cellular differentiation, and pattern formation, has been analyzed both experimentally and theoretically. In particular, the robustness of pattern formation by reaction-diffusion (RD) dynamics has been studied in relationship to proportion preservation: Although the body size of organisms varies, the proportion of the size of each organ to the whole body is conserved, as is the robustness of the number of body segments. Ordinary pattern formation systems, however, have their own characteristic wavelengths [@Turing1952; @Kuramoto1984], and do not preserve proportions per se. Thus, the mechanisms of proportion regulation have been investigated, both theoretically and experimentally [@Othmer1980; @Hunding1988; @Barkai2009; @Inomata2013; @Werner2015].
Spatial pattern robustness is also important for cellular polarity. It is the result of a cellular compass [@Weiner2002], which is believed to be generated by an RD process on the cell membrane [@Mori2008]. Then, the number of the cellular compass, given as a pattern wavelength in the RD system, must be maintained against environmental changes for robust cellular polarity.
Another example of robust pattern formation is seen in the configuration of differentiated cells. In multicellular cyanobacteria, e.g., [*Anabaena*]{} and [*Nostoc*]{}, cells are linked like beads on a string, where some differentiate from vegetative cells to heterocysts under nitrogen-depleted condition [@Kumar2010]. Vegetative cells can fix carbon from carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, while heterocysts can only fix nitrogen in the atmosphere, as nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis are biochemically incompatible [@Agapakis2012]. When the nitrogen level in culture media decreases, approximately one tenth of cells differentiate into heterocysts, which form a spatially periodic pattern. Although intracellular processes crucially depend on nitrogen concentration, the frequency of heterocysts is preserved against its change, as confirmed for some species of [*Nostoc*]{} [@Vintila2007].
In general, the characteristic length of patterns generated by RD systems depends on the ratio between the characteristic timescale of the reaction and diffusion coefficients. Reaction speeds and diffusion coefficients generally have different dependences on environmental conditions (e.g., temperature or external chemical concentration). Hence, the characteristic length of a pattern will change unless some robustness mechanism exists to preserve it. Indeed, in proportion preservation, reaction speeds are expected to be regulated to counterbalance body-size changes [@Othmer1980; @Hunding1988; @Barkai2009; @Inomata2013; @Werner2015]. In this letter, we propose a general mechanism for pattern robustness, where some buffer molecules regulate reaction speed and counterbalance environmentally induced changes.
A related, but distinct property that is essential to biological systems is plasticity. Although robustness and plasticity might seem incompatible, we previously showed that period robustness and phase plasticity are reciprocal in biological clocks [@Hatakeyama2015]. Here, using the above buffering mechanism, we generalize this reciprocity. Specifically, we show that systems with more robust spatial pattern wavelengths have higher phase plasticity in spatial patterns, i.e., they are more changeable by transient environmental perturbations. We then provide a unified description of the reciprocities in spatial pattern and temporal rhythm, and discuss the relevance of this reciprocity to biological systems.
We introduce a model that can show spatial pattern formation with RD dynamics with buffer molecules, which can counterbalance environmental changes by altering their concentrations. Here we consider the following RD system:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial t} &=& f_i(\{x_j\}, \{w_j\}; \beta) + D_{x_i} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} x_i, \\
\frac{\partial w_i}{\partial t} &=& g_i(\{x_j\}, \{w_j\}; \beta) + D_{w_i} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} w_i,\end{aligned}$$
where $x_i$ is the concentration of the $i$th molecule species that forms a spatial pattern by RD dynamics and $w_i$ is the concentration of the $i$th buffer molecule. $D_{x_i}$ and $D_{w_i}$ are diffusion constants of $x_i$ and $w_i$, respectively, $\beta$ is an environmental factor, (e.g., temperature or the concentration of a nutrient molecule). Here, we assume that components for pattern formation, $x_i$, and for the buffer, $w_i$, are separate, for the sake of simplicity. However, even if they are not, an approximate form of Eq.(1) can be adopted by suitable variable transformation.
![ Schematic of a buffered reaction-diffusion system. $x_i^i$ and $x_i^a$ are inactive and active $i$th molecules, respectively. $x_i^i$ turns into $x_i^a$ by binding with a buffer molecule $w$. Reactions occur only among active molecules. Solid, flat-headed, and dotted arrows represent activation, inhibition, and catalysis, respectively.[]{data-label="scheme"}](scheme)
Here, we consider a system in which one buffer molecule is sufficient for the robustness of the pattern wavelength. As shown in Fig.\[scheme\], molecules $x_i$ have two states, active and inactive, denoted by $x_i^a$ and $x_i^i$, and the state change is mediated by binding with the buffer molecule, as $x_i^i + w \rightleftharpoons x_i^a$ (see also[@Hunding1988; @Lengyel1992] for the use of such additional molecule for RD system). Next, reactions of $x_i$ for pattern formation are assumed to take place only between active molecules. We also assume that dependence on the environmental parameter is given by the environment-sensitivity function (ESF), $\mathscr{F}(\beta)$, which is assumed to be separable from the reaction functions. Here, dynamics of buffer is given by $g(w; \beta)$ independent of $x_i$s. Then, the dynamics are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial t} &=& \mathscr{F}(\beta) f_i(\{x_{j}^a\}) + D_{x_i} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} x_i, \label{dxdt} \\
\frac{\partial w}{\partial t} &=& g(w; \beta) + D_{w} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} w.\end{aligned}$$
Assuming that the association and dissociation reactions between the buffer and other molecules are faster than other reactions required for pattern formation, $w$ relaxes to the steady state given as $w^*(\beta)$ at $\beta$, where $x_i^a$ is adiabatically eliminated as $x_i^a = x_i w / (w + K_{x_i})$, as in Michaelis-Menten kinetics under the conservation condition $x_i$, as $x_i^a + x_i^i = x_i$.
One of the simplest examples of $g(w; \beta)$ that naturally meets the above criteria is $g(w; \beta) = \mathscr{G}_1 (\beta) - \mathscr{G}_2 (\beta) w$, where $\mathscr{G}_1 (\beta)$ and $\mathscr{G}_2 (\beta)$ are ESFs, and $w^*(\beta)$ is given as $w^*(\beta) = \mathscr{G}_1 (\beta) / \mathscr{G}_2 (\beta)$. As an ESF, the Arrhenius equation is an example where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature with a unit of the Boltzmann constant as unity, i.e., $\mathscr{F}(\beta) = \exp(-\beta E_f)$, with $E_f$ as an activation energy.
We now derive a scaling property of the buffered RD system to show that wavelength robustness only holds when buffer concentration $w^*$ is less than any dissociation constants $K_{x_i}$.
First, when the steady-state concentration of $w$ is higher than any $K_{x_i}$s, $x_i^a$ can be approximated as $x_i^a \sim x_i$. Hence, Eq.(2) can be rescaled by transformation of spatial scale as ${\bf r} \rightarrow {\boldsymbol \rho} / \mathscr{F} (\beta)^{1/2}$ and timescale as $t \rightarrow \tau / \mathscr{F} (\beta)$, given as $$\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial \tau} = f_i(\{x_j\}) + D_{x_i} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\boldsymbol \rho}^2} x_i.$$ Due to the transformation of spatial scale, the wavelength is proportional to $1 / \mathscr{F} (\beta)^{1/2}$ and is not robust against change in $\beta$, as in the case without buffer molecules.
In contrast, when the steady-state concentration of $w$ is lower than any $K_{x_i}$s, $x_i^a$ can be approximated as $x_i^a \sim w x_i / K_{x_i}$. In this case, Eq.(2) can be rescaled by transformation of spatial scale as ${\bf r} \rightarrow {\boldsymbol \rho} / \left\{ \mathscr{F} (\beta) w^* (\beta) \right\}^{1/2}$, with the timescale change $t \rightarrow \tau / \mathscr{F} (\beta) w^* (\beta)$, and concentration $x_i \rightarrow \tilde{x}_i / w^* (\beta)$: $$\frac{\partial \tilde{x}_i}{\partial \tau} = F_i(\{\tilde{x}_j\}) + D_{x_i} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\boldsymbol \rho}^2} \tilde{x}_i, \label{scaledBuffer}$$ where $F_i(\{ \tilde{x}_j \}) = f_i(\{ \tilde{x}_j / K_{x_i} \})$ [@foot1]. Due to the transformation in spatial scale, the wavelength is proportional to $1 / \left\{ \mathscr{F} (\beta) w^* (\beta) \right\}^{1/2}$ and the relative change in wavelength is given as $\Delta \ln \lambda = - \left\{ \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta) + \Delta \ln w^* (\beta) \right\} / 2$. Thus, the wavelength change can be compensated for by the steady-state concentration of the buffer molecule if $\Delta \ln \mathscr{F}(\beta) + \Delta \ln w^* (\beta) = 0$. Hence, if the steady-state concentration of $w$ is regulated as $w^*(\beta) \propto 1 / \mathscr{F}(\beta)$, the wavenumber is robust to $\beta$. There could be several ways to achieve it. For example, if the buffer flows in with a constant speed and is degraded following $\mathscr{F}(\beta)$, the above criterion is satisfied. Even if such condition is not satisfied, robust patterning can be achieved by balancing the synthesis and degradation of the buffer molecule (see also [@Hatakeyama2012; @Werner2015]).
From this scaling property of the buffered RD system, we can derive the reciprocal relationship between wavelength robustness and spatial-phase plasticity. When $w$ is small, the magnitude of the phase shift in space can be evaluated as below. When $\beta$ is transiently changed locally in space, the amplitude is altered locally. In this case, the relative change in the amplitude is proportional to $\Delta \ln w^* (\beta)$, since the concentration is scaled as $\tilde{x}_i = w^*(\beta) x_i$. Then, after a spatial perturbation, the spatial pattern relaxes to the steady state for the spatially uniform $\beta$. In a linear regime, the phase shift magnitude is proportional to the magnitude of the disturbance to the amplitude. Hence, phase changes are given as $\Delta \phi = a \Delta \ln w^* (\beta)$, where $a$ is a positive coefficient.
Therefore, changes in the wavelength and phase can be described as $$\Delta \phi / a + 2 \Delta \ln \lambda = - \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta). \label{equalityspace}$$ The right-hand side of Eq.(\[equalityspace\]) depends only on $\Delta \ln \mathscr{F}(\beta)$, and not on $\Delta \ln w^*(\beta)$. From this equality, if we set the dynamics of buffer molecule to satisfy $\Delta \ln \mathscr{F}(\beta) = - \Delta \ln w^*(\beta)$, the wavelength is robust against environmental changes, i.e., $\Delta \lambda = 0$ and $\Delta \phi = - a \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta)$ is satisfied. Thus, when the wavelength of a temporal pattern is robust, phase is plastic. Correspondingly, as the robustness of the wavelength is lost, the phase is less plastic. Eq.(\[equalityspace\]) gives the reciprocity between wavelength robustness and spatial phase plasticity.
So far we did not include dependence of the diffusion constants upon the environmental parameter, which could be taken into account. From the Stokes-Einstein law, it is natural to assume same dependence on the parameter (e.g., temperature) of the diffusion constants for different chemical species, Then, the term $D_i \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} x_i$ in Eq.(\[dxdt\]) will be replaced by $\mathscr{D}(\beta) d_i \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} x_i$, where $\mathscr{D}(\beta)$ is the ESF for the diffusion constant. In this case, by the similar scale transformation as above (${\bf r} \rightarrow {\boldsymbol \rho} \left\{\mathscr{D}(\beta) / \mathscr{F} (\beta) w^* (\beta) \right\}^{1/2}$, $t \rightarrow \tau / \mathscr{F} (\beta) w^* (\beta)$, $x_i \rightarrow \tilde{x}_i / w^* (\beta)$), the condition for robustness of the wavelength is obtained as $\Delta \ln \lambda = \left\{\Delta \ln \mathscr{D} (\beta) - \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta) - \Delta \ln w^* (\beta) \right\} / 2$, while the reciprocity between it and the phase plasticity is given by $\Delta \phi / a + 2 \Delta \ln \lambda = \Delta \ln \mathscr{D} (\beta) - \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta)$.
In general, each reaction term has different ESF in Eq.(\[dxdt\]). In this case, instead of considering the general form, consider 2-components RD system in the vicinity of a bifurcation of the Turing instability, where the characteristic wavelength is proportional to $(w^{*2} \mathrm{det} J)^{1/4}$, where $J$ is Jacobian of the original reactions depending on a few ESFs. This form is derived from the linear stability analysis (for detailed calculation, see [@Supply]). Then the condition for robustness is given by $2 \Delta \ln w^* + \Delta \ln \mathrm{det} J = 0$. For example, if $f_1$ and $f_2$ have different ESFs, the product of two ESFs is factored out of the Jacobian, and if its dependence on $\beta$ is cancelled out by $w^*$, the condition is satisfied.
As an example of this general relationship, we study RD systems consisting of two components (an activator and an inhibitor) and one buffer. In particular, for numerical demonstration, we adopt the buffered Brusselator [@Prigogine1968] given as
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} &=& \mathscr{F}(\beta) \left\{ A + u_a^2 v_a - (B + 1) u_a \right\} + D_u \nabla^2 u,\\
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} &=& \mathscr{F}(\beta) \left\{- u_a^2 v_a + B u_a \right\} + D_v \nabla^2 v, \\
\frac{\partial w}{\partial t} &=& g(w; \beta) + D_w \nabla^2 w,\end{aligned}$$
where $u$, $v$, and $w$ are an activator, inhibitor, and buffer molecule, respectively. We consider temperature change for our example of an environmental change and use the Arrhenius form for the ESF. We set $E_f$, $E_{g1}$, and $E_{g2}$ as activation energies for $\mathscr{F} (\beta)$, $\mathscr{G}_1 (\beta)$, and $\mathscr{G}_2 (\beta)$. We simulate wavelength robustness against the change in $\beta$ by using the 4th order Runge-Kutta method.
![ Wavelength robustness and spatial phase plasticity of the buffered Brusselator with $A=2$, $B=4$, $D_u=5$, and $D_v=30$. (a) Environmental dependency of the wavelength under the Dirichlet boundary condition. Different line colors indicate spatial patterns at different $\beta$, while $E_{g1}$ is set at 0 (up) and 1.0 (down). Both of $E_{f}$ and $E_{g1}$ are fixed at 1.0. ESFs are given as the Arrhenius function as $\mathscr{F}(\beta) = e^{E_f} \exp(-\beta E_f)$, $\mathscr{G}_1(\beta) = 3.0 e^{E_{g1}} \exp(-\beta E_{g1})$, and $\mathscr{G}_2(\beta) = e^{E_{g2}} \exp(-\beta E_{g2})$. (b) Spatial phase shift after a stimulus, given as a transient change in $\beta$ from the spatially uniform $\beta = \beta_1$ to a gradually distributed $\beta$ between $\beta_1 = 1.0$ and $\beta_2 = 0.8$, shown as the gray dotted line, with duration time 100.0. The red line is the spatial pattern before the stimulus, and the others indicate spatial patterns after the stimulus, for varied $E_{g1}$. Periodic boundary condition is adopted to compute the phase shift of pattern. (c) Spatial phase response curve (SPRC) of the buffered Brusselator against the stimulus. The horizontal axis shows the phase differences between the spatial pattern generated by the buffered Brusselator and given by the $\beta$ gradient, as defined by the difference between the peaks of the pattern. The applied $\beta$ gradient is normalized by the pattern wavelength. Different colors indicate SPRCs for different $E_{g1}$ values.[]{data-label="robust_plast"}](robustness_plasticity){width="8.7cm"}
If the concentration of buffer molecule at the steady state is independent of $\beta$, i.e., if $E_{g1}$ and $E_{g2}$ are same, the wavelength is not robust against changes in $\beta$. Instead, the amplitude of spatial pattern would be independent against changes in $\beta$. Whereas, when $E_{g1}$ is small, the wavelength is robust across a wide range of $\beta$ and the amplitude is sensitive to changes in $\beta$ (see Fig.\[robust\_plast\]A).
![ Reciprocity between wavelength robustness and spatial phase plasticity of the buffered Brusselator. Red circles represent the difference in the wavelength at $\beta_1 = 1.0$ and at $\beta_2 = 0.8$ under the periodic boundary condition, normalized by the wavelength at $\beta_1$. Green squares represent the difference between the maximal and minimal values of the SPRC, as shown in Fig.\[robust\_plast\]C. []{data-label="s_reciprocity"}](s_reciprocity)
To study the effect of ESF on robustness quantitatively, we calculated the wavelength of systems with varied $E_{g1}$ at $\beta = \beta_1$ and $\beta = \beta_2$ ($\beta_1 > \beta_2$). We plot the difference between the wavelength at $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ ($\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$) as red circles in Fig.\[s\_reciprocity\]. As $E_{g1}$ decreases, the wavelength difference monotonically decreases, i.e., the robustness of the wave number increases, while the sensitivity of the buffer molecule concentration increases, i.e., the amplitude is plastic against environmental changes. Thus, changes in wavelength can be counterbalanced by changes in buffer molecule concentration.
Next, we studied the spatial phase shift against a transient change in environmental parameter $\beta$ as an indicator of plasticity. We transiently changed $\beta$ from the spatially uniform value $\beta_1$ to a non-uniform $\beta$ in space, taking a graded value between $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ (see the gray line in Fig.\[robust\_plast\]B). Then, $\beta$ is returned to $\beta_1$ uniformly in space, and the spatial pattern relaxes into the steady-state pattern with the original wavelength, while the phase of the pattern is shifted. The magnitude of the phase shift depends on the phase difference between the pattern generated by the RD system and the $\beta$ gradient. Thus, we plot a spatial phase response curve (SPRC) where the $x$-axis is the phase difference and the $y$-axis is the magnitude of the phase shift (Fig.\[robust\_plast\]C). The difference between the maximum and minimum values of the SPRC provides an indicator of phase plasticity.
If $E_{g1}$ is equal to $E_{g2}$, the buffer molecule concentration does not depend on $\beta$, and neither a phase shift nor wavelength robustness exists. Then, with the decrease in $E_{g1}$, the phase shift magnitude increases, as shown in Fig.\[s\_reciprocity\], where the difference in phase is negatively correlated with the difference in the wavelength between two $\beta$ values. Moreover, the sum of the relative wavelength change $\Delta \lambda / \lambda (\beta_1)$ and the phase shift $\Delta \phi$ is almost constant within the whole range of $E_{g1}$ as $a \Delta \lambda / \lambda (\beta_1) + \Delta \phi = {\rm const.}$, where $a$ is a positive coefficient, as predicted.
RD systems often show temporal rhythms. Indeed the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, which is the basis of the Brusselator, shows temporal oscillation in a well-mixed medium [@Belousov1959; @Zhabotinsky1964] whereas it also can show a spatial pattern [@DeSimone1973]. Moreover, some pattern formation mechanisms fixing the temporal rhythms are known, as in the clock and wavefront [@Cooke1976] and interaction-induced fixation of oscillation [@Cotterell2015; @Kohsokabe2016]. Previously we reported reciprocity between robustness of period and plasticity of phase in temporal oscillation, as mediated by the adaptation via buffer molecules. Indeed, reciprocity for spatial pattern here and for the temporal rhythm are integrated below.
![ Reciprocity between the robustness of period and phase plasticity in the temporal rhythm of a buffered Brusselator. $A$ is set to 1.0 and other parameters are the same as the spatial pattern. $\Delta T / T$ is the difference of periods at $\beta_1 = 1.0$ and $\beta_2 = 0.8$ normalized by the period at $\beta_1$. The difference between the maximal and minimal values of the phase response curve is $\Delta \phi$ [@Winfree1980; @Kuramoto1984]. []{data-label="t_reciprocity"}](t_reciprocity)
From Eq.(\[scaledBuffer\]), the timescale is proportional to $1 / \mathscr{F} (\beta) w^* (\beta)$ and the relative change in the period is given as $\Delta \ln T = - \left\{ \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta) + \Delta \ln w^* (\beta) \right\}$ owing to the rescaling of the timescale. Hence, the period is robust when $\Delta \ln \mathscr{F}(\beta) + \Delta \ln w^* (\beta) = 0$, which is same as the condition for wavelength robustness in the spatial pattern. Moreover, the phase shift is also proportional to a transient change in amplitude in the temporal rhythm, as given by $\Delta \phi = a' \Delta \ln w^* (\beta)$. Thus, reciprocity between periodic robustness and phase plasticity in time is given as $$\Delta \phi / a' + \Delta \ln T = - \Delta \ln \mathscr{F} (\beta), \label{equalitytime}$$ where $a'$ is a positive coefficient. Thus, reciprocity for the temporal rhythm is satisfied, because the robustness and reciprocity originate in the common scaling forms in Eq.(\[scaledBuffer\]), for both time and space. For example, reciprocity in the temporal rhythm holds in the buffered Brusselator (see Fig.\[t\_reciprocity\]), as for spatial pattern. The scaling in the buffered RD system indicates robustness and reciprocity for any spatiotemporal pattern, including wave and scroll [@DeSimone1973; @Siegert1995; @Sawai2005].
In this paper, we studied the relationship between wavelength robustness and phase plasticity in spatial pattern formation. We demonstrated that the dynamics of a buffer molecule can counterbalance the environmental dependency of a spatial pattern generated by RD systems, and that wavelength robustness can be achieved via changes in the buffer molecule concentration. Our mechanism works independently of the system size, while it is especially relevant for large systems against small environmental changes. Simultaneously, the amplitude of spatial pattern changes following the change in buffer molecule concentration. Thus, the phase of the spatial pattern is easily changed by a transient change in the environment. Therefore, the reciprocity between wavelength robustness and spatial phase plasticity holds against the change in an environmental factor. Previously, we demonstrated reciprocity between the periodic robustness and phase plasticity of circadian clocks [@Hatakeyama2015] in response to temperature change, due to the adaptation of a limit cycle by a buffering molecule [@Hatakeyama2012], which could be interpreted as the scaling property, as discussed here. Here, it is interesting to note that adaptation dynamics sometimes follow a certain scaling property as, for example, discussed in fold-change detection [@Shoval2010]. We expect that adaptation mechanisms due to the scaling property generally lead to reciprocity between robustness and plasticity.
In addition to robustness, phase plasticity in spatial pattern is important for biological organisms responding to environmental changes. In taxis of cells, the angle of cellular polarity should be sensitive to changes in environmental factors [@Andrew2007], whereas the number of the cellular compass should be robust. Another example is in the differentiation of multicellular cyanobacteria, whereby the change in heterocyst position, and thus the efficiency of the division of labor between photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation are enhanced. After transient starvation by nitrogen depletion, the excess heterocysts suppress growth. Hence, robustness in the fraction of heterocysts against nitrogen concentration is also important for effective growth in a fluctuating environment. These examples suggest the relevance of reciprocity in spatial pattern to organismal fitness. Further confirmation of the reciprocity between robustness and plasticity should be pursued, as well as confirmed experimentally.
This research is partially supported by the Platform for Dynamic Approaches to Living System from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development from AMED, Japan, and JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 15K18512 and 15H05746.
[99]{}
C. H. Waddington, Nature 150, 563 (1942); [*The Strategy of the Genes*]{} (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1957).
A. M. Turing, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 237, 37 (1952).
Y. Kuramoto, [*Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1984).
H. G. Othmer and E. Pate, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 77, 4180 (1980); D. M. Umulis and H. G. Othmer, Development 140, 4830 (2013).
A. Hunding and P. G. Sørensen, J. Math. Biol. 26, 27 (1988); S. Ishihara and K. Kaneko, J. Theor. Biol. 238, 683 (2006).
N. Barkai and D. Ben-Zvi, FEBS J. 276, 1196 (2009).
H. Inomata, T. Shibata, T. Haraguchi, and Y. Sasai, Cell 153, 1296 (2013).
S. Werner, T. Stückemann, M. B. Amigo, J. C. Rink, F. Jülicher, and B. M. Friedrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 138101 (2015).
O. D. Weiner, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 14, 196 (2002).
Y. Mori, A. Jilkine, and L. Edelstein-Keshet, Biophys. J. 94, 3684 (2008).
K. Kumar, R. A. Mella-Herrera, and J. W. Golden, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2, 1 (2010).
C. M. Agapakis, P. M. Boyle, and P. A. Silver, Nat. Chem. Biol. 8, 527 (2012).
S. Vintila and R. El-Shehawy, Microbiol. 153, 3704 (2007).
T. S. Hatakeyama and K. Kaneko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 218101 (2015).
I. Lengyel and I. R. Epstein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 3977 (1992).
This transform might change a bifurcation point against changes in $K_{x_i}$s, but our discussion is not affected by it.
T. S. Hatakeyama and K. Kaneko, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 8109 (2012).
See Supplemental Material for detailed calculations.
I. Prigogine and R. Lefever, J. Chem. Phys. 48, 1695 (1968); G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine, [*Self Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1977).
B. P. Belousov, Compilation of Abstracts on Radiation Medicine 147, 145 (1959).
A. M. Zhabotinsky, Biofizika 9, 306 (1964).
A. T. Winfree, [*The Geometry of Biological Time*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1980).
J. A. DeSimone, D. L. Beil, and L. E. Scriven, Science 180, 946 (1973); T. Yamaguchi, L. Kuhnert, Z. Nagy-Ungvarai, S. C. Mueller, and B. Hess, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 5831 (1991); V. K. Vanag and I. R. Epstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 228301 (2001).
J. Cooke and E. C. Zeeman, J. Theor. Biol. 58, 455 (1976).
J. Cotterell, A. Robert-Moreno, and J. Sharpe, Cell Syst. 1, 257 (2015).
T. Kohsokabe and K. Kaneko, Europhys. Lett. 116, 48005 (2016).
F. Siegert and C. J. Weijer, Curr. Biol. 5, 937 (1995).
S. Sawai, P. A. Thomason, and E. C. Cox, Nature 433, 323 (2005).
O. Shoval, L. Goentoro, Y. Hart, A. Mayo, E. Sontag, and U. Alon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 15995 (2010).
N. Andrew and R. H. Insall, Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 193 (2007).
\
[*Robustness of spatial patterns in buffered reaction-diffusion systems and its reciprocity with phase plasticity*\
Tetsuhiro S. Hatakeyama, Kunihiko Kaneko\
]{}
Consider a reaction-diffusion system with two components in the vicinity of a bifurcation of the Turing instability, the linearized dynamics are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial t} = f_{1,1} (\beta) x_1 + f_{1,2} (\beta) x_2 + D_{x_1}\frac{\partial^2 x_1}{\partial {\bf r}^2}, \\
\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial t} = f_{2,1} (\beta) x_1 + f_{2,2} (\beta) x_2 + D_{x_2} \frac{\partial^2 x_2}{\partial {\bf r}^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{1,1} (\beta) = \left. \frac{\partial f_1 (x_1,x_2)}{\partial x_1} \right|_{\{x_1, x_2\} = \{x_1^*, x_2^*\}}$, $f_{1,2} (\beta) = \left. \frac{\partial f_1 (x_1,x_2)}{\partial x_2} \right|_{\{x_1, x_2\} = \{x_1^*, x_2^*\}}$, $f_{2,1} (\beta) = \left. \frac{\partial f_2 (x_1,x_2)}{\partial x_1} \right|_{\{x_1, x_2\} = \{x_1^*, x_2^*\}}$, $f_{2,2} (\beta) = \left. \frac{\partial f_2 (x_1,x_2)}{\partial x_2} \right|_{\{x_1, x_2\} = \{x_1^*, x_2^*\}}$. In this case, the characteristic wavenumber is given as $$k = \left( \frac{f_{1,1} f_{2,2} - f_{1,2} f_{2,1}}{D_{x_1} D_{x_2}} \right)^{1/4}.$$
When only the active molecule, which is given by $x_1^a = w^* x_1$ and $x_2^a = w^* x_2$ where $K_{x_1}$ and $K_{x_2}$ are set as 1 for convenience, can be incorporated into reactions, the linearized dynamics are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial t} &=& \left. \frac{\partial f_1}{\partial x_1^a} \right|_{\{x_1^a, x_2^a\} = \{x_1^{a*}, x_2^{a*}\}} \frac{\partial x_1^a}{\partial x_1} x_1 + \left. \frac{\partial f_1}{\partial x_2^a} \right|_{\{x_1^a, x_2^a\} = \{x_1^{a*}, x_2^{a*}\}} \frac{\partial x_2^a}{\partial x_2} x_2 + D_{x_1} \frac{\partial^2 x_1}{\partial {\bf r}^2} \\
&=& f_{1,1} (\beta) w^* (\beta) x_1 + f_{1,2} (\beta) w^* (\beta) x_2 + D_{x_1} \frac{\partial^2 x_1}{\partial {\bf r}^2}, \\
\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial t} &=& \left. \frac{\partial f_2}{\partial x_1^a} \right|_{\{x_1^a, x_2^a\} = \{x_1^{a*}, x_2^{a*}\}} \frac{\partial x_1^a}{\partial x_1} x_1 + \left. \frac{\partial f_2}{\partial x_2^a} \right|_{\{x_1^a, x_2^a\} = \{x_1^{a*}, x_2^{a*}\}} \frac{\partial x_2^a}{\partial x_2} x_2 + D_{x_2} \frac{\partial^2 x_2}{\partial {\bf r}^2} \\
&=& f_{2,1} (\beta) w^* (\beta) x_1 + f_{2,2} (\beta) w^* (\beta) x_2 + D_{x_2} \frac{\partial^2 x_2}{\partial {\bf r}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the characteristic wavenumber is given as $$k = \left\{ \frac{w^{*2} (f_{1,1} f_{2,2} - f_{1,2} f_{2,1})}{D_{x_1} D_{x_2}} \right\}^{1/4}.$$ Therefore, the condition for robustness by scaling is relaxed into $$2 \Delta \ln w^* (\beta) + \Delta \ln (f_{1,1} (\beta) f_{2,2} (\beta) - f_{1,2} (\beta) f_{2,1} (\beta)) = 0,$$ and then the all of reactions do not have to show the same environmental dependency. For example, if $f_1$ and $f_2$ have different ESFs, the product of two ESFs is factored out of the Jacobian, and if its dependence on $\beta$ is cancelled out by $w^*$, the condition is satisfied. As another example, when activation and inhibition reactions are respectively catalyzed by different enzymes and each of the enzymes has different EFS, i.e., EFS for $f_{1,1}$ and $f_{2,1}$ are common, that of $f_{1,2}$ and $f_{2,2}$ are also common (but can be different from the former), the product of two ESFs is also factored out and the above condition will be satisfied.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The relationship between housing costs and homelessness has important implications for the way that city and county governments respond to increasing homeless populations. Though many analyses in the public policy literature have examined inter-community variation in homelessness *rates* to identify causal mechanisms of homelessness [@Culhane2013; @lee2003determinants; @fargo2013], few studies have examined time-varying homeless *counts* within the same community [@mccandless2016bayesian]. To examine trends in homeless population counts in the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, we develop a dynamic Bayesian hierarchical model for time-varying homeless count data. Particular care is given to modeling uncertainty in the homeless count generating and measurement processes, and a critical distinction is made between the counted number of homeless and the true size of the homeless population. For each metro under study, we investigate the relationship between increases in the Zillow Rent Index and increases in the homeless population. Sensitivity of inference to potential improvements in the accuracy of point-in-time counts is explored, and evidence is presented that the inferred increase in the rate of homelessness from 2011-2016 depends on prior beliefs about the accuracy of homeless counts. A main finding of the study is that the relationship between homelessness and rental costs is strongest in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.'
author:
- 'Chris Glynn[^1]andEmily B. Fox[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Dynamics of homelessness in urban America[^3]'
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Counts of people experiencing homelessness in cities such as Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York reveal alarming year-over-year increases in the raw numbers of enumerated individuals. In addition to rising counts of homeless, rental costs in these cities are significantly increasing as well. The relationship between housing costs and homelessness is a topic of great public importance and has received considerable attention [@hanratty2017local; @fargo2013; @Culhane2013; @stojanovic1999; @oflaherty1995; @sclar1990homelessness].
Several challenges exist in quantifying the impact of increased rental costs on the size of the homeless population. The first challenge is that point-in-time homeless counts often occur on a single night in January and are thus subject to significant sampling variability. The second challenge is that the accuracy of the count itself is not the same from one year to the next. Differences in the number of volunteers, weather, and count methodologies lead to counts that are difficult to compare year-over-year.
These facts beg the question: are homeless populations across the county increasing? Or do the reported counts simply represent a higher fraction of the homeless population? Changing count accuracy over time directly impacts inferred trends in the size of the homeless population. In light of this fact, we investigate the impact of different count accuracy trajectories on the inferred change in homelessness rates from 2011-2016.
Inference on the relationship between trends in rental costs and trends in the homeless population is related to other trend analyses with data quality challenges [@Tokdar2011; @coles2006extreme; @cornulier2011bayesian; @kery2010hierarchical]. Although we observe the number of *counted* homeless, we do not observe the true size of the homeless population. Plant-capture methods [@laska1993plant; @schwarz1999estimating] have demonstrated that homeless counts systematically understate the size of the total homeless population [@Hopper2008]. One strategy to include the uncounted number of homeless in the analysis is to build a mechanism for the imperfect counting process into the statistical model, as @mccandless2016bayesian have done with plant-capture data from Edmonton, Canada.
In this paper, the total size of the homeless population is imputed, and uncertainty in the total homeless population and count accuracy is propagated to our assessment of the relationship between rental costs and homelessness. Our goal is to *jointly* model the collection of homeless count time series from the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. In contrast to @mccandless2016bayesian, who treat time-indexed counts as exchangeable, we directly model temporal dependence. We develop a Bayesian dynamic modeling framework to investigate the relationship between the number of homeless and rent costs subject to different prior beliefs about count accuracy over time.
The data in our analysis comes from three sources: the U.S. Census Bureau; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and the housing website Zillow. The data include the total population, point-in-time homeless counts, and the Zillow Rent Index (ZRI) for continuums of care that service the 25 largest metro areas from 2011-2016.
Numerous previous studies have utilized inter-community variation in homelessness *rates* to identify potential causal mechanisms of homelessness [@fargo2013; @Culhane2013; @raphael2010housing; @lee2003determinants; @early2002subsidized; @quigley2001economics; @quigley2001homeless; @troutman1999public; @hudson1998estimating; @grimes1997assessing; @honig1993causes; @burt1992over; @bohanon1991economic; @appelbaum1991scapegoating; @quigley1990does]. Studies that model homelessness rates, defined as $\frac{\mbox{total homeless}}{\mbox{total population}}$, assume that both the numerator and denominator are observed without error. In practice, there is significant uncertainty in both the numerator and denominator in any such homelessness rate calculation. To account for that uncertainty, we directly model time-varying *counts* within the same community. Working with time series of count data has two advantages. First, statistical models of counts more aptly characterize the sampling variability in the observed data; and second, focusing on within community variation over time avoids drawing conclusions from data generated across different municipal and state governments, climates, and social structures. A major contribution of our work is the development of a statistical framework that enables researchers, policymakers, and local continuum coordinators to address five specific questions for each metro:
1. When adjusting for increases in count accuracy and total population growth, is the *rate* of homelessness increasing? \[Q1\]
2. If ZRI increases by $x\%$, what are the predicted increases in the counted and total number of people experiencing homelessness? \[Q2\]
3. Expense and logistical challenges preclude more than one homeless count per year in many metros. If a second point-in-time count were to be conducted in a given year, what is the expected range in the number of homeless to be enumerated?\[Q3\]
4. Given that $C$ homeless are counted and count accuracy is imperfect, what is the expected range in the total number of people experiencing homelessness at a point in time? \[Q4\]
5. What is the one-year-ahead forecast of the total homeless population in 2017? \[Q5\]
We identify New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. as metros where (i) the inferred rate of homelessness significantly increased from 2011-2016 and (ii) there exists a strong relationship between housing costs and homelessness. We find that predicted increases in counted homeless due to increased ZRI are robust to different prior beliefs about time-varying count accuracy; however, we present evidence that the inferred change in the homelessness rate from 2011-2016 is sensitive to the trajectory of count accuracy. This point is emphasized to encourage researchers, policymakers, and continuum leaders to carefully quantify their beliefs and uncertainty about count accuracy.
The prior beliefs that we incorporate in this analysis are informed by existing literature and discussions with count coordinators, volunteers, and homelessness experts from around the country. Incorporating the expert opinions of count coordinators in every metro in the sample will lead to a more informed study. Our goal in this paper is to advance the statistical methodology utilized by researchers to analyze data on homelessness. We view this as a demonstration of a modeling framework that will benefit from a partnership between private companies with relevant data, HUD, and local continuums of care.
In Section \[sec:Data\], we discuss the data used in our analysis and necessary pre-processing steps to account for geographic mismatches between counties and continuums of care. Section \[sec:Model\] describes the Bayesian dynamic model that hierarchically shares information across all metros under study. Efficient information sharing, both locally in time and hierarchically across all metros, facilitates sharper inference on the relationship between rental costs and homelessness. Our hierarchical dynamic model allows us to estimate local relationships between homelessness and rental costs whereas the cross-sectional regression model in @Culhane2013 estimates a single global effect. We discuss prior information and how that information translates to prior distributions for model parameters in Section \[sec:Priors\]. Model fitting with a custom Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm is discussed in Section \[sec:MCMC\], and Section \[sec:Results\] presents results and addresses questions \[Q1\] - \[Q5\]. Section \[sec:Discussion\] concludes with a discussion of our findings.
Data {#sec:Data}
====
The data in our study comes from three different sources: the U.S. Census Bureau, HUD, and the housing website Zillow. For the continuums of care in the 25 largest metros, we observe a collection of three time series that correspond to (i) the total number of people living in the metro, (ii) the *counted* number of homeless in the continuum(s) of that metro, and (iii) the ZRI for the metro.
For the total population data, we use county-level population estimates reported by the U.S. Census Bureau [@Census]. The homeless counts are the number of individuals experiencing homelessness (both sheltered and unsheltered) at a point-in-time as reported by HUD [@HUD]. While the first two series of interest are fairly self-explanatory, the ZRI warrants further detail. Below is a description from Zillow [@ZRI].
[2cm]{} *Similar to the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), we created the Zillow Rent Index (ZRI) to track the monthly median rent in particular geographical regions. Like the ZHVI, we sought to create an index for rents that is unaffected by the mix of homes for rent at any particular time. This makes temporal comparisons of rents more valid since the index is tracking the rents for a consistent stock of inventory.*
The geographic coverage of Zillow’s housing data, the temporal invariance in the rental stock underlying the metric, and ease of temporal comparison make ZRI a natural choice for summarizing time-varying rental costs across all U.S. metropolitan areas.
Metro area HUD continuum of care Counties
---- ------------------------------------ -------------------------------- ------------------------------
1 New York, NY NY-600 New York, Bronx,
Queens, Kings, Richmond
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA CA-600, CA-606, CA-607, CA-612 Los Angeles
3 Chicago, IL IL-510, IL-511 Cook
4 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX TX-600 Dallas
5 Philadelphia, PA PA-500 Philadelphia
6 Houston, TX TX-700 Harris, Fort Bend
7 Washington, DC DC-500 District of Columbia
8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL FL-600 Miami-Dade
9 Atlanta, GA GA-500, GA-502 Fulton
10 Boston, MA MA-500 Suffolk
11 San Francisco, CA CA-501 San Francisco
12 Detroit, MI MI-501, MI-502 Wayne
13 Riverside, CA CA-608 Riverside
14 Phoenix, AZ AZ-502 Maricopa
15 Seattle, WA WA-500 King
16 Minneapolis-St Paul, MN MN-500 Hennepin
17 San Diego, CA CA-601 San Diego
18 St. Louis, MO MO-500, MO-501 St. Louis
19 Tampa, FL FL-501 Hillsborough
20 Baltimore, MD MD-501, MD-505 Baltimore
21 Denver, CO CO-503 Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas,
Jefferson
22 Pittsburgh, PA PA-600 Allegheny
23 Portland, OR OR-501 Multnomah
24 Charlotte, NC NC-505 Mecklenburg
25 Sacramento, CA CA-502 Sacramento
: HUD continuums of care and state counties that correspond to the 25 largest metropolitan areas under study. In cases where more than one continuum of care is in a county, we aggregate homeless counts to form a synthetic continuum for that county. When a single continuum spans multiple counties, we construct a population-weighted ZRI measure and aggregate total population figures across the multiple counties.[]{data-label="tab:GeoKeys"}
One of the challenges in working with the HUD point-in-time data is that the jurisdiction of the HUD-defined continuums of care do not always agree with the boundaries of cities or counties. Often, each county will have a single continuum; however, cases exist where this is not true. In some counties, there may be more than one continuum (e.g, Cook County, IL and Fulton County, GA have two). Other times, there may be multiple counties in a single continuum (e.g., the Denver, CO continuum spans seven different counties, and the New York City continuum spans five). Table \[tab:GeoKeys\] maps the 25 metros under study to the underlying HUD continuum(s) of care. In each metro, if the continuum does not match up with a single county, we construct a synthetic unit of analysis by following one of two approaches. If a county includes multiple continuums, we aggregate homeless totals reported by each continuum in the county. If a continuum includes multiple counties, we aggregate population totals reported by the different counties that make up a single continuum and construct a population-weighted ZRI metric.
We also focus on year-over-year changes in the metro-specific ZRI rather than the absolute level of the ZRI itself. This standardizes the analysis of rental markets across metros. The result is a data set of synthetic continuums that properly record the counted number of homeless, total population, and changes in rent levels in each metro. Because the ZRI is only available after October 2010, the time series for these three quantities are observed from 2011 - 2016 at an annual frequency. The homeless count data and ZRI are recorded each January, but the intercensal total population estimates from the Census Bureau are dated July 1. There is a six month temporal mismatch in both the homeless count and ZRI and the total metro population series. Although we could perform a linear interpolation to align the data, for this analysis we assume the mismatch to be inconsequential. Figure \[fig:Seattle\_data\] presents these three time series for the All Home King County continuum in Seattle, WA.
[.3]{} ![Data from the All Home King County (WA) continuum of care from 2011 - 2016. Left: the total population in King County has rapidly increased in recent years. Increased population creates increased demand for rental housing and community services. Middle: The number of homeless counted in King County has dramatically increased since 2014. Right: The median rent, as measured by the ZRI, demonstrates the same basic pattern of increases as the count of people experiencing homelessness.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_data"}](SEA_Data_Population.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.3]{} ![Data from the All Home King County (WA) continuum of care from 2011 - 2016. Left: the total population in King County has rapidly increased in recent years. Increased population creates increased demand for rental housing and community services. Middle: The number of homeless counted in King County has dramatically increased since 2014. Right: The median rent, as measured by the ZRI, demonstrates the same basic pattern of increases as the count of people experiencing homelessness.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_data"}](SEA_Data_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.3]{} ![Data from the All Home King County (WA) continuum of care from 2011 - 2016. Left: the total population in King County has rapidly increased in recent years. Increased population creates increased demand for rental housing and community services. Middle: The number of homeless counted in King County has dramatically increased since 2014. Right: The median rent, as measured by the ZRI, demonstrates the same basic pattern of increases as the count of people experiencing homelessness.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_data"}](SEA_Data_ZRI.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
The count of homeless in Seattle/King County has dramatically increased since 2014 (Figure \[subfig:Homeless\]); however, the total population (Figure \[subfig:Total\_pop\]) also significantly increased over that same time period. The King County, WA data demonstrate the need for modeling the homelessness rate to control for increases in the total population. The ZRI for King County, shown in Figure \[subfig:ZRI\], has similarly increased.
In order to properly calculate the homelessness rate, it is necessary to account for time-variation in the count accuracy. We define the count accuracy to be the probability that a person who is homeless will be accounted for in the homeless count. If the count accuracy improves over time, more homeless are likely to be counted. In a scenario where the homeless count has improved, an increase in the number of homeless counted does not necessarily imply that the total size of the homeless population has increased. The count may simply represent a higher fraction of the total homeless population.
To account for the homeless not included in the HUD-reported count data, we impute the total homeless population in each metro from 2011-2016 and examine the impact of different trajectories in the count accuracy on the inferred homelessness rate. Figure \[fig:Homeless\_imputed\] illustrates the distribution of the unobserved total number of homeless over time in King County, WA if we assume that the count accuracy does not improve with time and approximately 75% of homeless are included in the count.
![Counted number of homeless (black line) and imputed mean (blue line) and 95% predicted interval (shaded blue) of the total number of homeless in King County. In this illustration, we assume the expected count accuracy is constant over time when inferring the distribution of the total number of homeless.[]{data-label="fig:Homeless_imputed"}](SEA_Homeless_Imputed.pdf){width=".4\textwidth"}
It is reasonable to assume time variation in the count accuracy: in many continuums, the count accuracy may incrementally improve each year; in some continuums, the count accuracy could degrade over time due to lack of funding; in others, the accuracy may jump at a single year. A primary objective of our study is to assess the impact of different trajectories in the count accuracy on the relationship between homelessness rates and changes in ZRI. The model and prior distribution for different trajectories of the count accuracy will be discussed further in Sections \[subsec:Homeless\_Count\_Model\] and \[subsec:Prior\_CountEff\].
Model {#sec:Model}
=====
In this section, we develop a joint statistical model for collections of population-level and subpopulation counts. For each metro, we model (i) the number of homeless counted, (ii) the true number of homeless, and (iii) the total number of people living in the metro. Of the three quantities, only two are observed: the homeless counted and the total number of people. The true number of people experiencing homelessness is not observed, and we treat it as missing data. The total population of a metro (as reported by the Census) is modeled as a noisy observation of the true total population.
Figure \[fig:Graph\] is the graphical representation of our dynamic Bayesian hierarchical model. The random variable $N_{i,t}$ is the total number of people that live in metro $i$ in year $t$. The $N_{i,1:T}$ variables depend on the dynamic process governing population growth, $\lambda_{i,1:T}$. The expected increase in population from one year to the next in metro $i$ is modeled by parameter $\nu_i$, and the global population growth is modeled by parameter $\bar{\nu}$. Section \[subsec:Total\_Pop\_Model\] develops the total population model in greater detail.
The total number of homeless, $H_{i,t}$, depends on $N_{i,t}$ and the probability of being homeless, $p_{i,t}$. The log odds of homelessness, $\psi_{i,t} = \log \left( \frac{p_{i,t}}{1-p_{i,t}} \right)$, is modeled by a dynamic process that depends on changes in ZRI. The effect of change in ZRI on log odds of homelessness is modeled hierarchically by parameter $\phi_i$ with global mean $\bar{\phi}$. The full model for $H_{i,t}$ and the dynamics of $\psi_{i,t}$ are discussed in Section \[subsec:Homeless\_Pop\_Model\]. The counted number of homeless, $C_{i,t}$, depends on $H_{i,t}$ and the probability that a homeless person is counted, $\pi_{i,t}$. We call $\pi_{i,t}$ the count accuracy and discuss the count data generating process in Section \[subsec:Homeless\_Count\_Model\].
$$\vcenter{\xymatrix{
& \bar{\nu} \ar[r] & \nu_i \ar[ld] \ar[lld] \ar[rd] \ar[rrd] & & \\
\lambda_{i,1} \ar[d] \ar[r] & \lambda_{i,2} \ar[d] \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & \lambda_{i,t-1} \ar[d] \ar[r] & \ar[d] \lambda_{i,t}\\
N_{i,1} \ar@/^2pc/[ddd] & N_{i,2} \ar@/^2pc/[ddd] & \cdots & N_{i,t-1} \ar@/^2pc/[ddd] & N_{i,t} \ar@/^2pc/[ddd] \\
& \bar{\phi} \ar[r] & \phi_i \ar[ld] \ar[lld] \ar[rd] \ar[rrd] & & \\
\psi_{i,1} \ar[d] \ar[r] & \psi_{i,2} \ar[d] \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & \psi_{i,t-1} \ar[d] \ar[r] & \psi_{i,t} \ar[d] \\
H_{i,1} \ar@/^2pc/[dd] & H_{i,2} \ar@/^2pc/[dd] & \cdots & H_{i,t-1} \ar@/^2pc/[dd] & H_{i,t} \ar@/^2pc/[dd] \\
\pi_{i,1} \ar[d] & \pi_{i,2} \ar[d] & \cdots & \pi_{i,t-1} \ar[d] & \pi_{i,t} \ar[d] \\
C_{i,1} & C_{i,2} & \cdots & C_{i,t-1} & C_{i,t}\\
} }$$
Total population model {#subsec:Total_Pop_Model}
----------------------
Significant interest lies in homelessness *rates* that facilitate comparison across different metros. The total population of the metro, or the denominator in a rate calculation, is uncertain. The intercensal population estimates reported annually by the U.S. Census Bureau are noisy. To properly quantify the uncertainty in the estimated homelessness rate of each metro, it is necessary to account for the uncertainty in the total population size.
A secondary reason for modeling the total population is that it facilitates forecasting. In order to forecast the size of the homeless population in future years, it is necessary to know the size of the future total population. A dynamic model for the total population enables a model-based forecast of the homeless population.
The total population size for metro $i$ in year $t$, $N_{i,t}$, is modeled as a time-indexed Poisson random variable that allows for growth and decay in the population of each metro. $$\begin{aligned}
& N_{i,t} \sim Poisson(\lambda_{i,t}) \label{eq:N_it} \\
&\lambda_{i,t} = \bar{\lambda}_i \theta_{i,t} \label{eq:lambda_it}\end{aligned}$$
The Poisson rate, $\lambda_{i,t}$, is the product of a static scale factor, $\bar{\lambda}_i$, and a latent time-varying component $\theta_{i,t}$. The dynamics of $\lambda_{i,t}$ are driven by a dynamic process on the unit interval, $\theta_{i,t} \in (0,1)$. Modeling $\lambda_{i,t}$ as the product of the scaling factor and the dynamic term $\theta_{i,t}$ provides an intuitive and computationally tractable dynamic model for Poisson counts. An auxiliary Poisson-Binomial thinning step for efficient computation is discussed in Section \[subsec:MCMC\_Steps\]. The unit-interval-constrained dynamic process $\theta_{i,1:T}$ is constructed with the logistic transformation and a real-valued stochastic process $\eta_{i,1:T}$. $$\begin{aligned}
&\theta_{i,t} = \frac{e^{\eta_{i,t}}}{1 + e^{\eta_{i,t}}} \label{eq:theta_it}\\
&\eta_{i,t} =\eta_{i,t-1} + \nu_{i} + v_{i,t}, \hspace{1cm} v_{i,t} \sim N(0,\sigma^2_{\eta_i}) \label{eq:eta_it}\end{aligned}$$ The nonstationary $\eta_{i,1:T}$ process is a random walk with a metro-specific drift term, $\nu_i$. The drift component is aimed at modeling population dynamics in cities like Seattle and Detroit. In Seattle, the population is rapidly growing which would correspond to a positive drift ($\nu_i > 0$). On the other hand, the population in Detroit has recently decreased, which would correspond to negative drift ($\nu_i < 0)$. To borrow information across metros, we model the drift components hierarchically. The parameter $\bar{\nu}$ may be interpreted as the expected drift in population across all metros. $$\begin{aligned}
&\nu_{i} = \bar{\nu} + \epsilon_i, \hspace{1cm} \epsilon_i \sim N(0,\sigma^2_{\nu_i}) \\
&\bar{\nu} \sim N(0,\sigma^2_{\bar{\nu}})\end{aligned}$$
Because $\eta_{i,1:T}$ is nonstationary, the Poisson marginals $p(N_{i,t}|\lambda_{i,t}), \ldots, p(N_{i,T}|\lambda_{i,T})$ are not identically distributed. Consequently, $N_{i,1:T}|\lambda_{i,1:T}$ is a nonstationary process for the total population counts. While the PoINAR method of @Aldor-Noiman2016 would be suitable for stationary population modeling, the expected total populations in these metro areas are clearly changing over time. A second modeling alternative would be to transform the large counts with a natural logarithm and model the transformed response with a Gaussian dynamic model. Despite the computational simplicity of such a model, we prefer to directly model the count data with discrete, time-varying distributions to more aptly characterize the uncertainty in the observed data.
Homeless population model {#subsec:Homeless_Pop_Model}
-------------------------
In a metro with $N_{i,t}$ total residents, some small fraction of the residents will be homeless. For this reason, it is natural to model the total number of people experiencing homelessness, $H_{i,t}$, with a time-indexed binomial distribution. The binomial parameter $p_{i,t}$ is the unobserved probability that a person in metro $i$ is homeless in year $t$ (i.e., the homelessness rate). $$\begin{aligned}
H_{i,t} | N_{i,t}, p_{i,t} \sim Binomial(N_{i,t}, p_{i,t}) \label{eq:H_it}\end{aligned}$$
One of our primary objectives is to include ZRI as a covariate in the dynamic model for the homeless probability $p_{i,t}$. We achieve this by modeling the log odds of homelessness. $$\begin{aligned}
&p_{i,t} = \frac{e^{\psi_{i,t}}}{1 + e^{\psi_{i,t}}} \label{eq:p_it}\\
&\psi_{i,t} = \psi_{i,t-1} + \phi_i \Delta ZRI_{i,t} + w_{i,t}, \hspace{1cm} w_{i,t} \sim N(0,\sigma^2_{\psi}) \label{eq:psi_it}\end{aligned}$$ The dynamic process that controls the homelessness rate, $\psi_{i,1:T}$, linearly depends on the year-over-year rate of change in the ZRI, $\Delta ZRI_{i,t}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta ZRI_{i,t} = \frac{ZRI_{i,t} - ZRI_{i,t-1}}{ZRI_{i,t-1}}\end{aligned}$$ The regression coefficient $\phi_i$ models the relationship between change in rent levels and change in homelessness rates. As a concrete example, if ZRI increases by $1\%$ in continuum $i$ from one year to the next, the expected log odds of homelessness will increase by $.01 \phi_i$.
The connection between increased rental costs and homelessness rates is well established in the homelessness literature [@hanratty2017local; @fargo2013; @Culhane2013; @stojanovic1999; @oflaherty1995; @sclar1990homelessness]). To explicitly model this positive relationship, the regression coefficient $\phi_i$ is truncated at zero. This guarantees that increasing rent levels result in higher homelessness rates. The parameter $\phi_i$ is modeled hierarchically across metros to borrow strength and provide a more robust estimation of the impact of rent increases on homelessness. $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi_i \sim N(\bar{\phi}, \sigma^2_{\phi_i}) \mathbbm{1}_{\phi_i > 0} \\
&\bar{\phi} \sim N(m_{\bar{\phi}}, \sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}}) \mathbbm{1}_{\bar{\phi}>0}\end{aligned}$$
As noted at the beginning of Section \[sec:Model\], $H_{i,t}$, is not observed. Only the imperfect homeless count, $C_{i,t}$, is observed. In our study, we treat $H_{i,t}$ as missing data and impute it to estimate each $\phi_i$. By modeling the relationship between $\Delta ZRI_{i,t}$ and the imputed $H_{i,t}$, we obtain a more reliable quantification of the uncertainty in the posterior distribution for $\phi_i$ and $\bar{\phi}$.
Homeless count model {#subsec:Homeless_Count_Model}
--------------------
Plant-capture studies and postcount surveys have demonstrated that homeless counts systematically understate the number of people experiencing homelessness [@Hopper2008]. While single night counts are imperfect, it is not clear that there exist feasible alternatives. Logistics, expenses, and privacy concerns preclude volunteers and continuums from counting every person without a home.
We model the imperfection in the homeless counts with a binomial thinning step. Of the true number of homeless, $H_{i,t}$, only $C_{i,t}$ of them are counted. It is $C_{i,t}$ that we observe.
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{i,t} &\sim Binomial(H_{i,t}, \pi_{i,t}) \\
\pi_{i,t} &\sim Beta(a_{i,t}, b_{i,t})\end{aligned}$$
The parameter $\pi_{i,t}$ is the probability that a person experiencing homelessness is counted, and it is modeled with a beta distribution. In other words, $\pi_{i,t}$ is the accuracy of the count. If $\pi_{i,t} = 1$, the count in metro $i$ in year $t$ is perfectly accurate and every unsheltered person is counted.
Observe that we model $\pi_{i,t}$ and $\pi_{i,t-1}$ as independent random variables. While the count accuracy is surely time-varying and may exhibit trends, we believe there is no clear dependence of $\pi_{i,t}$ on $\pi_{i,t-1}$. Factors driving count accuracy such as weather and volunteer turnout are unrelated across years. Even the count methodology utilized by a continuum may change from one year to the next. As an example, in 2017, the All Home King County continuum of care overhauled its count methodology to enhance the accuracy [@Beekman2016]. Rather than sending volunteers to known areas where homeless congregate, as in previous years, volunteers covered each census tract in the county. In addition, volunteers were lead by guides who were either currently or recently homeless themselves.
As a result, the number of homeless counted in January 2017 was significantly higher than the number counted in January 2016. Due to changes in methodology, it is not necessarily accurate to conclude that the size of the homeless population, $H_{i,t}$, dramatically increased. By providing a mechanism for changes in count accuracy in each metro from one year to the next, it is possible to more reliably assess the local relationship between increased rental costs and the homeless population.
The count accuracy itself is an unknown quantity, and since we do not observe $H_{i,t}$, it is not possible to learn $\pi_{i,t}$. Instead of trying to learn $\pi_{i,t}$, we marginalize it out so that $C_{i,t} | H_{i,t} \sim \mbox{Beta-binomial}(H_{i,t},a_{i,t}, b_{i,t})$. Despite the lack of an underlying dynamic model for the count accuracy, we examine the impact of different time trends in $E[\pi_{i,t}]$ on posterior inference for $\phi_i$. The trends are achieved through specification of the $a_{i,t}$ and $b_{i,t}$ parameters. Given the sequences of expected values and variances for $\pi_{i,t}$ – which we assume are provided by the agencies conducting the counts – the hyperparameters $a_{i,t}$ and $b_{i,t}$ may be computed from and .
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{i,t} &= E[\pi_{i,t}] \left( \frac{(1-E[\pi_{i,t}])E[\pi_{i,t}]}{Var(\pi_{i,t})} - 1\right) \label{eq:a_it}\\
b_{i,t} &= \frac{Var(\pi_{i,t})}{E[\pi_{i,t}]^2} \left( \frac{a_{i,t}^2}{E[\pi_{i,t}]} + a_{i,t} \right) \label{eq:b_it}\end{aligned}$$
By modeling each $\pi_{i,t}$ with an independent beta distribution, it is possible to easily achieve different types of accuracy trajectories. We discuss three trajectories of specific interest in Section \[subsec:Prior\_CountEff\].
Prior Distributions {#sec:Priors}
===================
With limited data for each metro, it is critically important to elicit well-informed prior distributions. Information from data that predates 2011, existing literature, and the expert opinion of homeless count coordinators have been combined to elicit prior distributions for four components of the model: (i) the count accuracy that is formalized through $\pi_{i,1:T}$ (Section \[subsec:Prior\_CountEff\]); (ii) the relationship between homelessness and rising rental costs, which is modeled with the regression coefficient $\phi_{i}$ (Section \[subsec:Prior\_Phi\]); (iii) the dynamic process $\eta_{i,1:T}$ that governs the total population (Section \[subsec:Prior\_Eta\]); and (iv) the dynamic process $\psi_{i,1:T}$ that governs the total homeless subpopulation dynamics (Section \[subsec:Prior\_Psi\]).
Priors for count accuracy {#subsec:Prior_CountEff}
-------------------------
We base our prior distribution for count accuracy on a study by @Hopper2008, who report evidence that 60-70% of unsheltered individuals in New York were visible and included in the city’s 2005 count. They discuss one plant-capture study where only 59% of participants were counted. The number of homeless used in our study includes *sheltered* homeless as well. @Hopper2008 note that counts of sheltered homeless are more reliable than the counts of unsheltered homeless. To elicit our prior for count accuracy, we compute a weighted average of accuracy for sheltered and unsheltered populations, respectively. We use homeless counts from 2010, $C_{i,0}$, to compute this weighted average in year $t=0$.
$$\begin{aligned}
E[\pi_{i,0}] = \left(1.0\right) \frac{C^{\mbox{ sheltered}}_{i,0}}{C_{i,0}} + \left(0.6\right) \frac{C^{\mbox{ unsheltered}}_{i,0}}{C_{i,0}}.\end{aligned}$$
Our prior expectation is that the probability that a sheltered homeless person is included in the homeless count is unity. From the Hopper study, we believe the probability that an unsheltered homeless person is included in the homeless count to be approximately $0.6$. Because each metro has a different proportion of sheltered and unsheltered homeless, each metro is assigned a unique baseline prior distribution for count accuracy based on the 2010 data. We develop prior distributions for $\pi_{i,1:T}$ that exhibit different expected trajectories: constant, linear, and step functions in time. In each of these cases, $Var(\pi_{i,t}) = .0005$ is chosen so that reasonable prior mass covers the $E[\pi_{i,t}] \pm 0.05$ interval.
The constant case corresponds to a count that utilizes relatively consistent procedures and resources from one year to the next. In this case, the mean and variance of the accuracy are constant over time (for all $t$, $E[\pi_{i,t}] = E[\pi_{i,0}]$). With $E[\pi_{i,t}]$ and $Var(\pi_{i,t})$, calculation of $a_{i,t}$ and $b_{i,t}$ follows directly from and . The prior for $\pi_{i,1:T}$ with constant count accuracy in King County, WA is presented in Figure \[subfig:pi\_constant\].
[.3]{} ![Different prior beliefs about the trajectory of $\pi_{i,1:T}$ in King County, WA. The blue lines are the expected count accuracy over time, and the shaded blue interval corresponds to the 95% prior uncertainty interval. Left: constant count accuracy. Middle: incremental (linear) increases in count accuracy. Right: Step in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_Prior"}](pi_1_prior.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.3]{} ![Different prior beliefs about the trajectory of $\pi_{i,1:T}$ in King County, WA. The blue lines are the expected count accuracy over time, and the shaded blue interval corresponds to the 95% prior uncertainty interval. Left: constant count accuracy. Middle: incremental (linear) increases in count accuracy. Right: Step in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_Prior"}](pi_15_prior.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.3]{} ![Different prior beliefs about the trajectory of $\pi_{i,1:T}$ in King County, WA. The blue lines are the expected count accuracy over time, and the shaded blue interval corresponds to the 95% prior uncertainty interval. Left: constant count accuracy. Middle: incremental (linear) increases in count accuracy. Right: Step in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_Prior"}](pi_15_step_prior.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
The linear case corresponds to a count where the accuracy incrementally improves by a fixed amount (called $\delta_i$) until it reaches one, as shown in . We assume that $\delta_i$ is known and is ideally specified by the agency conducting the count. Alternatively, $\delta_i$ can be adjusted to examine sensitivity of inference to different accuracy scenarios. This is the approach adopted here. As an example, to consider an increase of $\bar{\delta}$ in the accuracy of the unsheltered homeless count, $\delta_i$ is computed as in . We assume that sheltered homeless are perfectly counted, and the improvement in accuracy of $\bar{\delta}$ applies only to the unsheltered count.
$$\begin{aligned}
E[\pi_{i,t+1}] &= \min(E[\pi_{i,t}] + \delta_i,1) \label{eq:pi_it} \\
\delta_i &= \bar{\delta} \left( \frac{C^{\mbox{ sheltered}}_{i,0}}{C_{i,0}} \right) \label{eq:delta_i}\end{aligned}$$
In the step scenario, the accuracy dramatically increases at a specific point in time due to improved count methodology. This is observed in practice with the All Home King County continuum as discussed in Section \[subsec:Homeless\_Count\_Model\]. In this case, we assume that the year of change for metro $i$, $\tau_i$, is known. For $t < \tau_i$, $E[\pi_{i,t}] = E[\pi_{i,0}]$. For $t \geq \tau_i$, $E[\pi_{i,t}] = E[\pi_{i,0}] + \delta_i$. A step in $E[\pi_{i,t}]$ occurs at time $\tau_i$. Figure \[subfig:pi\_step\] illustrates a hypothetical step in count accuracy for King County in 2014. It is possible that there could be multiple steps for each metro and that there exists sequences $\tau_i^1, \tau_i^2, \ldots$ and $\delta_i^1, \delta_i^2, \ldots$ where steps of different size occur in different years. Because we do not know $\tau_i$ for each metro, we do not investigate the step scenario further; however, with consultation of each local coordinator, this may be a very promising area of future work.
Priors for and {#subsec:Prior_Phi}
---------------
We use previous work by @Culhane2013 to form the basis of our prior distribution for $\bar{\phi}$. @Culhane2013 found that in metropolitan continuums, when median rent increased by \$100, the expected homelessness rate increased by 6.34%. The average log odds of homelessness across all continuums in 2010 was $\bar{f}_0:= -5.5$. The average ZRI across continuums in 2010 was \$1534. So a \$100 increase in median rent would translate to a percent change in ZRI of $\frac{100}{1534} \approx 6.5\%$. This leads to calculation of the expectation of $\bar{\phi}$ based on $\bar{f}_0$, the 6.5% increase in ZRI, and the expected increase in the homelessness rate of 6.34%: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1 + \mbox{exp}\left\{ -\bar{f}_0 \right\}}{1 + \mbox{exp}\left\{ -\bar{f}_0 - \frac{\$100}{\$1534} m_{\bar{\phi}} \right\}} = 1.0634.\end{aligned}$$
We calculate that $m_{\bar{\phi}} = 0.94$. Because of differences in methodology and data, we use $\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}} = 0.005$ so that there is reasonable prior uncertainty about $\bar{\phi}$. We let $\sigma^2_{\phi_i} = 0.05$ so that there is modest shrinkage of each local effect toward the global mean $\bar{\phi}$. To examine the prior uncertainty in the relationship between increases in ZRI and increases in homelessness implied by our choices of $m_{\bar{\phi}}$, $\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}}$, and $\sigma^2_{\phi_i}$, we simulate from the marginal prior distribution for percent changes in the homelessness rate (see Figure \[fig:HomelessRate\_Prior\]). Although we inform our prior using the results from @Culhane2013, whose methodology we are trying to advance, notice a few things in Figure \[fig:HomelessRate\_Prior\]. One is that our prior is diffuse, and it becomes increasingly diffuse with larger percent increases in ZRI. Second, the inferred posterior concentrates on different values than the prior, indicating that we are indeed learning from data. The conclusion is that using the Byrne et al. result is a useful way to center our prior.
![Implied prior and posterior distribution of % change in homelessness rate with increases in ZRI for an arbitrary metro $i$. The red (blue) line is the prior (posterior) mean, and the shaded red (blue) region is the 95% prior (posterior) credible interval.[]{data-label="fig:HomelessRate_Prior"}](Rate_Increase.pdf){width=".4\textwidth"}
Prior for {#subsec:Prior_Eta}
----------
The sampling distribution for the total population, $N_{i,t}$, depends on $\eta_{i,t}$ through the Poisson rate, $\lambda_{i,t}$ (refer to - ). Recall that $\lambda_{i,t}$ is the product of a scaling factor, $\bar{\lambda}_i$, and a dynamic process on the unit interval, $\theta_{i,t}$. We let the expectation of $\lambda_{i,0}$ be the 2010 population, $N_{i,0}$. This is achieved by fixing $\bar{\lambda}_i = 2 \times N_{i,0}$ and $E[\theta_{i,0}] = 0.5$ (i.e., $E[\eta_{i,0}] = 0$). The prior variance of $\eta_{i,0}$ is fixed to be $0.0001$, as we are confident that the Poisson rate of the total population in 2010 is the observed total population.
We let $\nu_i \sim N(\bar{\nu}, 0.01)$ and $\bar{\nu} \sim N(0,0.005)$. The innovation variance of the $\eta_{i,1:T}$ process is fixed to be $0.0001$ so that $\nu_i$ primarily drives changes in the Poisson rate. The implied marginal distribution of $N_{i,1:T}$ in King County, WA is presented in Figure \[subfig:Population\_Prior\]. Observe that the distribution is centered at the 2010 King County population and allows significant uncertainty over the six year period. While the prior variance on each $\eta_{i,t}$ is relatively small, the large magnitude of the scaling factor, $\bar{\lambda}_i$, results in a relatively diffuse marginal distribution for $N_{i,t}$.
[.3]{} ![Marginal prior distributions for $N_{i,t}$ and $H_{i,t}|ZRI_{1:T}$ in King County, WA. The blue lines are the the prior means and the shaded blue regions are the 95% prior uncertainty intervals. Left: implied prior distributions for the total population, $N_{i,1:T}$. Right: Prior for total homeless population, $H_{i,1:T}|ZRI_{1:T}$. The upward trend in the implied prior for the total homeless population is due to observed increases in ZRI.[]{data-label="fig:Population_Homeless_Prior"}](SEA_Population_prior.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.3]{} ![Marginal prior distributions for $N_{i,t}$ and $H_{i,t}|ZRI_{1:T}$ in King County, WA. The blue lines are the the prior means and the shaded blue regions are the 95% prior uncertainty intervals. Left: implied prior distributions for the total population, $N_{i,1:T}$. Right: Prior for total homeless population, $H_{i,1:T}|ZRI_{1:T}$. The upward trend in the implied prior for the total homeless population is due to observed increases in ZRI.[]{data-label="fig:Population_Homeless_Prior"}](SEA_Homeless_prior.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
Prior for {#subsec:Prior_Psi}
----------
We utilize the counted number of homeless in 2010 to specify the prior expectation $E[\psi_{i,0}]$. The conditionally binomial sampling distribution for $H_{i,0} | \psi_{i,0}, N_{i,0}$ in yields the expectation $E[H_{i,0}|\psi_{i,0}, N_{i,0}] = \frac{1}{1+e^{-\psi_{i,0}}} N_{i,0}$. Solving for $\psi_{i,0}$ results in .
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{i,0} = \log \left( \frac{E[H_{i,0}|\psi_{i,0}]/N_{i,0}}{1 - E[H_{i,0}|\psi_{i,0}]/N_{i,0}} \right) \label{eq:psi_i0}\end{aligned}$$
Because we observe the noisy total population $N_{i,0}$ from the Census estimate in 2010, we can compute a value for $\psi_{i,0}$ given the expectation $E[H_{i,0}|\psi_{i,0}]$. Though we do not observe $E[H_{i,0}|\psi_{i,0}]$, we use an approximation to center the prior distribution of $\psi_{i,0}$ and compensate for the approximation with moderate prior uncertainty. We approximate the expected total number of homeless in 2010 as an expected inflation of the observed count, $E[H_{i,0}|\psi_{i,0}] \approx E\left[\frac{1}{\pi_{i,0}}\right] C_{i,0}$. $C_{i,0}$ is the 2010 homeless count value and $E[1/\pi_{i,0}]$ is the expectation of the reciprocal count accuracy in 2010. The multiplier $E[1/\pi_{i,0}]$ is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. This leads to a prior expectation as defined in .
$$\begin{aligned}
E[\psi_{i,0}] := \log \left( \frac{E\left[\frac{1}{\pi_{i,0}}\right] C_{i,0}/N_{i,0}}{1 - E\left[\frac{1}{\pi_{i,0}}\right] C_{i,0}/N_{i,0}} \right) \label{eq:E_psi_i0}\end{aligned}$$
The time zero variance is chosen to be $\sigma^2_{\psi_0} = 0.01$, as this provides a three standard deviation interval of $\pm0.3$ around the prior mean. The result is that $\psi_{i,0} \sim N(E[\psi_{i,0}], \sigma^2_{\psi_0})$. One reason that the prior specification of $\psi_{i,0}$ is important is that the implied prior distribution for the total homeless population, $H_{i,t}$, depends on $\psi_{i,t}$ (refer to and ). The implied prior distribution for $H_{i,1:T}|ZRI_{1:T}$ is presented in Figure \[subfig:Homeless\_prior\]. The 95% prior interval spans a very reasonable range for each $H_{i,t}$.
The innovation variance of the dynamic process is fixed to be $\sigma^2_{\psi} = 0.001$ (see ). We observe in synthetic data experiments that the innovation variance of $\psi_{i,1:T}$ must be small in order to accurately learn $\phi_i$ and $\bar{\phi}$. If $\sigma^2_{\psi}$ is large relative to $Var\left(\phi_{i} \Delta ZRI_{i,t}\right)$, changes in the homelessness rate are modeled as noise in $\psi_{i,t}$ rather than driven by changes in ZRI. The ratio $\frac{Var(\phi_i \Delta ZRI_{i,t})}{\sigma^2_{\psi}}$ can be thought of as a signal-to-noise ratio for $\psi_{i,t}$.
We also observe in synthetic data experiments that reliably inferring $\psi_{i,1:T}$ and $\phi_i$ requires that a metro’s homelessness rate exceed 0.05% of the total population. Because $p_{i,t}$ is the logistic transformation of $\psi_{i,t}$ (see ), the derivative $\frac{dp_{i,t}}{d\psi_{i,t}} \rightarrow 0$ as $|\psi_{i,t}|$ increases. Flat tails of $p_{i,t}$ as a function of $\psi_{i,t}$ mean that in metros with very low homeless rates, practically observed changes in homeless counts are consistent with a wide range of changes in ZRI. Under such conditions, it is not possible to reliably estimate $\phi_i$. Inference on $\phi_i$ degrades along the continuum of decreasing $\psi_{i,t}$, but we set a limit based on our empirical studies. We do not trust inference for metros where the homelessness rate is less than $0.05\%$, or when $\psi_{i,t} < -7.6$.
Markov chain Monte Carlo {#sec:MCMC}
========================
Our objective is to sample from the posterior distribution $$\begin{aligned}
p(H_{1:25,1:T}, \eta_{1:25,1:T}, \psi_{1:25,1:T}, \phi_{1:25}, \bar{\phi}, \nu_{1:25}, \bar{\nu} | N_{1:25,1:T}, C_{1:25,1:T}). \label{eq:posterior}\end{aligned}$$ To sample from the posterior, we develop a custom [Pólya]{}-Gamma Gibbs sampler for dynamic Bayesian logistic regression [@PSW2013; @Windle2013; @Windle2014]. The [Pólya]{}-Gamma augmentation strategy allows us to harness a forward filtering and backward sampling (FFBS) algorithm that is commonly used to fit Bayesian dynamic models [@fruhwirth-schnatter1994; @carter1994]. We found that a burn-in of 15,000 samples and 25,000 samples collected after burn-in were sufficient for reproducible inferences. The MCMC simulation took approximately 4 hours to run on a MacBook Pro.
Sampling steps {#subsec:MCMC_Steps}
--------------
There are ten different sampling steps required in the MCMC algorithm. The first step is for an auxiliary random variable whose only purpose is to facilitate computation when $N_{i,t} | \tilde{\lambda}_i, \theta_{i,t}$ $\sim Poisson(\tilde{\lambda}_i \theta_{i,t})$ (refer to and ). To construct this marginal distribution, we model the auxiliary $Z_{i,t}$ $\sim Poisson(\tilde{\lambda}_i)$ and the observed $N_{i,t}$ conditionally binomial, $N_{i,t} | Z_{i,t}, \theta_{i,t}$ $\sim Binomial(Z_{i,t}, \theta_{i,t})$. The Binomial-Poisson thinning strategy results in the desired marginal distribution for $N_{i,t}$ and a computationally tractable method for making inference on $\eta_{i,t}$, $\nu_{i}$, and $\bar{\nu}$. The full conditional for the auxiliary $Z_{i,t}$ is shown in \[one\].
\[two\] and \[six\] use [Pólya]{}-Gamma data augmentation to allow a forward filtering backward sampling strategy. \[three\] and \[seven\] sample the auxiliary [Pólya]{}-Gamma variables $\omega_{i,t}$ and $\zeta_{i,t}$. The collection of auxiliary variables $Z_{1:25,1:T}$, $\omega_{1:25,1:T}$, and $\zeta_{1:25,1:T}$ are numerically integrated out from the posterior by discarding posterior samples. Each sampling step is outlined below.
1. For each $i,t$, sample the auxiliary $Z_{i,t}$ from a shifted Poisson by first sampling\
$j = Z_{i,t} - N_{i,t} | \tilde{\lambda}_i, \theta_{i,t}$ $\sim Poisson\left( (1-\theta_{i,t}) \tilde{\lambda}_i \right)$ and then fixing $Z_{i,t} = j + N_{i,t}$. \[one\]
2. \[two\] For each $i$, sample the dynamic process that governs total population growth, $\eta_{i,1:T}|N_{i,1:T},\omega_{i,1:T}$, with an FFBS algorithm.
1. compute forward filtered distribution $\eta_{i,t} | N_{i,1:t}, Z_{i,1:t}, \nu_i, \omega_{i,1:t} \sim N(m_{i,t}, S_{i,t})$
- $S_{i,t} := \left( \omega_{i,t} + \frac{1}{S_{i,t-1} + \sigma^2_{\eta} } \right)^{-1}$
- $m_{i,t} := S_{i,t} \left(N_{i,t} - \frac{1}{2} Z_{i,t} + \frac{m_{i,t-1} + \nu_i}{S_{i,t-1} + \sigma^2_\nu }\right)$
2. sample recursively $\eta_{i,t} | \eta_{i,t+1}, N_{i,1:t}, \omega_{i,1:t} \sim N(\tilde{m}_{i,t}, \tilde{S}_{i,t})$
- $\tilde{S}_{i,t} := \left(\frac{1}{S_{i,t}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\eta}} \right)^{-1}$
- $\tilde{m}_{i,t} := \tilde{S}_{i,t} \left( \frac{m_{i,t}}{S_{i,t}} + \frac{\eta_{i,t+1} - \nu_i}{\sigma^2_{\eta}} \right)$
3. \[three\] For each $i,t$, sample the auxiliary [Pólya]{}-Gamma random variates to augment the total population variable, $\omega_{i,t} | Z_{i,t}, \eta_{i,t} \sim PG(Z_{i,t},\eta_{i,t})$.
4. \[four\] For each $i$, sample the parameter controlling expected population growth in metro $i$, $\nu_i | \bar{\nu}, \eta_{i,1:T} \sim N(\tilde{m}_{\nu_i}, \tilde{\sigma}^2_{\nu_i})$.
- $\tilde{\sigma}^2_{\nu_i} := \left( \frac{1}{C_0 + \sigma^2_{\eta} } + \frac{T-1}{\sigma^2_{\eta}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\nu_i}} \right)^{-1}$
- $\tilde{m}_{\nu_i} := \tilde{\sigma}^2_{\nu_i} \left(\frac{\eta_{i,1}}{C_0 + \sigma^2_{\eta}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\eta}} \sum_{t=2}^T (\eta_{i,t} - \eta_{i,t-1}) + \frac{\bar{\nu}}{\sigma^2_{\nu_i}} \right)$
5. \[five\] Sample the expected total population growth globally across metros,\
$\bar{\nu}|\nu_{1:25} \sim N\left( \left(\frac{N}{\sigma^2_{\nu_i}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\bar{\nu}}} \right)^{-1}\frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\nu_i}} \sum_{i=1}^{25} \nu_i, \left(\frac{N}{\sigma^2_{\nu_i}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\bar{\nu}}} \right)^{-1} \right)$.
6. \[six\] For each $i$, sample the dynamic process for the log odds of homelessness, $\psi_{i,1:T}|N_{i,1:T},H_{i,1:T}, \phi_i,\omega_{i,1:T}$, with an FFBS algorithm.
1. compute forward filtered distribution $\psi_{i,t} | N_{i,1:t}, H_{i,1:t}, \zeta_{i,1:t} \sim N(f_{i,t}, q_{i,t})$
- $q_{i,t} := \left( \zeta_{i,t} + \frac{1}{q_{i,t-1} + \sigma^2_{\psi} } \right)^{-1}$
- $f_{i,t} := q_{i,t} \left(H_{i,t} - \frac{1}{2} N_{i,t} + \frac{f_{i,t-1} + \phi_i \Delta ZRI_{i,t}}{q_{i,t-1} + \sigma^2_{\psi} }\right)$
2. sample recursively $\psi_{i,t} | \psi_{i,t+1}, N_{i,1:t}, H_{i,1:t}, \zeta_{i,1:t} ,\phi_i \sim N(\tilde{f}_{i,t}, \tilde{q}_{i,t})$
- $\tilde{q}_{i,t} := \left(\frac{1}{q_{i,t}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\psi}} \right)^{-1}$
- $\tilde{f}_{i,t} := \tilde{q}_{i,t} \left( \frac{f_{i,t}}{q_{i,t}} + \frac{\psi_{i,t+1} - \phi_i \Delta ZRI_{i,t}}{\sigma^2_{\psi}} \right)$
7. \[seven\] For each $i,t$, sample the auxiliary [Pólya]{}-Gamma random variates to augment the total homeless variable, $\zeta_{i,t} | N_{i,t}, \psi_{i,t} \sim PG(N_{i,t},\psi_{i,t})$.
8. \[eight\] For each $i$, sample the parameter governing the relationship between change in ZRI and change in homelessness in metro $i$, $\phi_i | \psi_{i,1:T}, \bar{\phi} \sim N\left( m_{\phi_i}, \Sigma_{\phi_i} \right) \mathbbm{1}_{\phi_i>0}$.
- $\Sigma_{\phi_i} := \left( \frac{(\Delta ZRI_{i,1})^2}{\sigma^2_{\psi_0} + \sigma^2_{\psi}} + \frac{\sum_{t=2}^T(\Delta ZRI_{i,t})^2}{\sigma^2_{\psi}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\phi}} \right)$
- $m_{\phi_i} := \Sigma_{\phi_i} \left( \frac{\bar{\phi}}{\sigma^2_{\phi_i}} + \frac{\Delta ZRI_{i,1} (\psi_{i,1} - f_{i,0})}{\sigma^2_{\psi_0} + \sigma^2_{\psi_i} } + \frac{\sum_{t=2}^T\Delta ZRI_{i,t} (\psi_{i,t} -\psi_{i,t-1})}{\sigma^2_{\psi_i} } \right)$
9. \[nine\] Sample the global mean parameter for the change in ZRI and change in homelessness, $\bar{\phi}|\phi_{1:25} \sim N\left( \left(\frac{25}{\sigma^2_{\phi_i}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}}} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\phi_i}} \sum_{i=1}^{25} \phi_i + \frac{m_{\bar{\phi}}}{\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}}} \right), \left(\frac{25}{\sigma^2_{\phi_i}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}}} \right)^{-1} \right)$.
10. For each $i,t$, sample the total number of people experiencing homelessness in metro $i$ and year $t$, $H_{i,t}$, from $p(H_{i,t} | N_{i,t}, C_{i,t}, p_{i,t}, \pi_{i,t}) \propto \binom{H_{i,t}}{C_{i,t}}\pi_{i,t}^{C_{i,t}} (1-\pi_{i,t})^{(H_{i,t} - C_{i,t})} \binom{N_{i,t}}{H_{i,t}} p_{i,t}^{H_{i,t}} (1-p_{i,t})^{(N_{i,t} - H_{i,t})} $. \[ten\]
\[ten\] requires sampling from a discrete distribution with support $[C_{i,t},N_{i,t}]$. This large range creates a computational bottleneck as it involves evaluating densities at each value in the support. In practice, though, posterior probability is concentrated on values much closer to the lower end of the support. It is possible to speed up computation by setting a threshold after which the support is truncated. Once posterior probability falls below $1\times 10^{-8}$, we stop evaluating the densities and truncate the support.
Posterior Predictive Distributions {#subsec:Posterior_Predictive}
----------------------------------
To examine the impact of increased ZRI on total homeless populations and counts, we utilize the posterior predictive distribution for the total homeless population in each metro, $H_{i,t}|C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$. The main quantify of interest is the distribution of the increase in the homeless population when the observed change in ZRI, $\Delta ZRI_{i,t}$, increases by an $x>0$. The increase is modeled by $\left(H_{i,t}^{x} - H_{i,t}\right)$ $| C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$, which is the difference between the predicted homeless total for a change in ZRI of $\Delta ZRI_{i,t} + x$ and the baseline prediction at $\Delta ZRI_{i,t}$.
We draw samples from this posterior with a three step procedure that approximates the integral: $$\begin{aligned}
\small
&p\left(H_{i,t}^{x} - H_{i,t}| N_{1:25,1:T},C_{1:25,1:T}\right) \nonumber \\
&=\int p\left(H_{i,t}^{x} - H_{i,t} | \psi_{i,t}, \phi_{i}, N_{1:25,1:T},C_{1:25,1:T}\right) p\left(\psi_{i,t}, \phi_{i} \right) d \psi_{i,t} d \phi_i \label{eq:Homeless_Diff}.\end{aligned}$$ The procedure relies on the $m^{th}$ posterior sample of (i) the relationship between ZRI and homelessness, $\phi_i^{(m)}$, (ii) the log odds of homelessness, $\psi_{i,t}^{(m)}$, and (iii) the Census reported estimate of the total population $N_{i,t}$. The procedure is detailed below.
1. Construct the $m^{th}$ sample of log odds of homelessness where $\Delta ZRI_{i,t}$ is increased by $x$. $$\psi_{i,t}^{(m),x} = \psi_{i,t}^{(m)} + \phi_i^{(m)} x$$
2. Generate a prediction for the total homeless population at $\Delta ZRI_{i,t} + x$ by sampling $$H_{i,t}^{(m),x} \sim Binomial(N_{i,t}, p_{i,t}^{x}) \label{eq:H_Pred}$$ where $p_{i,t}^{x}$ is the same logistic transformation of $\psi_{i,t}^{x}$ as in .
3. Compute the difference $$H_{i,t}^{(m),x} - H_{i,t}^{(m)}$$
We go one step further and also examine the predicted change in counted homeless under increased ZRI, $\left(C_{i,t}^{*,x} - C_{i,t}^*\right) | C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$. Samples from this distribution are drawn by thinning the $m^{th}$ MCMC samples $H_{i,t}^{(m),x}$ and $H_{i,t}^{(m)}$ with a binomial step $$\begin{aligned}
C_{i,t}^{(m),*,x} \sim Binomial\left(H_{i,t}^{(m),x}, \pi_{i,t}^{(m)}\right) \label{eq:Count_Diff}\end{aligned}$$ and computing the difference $C_{i,t}^{(m),*,x} - C_{i,t}^{(m),*}$. The count accuracy is integrated out by sampling $\pi_{i,t}^{(m)} \sim Beta(a_{i,t}, b_{i,t})$ from the prior distribution.
Reproducible MCMC inference {#subsec:MCMC_Reproducibility}
---------------------------
We verify that our MCMC simulation generates reproducible inference about the relationship between increases in homelessness and increases in ZRI by examining the posterior distribution for $\phi_i$. Ten different MCMC simulations are run, and inferences from two simulations $j$ and $j'$ are compared by computing $|E[\phi_{i}^{(j)}] - E[\phi_i^{(j')}]|$. Figure \[fig:Reproducible\_Phi\] illustrates the largest deviation across simulations by computing $\max_{j}|E[\phi_i^{(j)}] - E[\phi_i^{(1)}]|$ for each metro. Each point in the histogram corresponds to the largest difference in posterior mean in reference to the first simulation for each of the 25 metros. The small values of these maximum differences in Figure \[fig:Reproducible\_Phi\] give us confidence that our MCMC simulation generates reproducible inferences.
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
We seek to answer five questions, \[Q1\] - \[Q5\]. Each of these questions is answered (in order) in Sections \[subsec:Results\_Q1\] - \[subsec:Results\_Q5\]. In Section \[subsec:Results\_Q1\], we examine changes in homelessness rates from 2011-2016 across all metropolitan areas. In Section \[subsec:Results\_Q2\], the inferred relationship between increased ZRI and increases in homelessness is presented. Posterior predictive distributions for additional homeless counts are presented in Section \[subsec:Results\_Q3\], and the imputed distributions for the total number of homeless in each metro are presented in Section \[subsec:Results\_Q4\]. Though the one-night-counts for January 2017 have already occurred, the results have not been fully released. Section \[subsec:Results\_Q5\] discusses our forecasts for the total homeless populations in 2017.
Percent changes in the homelessness rate {#subsec:Results_Q1}
----------------------------------------
The inferred increases in homelessness rates from 2011 - 2016 are illustrated in Figure \[subfig:Rate\_Change\_11\_16\]. We present results under two scenarios for the trajectory of the count accuracy: (i) the mean of the count accuracy is constant over time (i.e. $\bar{\delta}$ in is zero); and (ii) the mean of the unsheltered count accuracy increases by $2\%$ annually until it reaches 100% (i.e. $\bar{\delta}=.02$).
Metros where the rate of homelessness increased by at least 4% include New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Seattle when $\bar{\delta}=0$. For these cities, the 95% posterior credible interval for the percent change in the homelessness rate is bounded below by 4%. In response to its growing homeless population, the City of Seattle has declared an official state of emergency [@Beekman2015]. We adopt this moniker and characterize these metros as in similar states of emergency.
Metros where the homelessness rate has decreased by at least $4\%$ include San Diego, Phoenix, St. Louis, Portland, Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Riverside, and Tampa when $\bar{\delta}=0$. For these cities, the 95% posterior credible interval for the percent change in the homelessness rate is bounded above by $-4\%$. It seems as though real progress has been made in reducing homelessness in this group, with the caveat that our method does not account for homeless relocation. It is possible that people experiencing homelessness relocate to another nearby metro or continuum of care. Though homelessness in one continuum may decrease, it may increase in another. We view relocation and network effects as outside the scope of our present study.
A third group of cities exists where the percent change in the homelessness rate has neither significantly increased nor decreased in either scenario. For these cities, the 95% posterior credible interval is not bounded away from the $\pm4\%$ interval. These cities are Boston, Miami, Dallas, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Denver, Sacramento, Pittsburgh, and Chicago. The situation remains largely unchanged in this group, and the current homelessness rate is the status quo.
[.4]{}
[.4]{}
Observe in Figure \[subfig:Rate\_Change\_11\_16\] that New York and Los Angeles exhibit different sensitivities to change in the count accuracy over time. In New York, a city with a predominantly sheltered population, the inferred percent increase is essentially unchanged between the two scenarios. In Los Angeles, a warm-weather city with a large unsheltered population, the difference between the $\bar{\delta}=0$ and $\bar{\delta}=0.02$ cases is large, as demonstrated by separation of the posterior means. Equation demonstrates that, in metros with large unsheltered populations, a $\bar{\delta}$ increase in the accuracy of an unsheltered homeless count leads to large changes in the overall count accuracy, $\pi_{i,t}$.
[.4]{}
[.4]{}
In Figure \[subfig:LA\_Rate\_Sensitivity\], we examine how inference on the change in homelessness rates from 2011 - 2016 can change with different values of $\bar{\delta}$. We focus in on Los Angeles, above considered in a state of emergencyand see that if $\bar{\delta} = 4\%$ instead of 2%, the posterior credible interval contains 0; in this case, we are unable to confidently say that the homelessness rate increased over this time period. The conclusion again is that any inferences drawn about changes in homeless populations are highly sensitive to assumptions about the count accuracy. Sensitivity analyses similar to the one presented in Figure \[subfig:LA\_Rate\_Sensitivity\] are presented for each metro in Appendix \[app:A\].
Rental costs and homelessness {#subsec:Results_Q2}
-----------------------------
To examine the predicted increase in homelessness and homeless counts as ZRI increases, we focus on the posterior predictive distributions $\left(H_{i,t}^{x} - H_{i,t}\right)$ $| C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$ and $\left(C_{i,t}^{*,x} - C_{i,t}^*\right) $ $|C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$. Section \[subsec:Posterior\_Predictive\] provides complete details for sampling from these distributions.
We find that, for a fixed percent increase in ZRI of $x=10\%$, the predicted increase in homelessness is largest in New York and Los Angeles (see Figure \[fig:Summary\_ZRI\]). Predicted increases in homeless counts are robust to whether we set $\bar{\delta} = 0$ or $\bar{\delta}=.02$, as one would hope; however, the predicted count increases map to different increases in total homelessness under different prior beliefs about $\pi_{i,t}$. In Figure \[fig:Homeless\_Increase\], the posterior predictive distributions for the increase in total and counted homeless are illustrated for different increases in ZRI in New York and Los Angeles.
In New York, the large sheltered population and high count accuracy imply that the distributions of increased counts and total homeless populations are nearly identitical (Figure \[subfig:NY\_Homeless\_Increase\]). If the ZRI in New York increases by $x=10\%$, given 2016 levels of homelessness, we expect that the homeless population will increase by 6,048 people, with 95% posterior probability of the homelessness increase in New York being more than 3,680 people and less than 10,712 people. In Los Angeles, the lower overall count accuracy implies more separation between the distributions of increased counted and total homeless (Figure \[subfig:LA\_Homeless\_Increase\]). Under the same $x=10\%$ increase in ZRI in Los Angeles, we expect that 4,072 people will become homeless, with 95% posterior probability of more than 1,930 people and less than 8,268 people.
Figure \[subfig:Summary\_ZRI\_increase\] summarizes the predicted increase in the total homeless population when ZRI increases by $x=10\%$ across all metros. The distributions of increases presented in Figure \[fig:Summary\_ZRI\] account for the different sizes of metros with binomial sampling as shown in and (i.e. the values $N_{i,t}$ are larger for larger metros). We expect the largest increases to occur in the largest metros (New York and Los Angeles), and this is confirmed by our analysis of the data. For the increase in the homeless population associated with increases in ZRI, we report the one-sided 95% posterior credible interval to shed light on the far right tail of the distribution.
[.4]{} ![Effect of increasing ZRI by $x=10\%$ on the homeless population in 2016. The points are the posterior mean of $\left(H_{i,T}^{x} - H_{i,T}\right)$ $| C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$. The line segment spans the one-sided (right-tail) 95% posterior credible interval. In the left panel, results are presented for all metros. In the right panel, New York and Los Angeles are excluded for more careful inspection of the remaining 23 metros.[]{data-label="fig:Summary_ZRI"}](Summary_ZRI_increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Effect of increasing ZRI by $x=10\%$ on the homeless population in 2016. The points are the posterior mean of $\left(H_{i,T}^{x} - H_{i,T}\right)$ $| C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$. The line segment spans the one-sided (right-tail) 95% posterior credible interval. In the left panel, results are presented for all metros. In the right panel, New York and Los Angeles are excluded for more careful inspection of the remaining 23 metros.[]{data-label="fig:Summary_ZRI"}](Summary_ZRI_increase_exNYLA.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
In Seattle (523 people), Washington, D.C. (474 people), Chicago (331 people), Philadelphia (303 people), Minneapolis (218 people), Detroit (166 people), and Pittsburgh (92 people), we also see statistically meaningful increases in the predicted homeless populations when the ZRI increases by 10% and $\bar{\delta}=0$ (see Figure \[subfig:Summary\_ZRI\_increase\_exNYLA\]). For these metros, the 95% posterior credible intervals on the increase in the homeless population are bounded below by zero.
In the remaining metros, the data do not support concluding that the homeless populations will meaningfully increase when a 10% increase in ZRI occurs. While the expected increases in these metros may be large (e.g., San Diego), the variance in the posterior predictive distribution precludes us from confidently concluding that the predicted increases are strictly greater than zero. Predicted increases in homelessness as a function of increases in ZRI, as shown in Figure \[fig:Homeless\_Increase\] for New York and Los Angeles, are available in Appendix \[app:A\] for each metro.
Additional homeless counts {#subsec:Results_Q3}
--------------------------
The number of homeless that HUD reports in each continuum is from an annual point-in-time count conducted in January. Expense and logistical challenges preclude more frequent counts in many metros. In this section, we predict the outcome of a second hypothetical count in each metro each year. We report the posterior predictive distribution for this hypothetical second homeless count. The prediction, denoted by $C_{i,t}^*|C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$, conditions on both the observed counts and the census reported total populations in all metros. Figure \[subfig:SanFrancisco\_Homeless\] presents the predicted outcome from additional homeless counts for San Francisco, a metro with one of the larger increases in the homelessness rate from 2011-2016. Observe that the posterior mean of $C_{i,t}^*|C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$ is a filtered and retrospectively smoothed quantity. The smoothing is apparent in 2013, when the HUD reported count appears to be an outlier relative to prior and subsequent HUD reported counts. Though the 2013 posterior mean is pulled slightly upward toward the reported count, the model does not overfit the data. In the remaining years, the posterior mean closely tracks the reported HUD counts. In 2016, the HUD reported count of homeless in San Francisco was 6,996. If a second count were conducted in 2016, we expect the counted number of homeless would have been 6,984, with 95% posterior probability of being more than 6,499 and less than 7,492.
[.4]{}
[.4]{}
The predictive distribution $C_{i,t}^*$ $|C_{1:25,1:T},N_{1:25,1:T}$ provides policymakers and resource constrained counting agencies with a principled and data-driven way of conducting synthetic additionalhomeless counts. The posterior predictive distributions for additional 2016 counts in all metros are summarized in Table \[tab:Results\_Table\]. Each metro has its own version of Figure \[subfig:SanFrancisco\_Homeless\] in Appendix \[app:A\].
Metro HUD Synthetic count Total homeless Forecast (2017)
------------------ -------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- --
New York 73,523 74,633 (69,423, 79,426) 76,411 (73,683, 80,735) 76,341 (70,375, 83,079)
Los Angeles 46,874 46,149 (42,950, 49,279) 59,508 (57,024, 61,842) 61,398 (56,400, 66,508)
Chicago 6,841 7,158 (6,657, 7,679) 7,614 (7,271, 8,085) 7,641 (6,997, 8,362)
Dallas 3,810 3,782 (3,537, 3,967) 3,866 (3,811, 4,017) 4,019 (3,671, 4,406)
Philadelphia 6,112 6,082 (5,691, 6,428) 6,281 (6,132, 6,567) 6,345 (5,840, 6,898)
Houston 4,031 4,364 (4,070, 4,617) 5,032 (4,818, 5,152) 5,224 (4,788, 5,677)
Washington, D.C. 8,350 8,273 (7,740, 8,661) 8,498 (8,358, 8,794) 8,703 (8,047, 9,408)
Miami 4,235 4,263 (3,979, 4,546) 4,624 (4,437, 4,852) 4,701 (4,296, 5,139)
Atlanta 4,546 4,775 (4,427, 5,116) 5,447 (5,164, 5,722) 5,605 (5,109, 6,129)
Boston 6,240 6,291 (5,849, 6,696) 6,418 (6,242, 6,770) 6,557 (6,029, 7,150)
San Francisco 6,996 6,984 (6,499, 7,492) 8,752 (8,390, 9,170) 8,815 (8,104, 9,581)
Detroit 2,612 2,778 (2,538, 3,022) 2,872 (2,678, 3,097) 2,898 (2,602, 3,217)
Riverside 2,165 2,368 (2,174, 2,545) 3,207 (3,034, 3,316) 3,352 (3,036, 3,669)
Phoenix 5,702 5,840 (5,430, 6,259) 6,918 (6,604, 7,270) 7,162 (6,548, 7,838)
Seattle 10,730 10,720 (9,991, 11,458) 12,240 (11,734, 12,848) 12,763 (11,677, 13,940)
Minneapolis 3,056 3,250 (2,977, 3,532) 3,359 (3,141, 3,622) 3,531 (3,178, 3,923)
San Diego 8,669 8,775 (8,096, 9,446) 11,149 (10,572, 11,720) 11,455 (10,416, 12,524)
St. Louis 1,713 1,730 (1,611, 1,848) 1,879 (1,802, 1,976) 1,926 (1,740, 2,125)
Tampa 1,817 1,974 (1,794, 2,150) 3,090 (2,919, 3,226) 3,204 (2,909, 3,514)
Baltimore 3,488 3,508 (3,267, 3,753) 4,088 (3,914, 4,285) 4,121 (3,762, 4,504)
Denver 5,728 5,830 (5,431, 6,243) 6,320 (6,047, 6,670) 6,457 (5,917, 7,056)
Pittsburgh 1,156 1,268 (1,153, 1,367) 1,318 (1,217, 1,401) 1,375 (1,225, 1,529)
Portland 3,914 3,972 (3,688, 4,255) 4,674 (4,458, 4,906) 4,807 (4,374, 5,264)
Charlotte 1,818 1,913 (1,768, 2,050) 2,139 (2,027, 2,251) 2,249 (2,035, 2,475)
Sacramento 4,145 4,182 (3,884, 4,481) 5,107 (4,881, 5,350) 5,288 (4,820, 5,796)
: Summary of posterior distributions across metros for 2016. The number of counted homeless reported by HUD is presented the first column. The Synthetic counts column corresponds to the posterior predictive distribution for a second hypothetical count in metro $i$ in 2016, $C_{i,T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. The Total homeless column corresponds to the posterior predictive distribution for the total number of homeless in metro $i$ in 2016, $H_{i,T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25, 1:T}$. The Forecasted homeless (2017) column is the posterior predictive distribution for the total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,T+1} | C_{1:25, 1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. In all cases, the first number reported is the posterior mean, with the 95% posterior predictive interval in parenthesis.[]{data-label="tab:Results_Table"}
Imputed total number of homeless {#subsec:Results_Q4}
--------------------------------
Imperfect count accuracy leads to count totals that are less than the size of the total homeless population. By modeling the mechanism of count accuracy, we are able to include the uncounted number of homeless in our estimate of the size of the total homeless population. In this section, we predict the total number of homeless in each metro and year. We report the posterior distribution $H_{i,t} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Observe that the posterior distribution does not condition on the count accuracy parameter, $\pi_{i,t}$. The count accuracy has been integrated out; however, the variance of $H_{i,t} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$ is inextricably linked to the prior variance of the count accuracy, $\pi_{i,t}$. In this analysis, we fixed the prior variance to be 0.0005 so that prior mass would span the $\pm 0.05$ interval. Though it is appealing to specify a diffuse prior for count accuracy, we found in practice that such a prior does not provide sufficient regularization. In settings with overly diffuse priors for count accuracy, inference for $\phi_i$ was not reproducible across MCMC simulations. This highlights the importance of reliable prior information about count accuracy as it pertains to estimating the relationship between trends in ZRI and homelessness.
In Figure \[subfig:SanFrancisco\_Homeless\], observe that, because the counting process is imperfect, the expected total number of homeless is more than the counted number of homeless. In San Francisco, we expect that, in 2016, there were 8,752 people experiencing homelessness, with 95% posterior probability that there were more than 8,390 and fewer than 9,170. Table \[tab:Results\_Table\] presents the posterior mean and 95% credible interval for the total number of homeless in 2016 for each metro.
Forecasts for 2017 {#subsec:Results_Q5}
------------------
Resources to address the needs of a homeless population are budgeted well in advance of the January point-in-time count. In order to allocate resources in communities with growing (shrinking) homeless populations, a forecast of the next year’s total homeless population is needed. In this section, we forecast the total homeless population in each metro in January 2017.
Our forecasts of the homeless population for 2017 take into account both predicted increases in the 2017 total population and the January 2017 ZRI value. We report the one-year-ahead forecast $H_{i,T+1} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}, ZRI_{1:25,T+1}$. For true out-of-sample forecasting when $ZRI_{i,T+1}$ is not yet available, we could utilize Zillow’s forecasted ZRI for metro $i$, $\hat{ZRI}_{i,T+1}$.
Figure \[subfig:SanFran\_Pred\] illustrates the year-ahead forecast in San Francisco. Forecasting the total homeless population one year in the future requires forecasting both the year-ahead total metro population and log odds of homelessness. The uncertainty in these component year-ahead forecasts accumulates, and the result is an uncertainty interval for the 2017 year-ahead forecast that increases relative to the intervals presented from 2011-2016. This is observed in Figure \[subfig:SanFran\_Pred\] as the orange interval fans out relative to the blue interval.
We predict that 8,815 people experienced homelessness in San Francisco on any given January night in 2017, with 95% posterior probability of more than 8,104 and less than 9,581 people. Although the January 2017 ZRI decreased 3.6% relative to its January 2016 value, we still expect a slight increase in San Francisco’s total homeless population. The increase is largely driven by the model-based forecasted increase in San Francisco’s total population. Each metro has a figure corresponding to Figure \[subfig:SanFran\_Pred\] presented in Appendix \[app:A\]. The forecasted mean and 95% posterior predictive intervals for each metro are shown in Table \[tab:Results\_Table\].
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
We presented statistical evidence that the relationship between rental costs and homelessness depends on one’s beliefs about the time-varying accuracy of homeless counts. We highlight this fact to encourage public policy researchers, policymakers, and continuum leaders to carefully quantify their beliefs and uncertainty about count accuracy or the inferences drawn from studies relying on these counts. While the prior beliefs about count accuracy that we elicit in this paper are informed by existing literature and our discussions with count coordinators and homelessness experts from around the country, we believe that collecting expert opinions from every continuum can lead to a more robust and informed study. We encourage other researchers in this area to explicitly model variation in count accuracy when conducting their own analyses.
We found in synthetic data experiments that making accurate inference on the relationship between ZRI and homelessness with the model outlined in this paper requires homelessness rates that exceed 0.05% of the total population (Section \[subsec:Prior\_Psi\]). To work with counts as large as possible, this implies that sheltered and unsheltered homeless totals should be combined in a single analysis of a metro’s total homeless population. Furthermore, reliable estimates of the entire homeless population are significantly aided by a metro having either a large sheltered population or high count accuracy of the unsheletered population; utilizing data on unsheltered homeless populations alone does not yield reliable results. This observation fits with our broader theme of data quality.
Modeling count accuracy is another place where we have directly addressed data quality challenges. Acknowledging that a continuum’s homeless counts are imperfect and that the accuracy varies from one year to the next should not be viewed in any way as a failure of the count coordinators or volunteers. We view quantifying the count accuracy as an important step in accounting for the uncertainty inherent in such a difficult undertaking.
In our analysis, we have used the time-varying count accuracy to impute the size of the total homeless population. We believe it is natural in this application to think of the total homeless population as missing data. Assuming that the total population size is the observed count has two flaws. First, it understates the size of the homeless population. Second, it leads to overly confident estimates of regression coefficients $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_{25}$. Imputing the missing homeless population size naturally resolves both of these problems.
In this application, proper uncertainty quantification is critical. Counties, city governments, shelters, and health care providers are likely to benefit from an expected range of the homeless population size when they budget resources. By reporting the 95% posterior credible intervals on the total homeless population predictions and the 2017 forecasts, we emphasize the uncertain size of homeless populations now and in the future.
We provide evidence that the homelessness rate increased by at least 4% from 2011 - 2016 in five metros: New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Seattle. We also found that large increases in ZRI lead to significant increases in the homeless population in four of those five metros: New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. Homelessness in these four metros has significantly increased in recent years and is severely affected by increases in rental costs.
Metro-specific estimates of the relationship between rental costs and homelessness allow for each metro to make more informed policy decisions about affordable housing initiatives. Forecasts of year-ahead homeless populations can guide resource allocation. While we are not public policy experts, we believe that our results provide context for policy discussions that are happening in cities across the United States.
There are a few limitations of our current approach. One is that it does not account for relocation in homeless populations. It is possible that people experiencing homelessness move to cities with more services and away from cities with fewer services. In this scenario, increases in the population of one metro are driven by decreases in another. Our present approach does not take into account network effects, and we assume that homeless relocation patterns are not a significant driver of trends across metros. At present, we do not know of data that would allow us to further investigate network effects. A second limitation of our work is that it relies on January count data. It is likely that seasonal patterns in homelessness exist, though our current annual data set does not provide insight into such seasonal fluctuations. Modeling network effects and seasonal fluctuations in homeless populations are important areas of future work.
Results for remaining metros {#app:A}
============================
The figures for each metropolitan area (ordered by descending population) are presented below.
[.4]{} ![Results for New York, NY. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:NY_Results"}](NY_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for New York, NY. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:NY_Results"}](NY_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for New York, NY. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:NY_Results"}](NY_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for New York, NY. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:NY_Results"}](NY_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Los Angeles, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:LA_Results"}](LA_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Los Angeles, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:LA_Results"}](LA_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Los Angeles, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:LA_Results"}](LA_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Los Angeles, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:LA_Results"}](LA_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Chicago, IL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Chicago_Results"}](CHI_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Chicago, IL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Chicago_Results"}](CHI_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Chicago, IL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Chicago_Results"}](CHI_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Chicago, IL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Chicago_Results"}](CHI_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Dallas, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Dallas_Results"}](DAL_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Dallas, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Dallas_Results"}](DAL_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Dallas, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Dallas_Results"}](DAL_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Dallas, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Dallas_Results"}](DAL_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for the Philadelphia, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Philadelphia_Results"}](PHI_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for the Philadelphia, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Philadelphia_Results"}](PHI_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for the Philadelphia, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Philadelphia_Results"}](PHI_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for the Philadelphia, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Philadelphia_Results"}](PHI_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Houston, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Houston_Results"}](HOU_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Houston, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Houston_Results"}](HOU_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Houston, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Houston_Results"}](HOU_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Houston, TX. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Houston_Results"}](HOU_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Washington, D.C.. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:DC_Results"}](DC_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Washington, D.C.. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:DC_Results"}](DC_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Washington, D.C.. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:DC_Results"}](DC_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Washington, D.C.. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:DC_Results"}](DC_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Miami, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Miami_Results"}](MIA_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Miami, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Miami_Results"}](MIA_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Miami, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Miami_Results"}](MIA_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Miami, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Miami_Results"}](MIA_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Atlanta, GA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Atlanta_Results"}](ATL_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Atlanta, GA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Atlanta_Results"}](ATL_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Atlanta, GA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Atlanta_Results"}](ATL_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Atlanta, GA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Atlanta_Results"}](ATL_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Boston, MA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Boston_Results"}](BOS_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Boston, MA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Boston_Results"}](BOS_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Boston, MA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Boston_Results"}](BOS_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Boston, MA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Boston_Results"}](BOS_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Francisco, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SF_Results"}](SF_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Francisco, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SF_Results"}](SF_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Francisco, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SF_Results"}](SF_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Francisco, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SF_Results"}](SF_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Detroit, MI. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Detroit_Results"}](DET_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Detroit, MI. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Detroit_Results"}](DET_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Detroit, MI. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Detroit_Results"}](DET_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Detroit, MI. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Detroit_Results"}](DET_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Riverside, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Riverside_Results"}](RIV_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Riverside, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Riverside_Results"}](RIV_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Riverside, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Riverside_Results"}](RIV_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Riverside, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Riverside_Results"}](RIV_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Phoenix, AZ. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Phoenix_Results"}](PHO_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Phoenix, AZ. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Phoenix_Results"}](PHO_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Phoenix, AZ. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Phoenix_Results"}](PHO_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Phoenix, AZ. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Phoenix_Results"}](PHO_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Seattle / King County, WA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_Results"}](SEA_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Seattle / King County, WA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_Results"}](SEA_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Seattle / King County, WA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_Results"}](SEA_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Seattle / King County, WA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Seattle_Results"}](SEA_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Minneapolis, MN. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Minneapolis_Results"}](MIN_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Minneapolis, MN. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Minneapolis_Results"}](MIN_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Minneapolis, MN. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Minneapolis_Results"}](MIN_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Minneapolis, MN. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Minneapolis_Results"}](MIN_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Diego, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SD_Results"}](SD_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Diego, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SD_Results"}](SD_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Diego, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SD_Results"}](SD_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for San Diego, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:SD_Results"}](SD_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for St. Louis, MO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:StLouis_Results"}](STL_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for St. Louis, MO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:StLouis_Results"}](STL_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for St. Louis, MO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:StLouis_Results"}](STL_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for St. Louis, MO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:StLouis_Results"}](STL_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Tampa, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Tampa_Results"}](TAM_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Tampa, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Tampa_Results"}](TAM_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Tampa, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Tampa_Results"}](TAM_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Tampa, FL. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Tampa_Results"}](TAM_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Baltimore, MD. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Baltimore_Results"}](BAL_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Baltimore, MD. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Baltimore_Results"}](BAL_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Baltimore, MD. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Baltimore_Results"}](BAL_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Baltimore, MD. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Baltimore_Results"}](BAL_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Denver, CO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Denver_Results"}](DEN_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Denver, CO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Denver_Results"}](DEN_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Denver, CO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Denver_Results"}](DEN_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Denver, CO. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Denver_Results"}](DEN_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Pittsburgh, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Pittsburgh_Results"}](PIT_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Pittsburgh, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Pittsburgh_Results"}](PIT_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Pittsburgh, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Pittsburgh_Results"}](PIT_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Pittsburgh, PA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Pittsburgh_Results"}](PIT_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Portland, OR. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Portland_Results"}](POR_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Portland, OR. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Portland_Results"}](POR_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Portland, OR. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Portland_Results"}](POR_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Portland, OR. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Portland_Results"}](POR_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Charlotte, NC. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Charlotte_Results"}](CLT_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Charlotte, NC. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Charlotte_Results"}](CLT_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Charlotte, NC. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Charlotte_Results"}](CLT_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Charlotte, NC. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Charlotte_Results"}](CLT_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Sacramento, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Sacramento_Results"}](SAC_Homeless.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Sacramento, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Sacramento_Results"}](SAC_Homeless_Forecast.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Sacramento, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Sacramento_Results"}](SAC_Homeless_Increase.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.4]{} ![Results for Sacramento, CA. Top left (a): Posterior predictive distribution for homeless counts, $C_{i,1:T}^* | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$, in green, and the imputed total homeless population size, $H_{i,1:T}|C_{1:25,1:T}, H_{1:25,1:T}$, in blue. The black ’x’ marks correspond to the observed (raw) homeless count by year. The count accuracy is modeled with a constant expectation. Top right (b): Predictive distribution for total homeless population in 2017, $H_{i,2017} | C_{1:25,1:T}, N_{1:25,1:T}$. Bottom left (c): Posterior distribution of increase in total homeless population with increases in ZRI. Bottom right (d): Sensitivity of the inferred increase in the homelessness rate from 2011 - 2016 to different annual changes in count accuracy.[]{data-label="fig:Sacramento_Results"}](SAC_psi_sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[^1]: Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, and Department of Statistics, University of Washington, <[email protected]>
[^2]: Departments of Statistics and Computer Science, University of Washington, <[email protected]>
[^3]: This work was supported by Zillow, AFOSR Grant FA9550-16-1-0038, and NSF CAREER Award IIS-1350133. The authors thank Surya Tokdar, Svenja Gudell, Cory Hopkins, and Melissa Allison for helpful discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The normal state and superconducting properties of $MgB_2$ and $%
Mg_{1-x}Al_xB_2$ are discussed based on structural, transport, and high-pressure experiments. The positive Seebeck coefficient and its linear temperature dependence for $T_c<T<160$ K provide evidence that the low-temperature transport in MgB$_2$ is due to hole-like metallic carriers. Structural and transport data show the important role of defects as indicated by the correlation of T$_c$, the residual resistance ratio, and the microstrain extracted from x-ray spectra. The decrease of T$_c$ with hydrostatic pressure is well explained by the strong-coupling BCS theory. The large scatter of the pressure coefficients of T$_c$ for different MgB$_2$ samples, however, cannot be explained within this theory. We speculate that pressure may increase the defect density, particularly in samples with large initial defect concentration.
address:
- |
Texas Center for Superconductivity and Department of Physics,\
University of Houston,\
Houston, TX 77204-5932, USA
- |
$^*$also at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road,\
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
author:
- 'B. Lorenz, Y. Y. Xue, R. L. Meng, and C. W. Chu$^*$'
title: 'Superconductivity in pure and electron doped $MgB_2$: Transport properties and pressure effects'
---
Introduction
------------
The discovery of superconductivity at 40 K in $MgB_{2}$ by Nagamatsu et al. [@1] has initiated a tremendous amount of experimental and theoretical work (for a review see Bueza et al.[@2]). $MgB_{2}$ appears to be electrically three dimensional and its grain boundaries have a far less detrimental effect on the superconducting current. The low magnetic anisotropy, the large coherence length, and the high critical current densities in magnetic fields (as compared e.g. to the cuprate superconductors) recommend this compound for device-related applications. The low costs of producing bulk ceramics, thin films, tapes, and wires further reveal the huge potential this compound may have in the near future. $MgB_{2}$ crystallizes in the hexagonal $AlB_{2}$ structure. The honeycomb-like boron layers are separated by the magnesium ions. In analogy to the graphite lattice $MgB_{2}$ may be considered as a completely intercalated graphite structure. Early band structure calculations[@3] have shown that Mg substantially donates charges into the boron layers and that the electronic bands at the Fermi energy derive mainly from the boron $p
$-bands. Thereby, the Fermi surface displays sheets of hole-like as well as electron-like character. The electrical transport properties in the normal state are sufficiently well described by the Bloch-Grüneisen law of normal metals. The temperature dependence of the resistivity follows a power law with exponents between 2 and 3[@4; @5] indicating that the temperature dependent scattering process is the electron-phonon scattering. For a simple binary compound $T_{c}$ appears to be unusually large. Therefore, the mechanism of superconductivity has been a matter of discussion and different models have been proposed[@3; @6]. Within the BCS model the high $T_{c}$ may be explained by the relatively large energy of the boron phonon modes due to the low mass of the boron ions and a strong electron-phonon interaction (strong coupling limit, coupling constant $\lambda $). The phonon-mediated mechanism is supported by a number of experimental results, notably the observed isotope effects[@7], tunnelling measurements of the superconducting gap,[@8; @9; @10] and estimates of the electron-phonon coupling constant ($\lambda \thickapprox 0.7...0.9$) from specific heat[@11] and phonon density-of-states measurements.[@12] Calculations of the electronic and phononic structures [@3; @13; @14; @15; @16] have shown that the bond stretching modes of the boron couple strongly to the $p_{x,y}$ electronic bands and the electron-phonon coupling parameter was estimated between 0.7 and 0.9, lending further support to the strong coupling BCS theory. In contrast to the BCS theory, Hirsch[@6] has proposed an alternative model where superconductivity in $MgB_{2}$ is driven by the pairing of dressed holes. In fact, indications for hole-type conduction in the normal state originally found in the positive thermoelectric power[@17] where confirmed by Hall effect measurements and analogies to high-$T_{c}
$ cuprate superconductors have been discussed. [@18] However, one of the main predictions of this model, an increase of $T_{c}$ with pressure, could not be confirmed by early high-pressure experiments.[@17; @19] Soon after the discovery of superconductivity in pure $MgB_{2}$ attempts have been made to raise $T_{c}$ by substituting the elements Mg or B by ions of different size and/or valency (e.g. Al, Li, C, Cu, Be, Na, Zn, Mn, Si, Co, Ni, Fe). No increase of $T_{c}$ has been reported so far. However, substitutions are a tool to modify certain microscopic parameters such as lattice constants and carrier densities and may facilitate the understanding of the microscopic mechanisms in the normal and superconducting states. Based on the theory of normal metals we discuss the transport properties, especially the thermoelectric effect, of $MgB_{2}$ and $Mg_{1-x}Al_{x}B_{2}$ (Section B). In Section C the influence of defects on $T_{c}$, lattice constants, and electronic transport is investigated. Pressure effects on the superconducting transition temperature are discussed in the final Section.
Thermoelectric Transport Properties of $MgB_{2}$ and $%
Mg_{1-x}Al_{x}B_{2}$
-------------------------------------------------------
Electrical transport measurements of $MgB_{2}$ have been reported in a large number of papers. The resistivity roughly follows a power law,
$$\rho (T)=\rho _{0}+AT^{n} \eqnum{1}$$
with an exponent $n$ between 2 and 3. Equation (1) actually can be derived from the generalized Bloch-Grüneisen law for temperatures well below the Debye temperature.[@5] The first term in (1), $\rho _{0}$, reflects the temperature independent scattering mechanisms (e.g. impurity or defect scattering) and the second term represents the contribution due to phonon scattering. Below about $100\ K$ the phonon term is already very small as compared to $\rho _{0}$ indicating that the material is close to the residual resistance limit. Resistivity data, however, are controversial because they are strongly affected by scattering at grain boundaries, defects, and impurities. A measure of these effects may be found in the residual resistance ratio, $RRR=\rho (300K)/\rho _{0}$, where $\rho _{0}$ in $MgB_{2}$ is well approximated by $\rho (40K)$. A small $RRR$ indicates a high density of defects and impurities. For $MgB_{2}$ the majority of the published data show $RRR$-values between 1 and 3, but larger values up to 25 have also been reported. The implications of a high defect concentration on structural, transport, and superconducting properties will be discussed in Section C. The Seebeck coefficient is far less affected by grain boundaries and impurities. Furthermore, it reflects the nature of the charge carriers at the Fermi surface more sensitively than the conductivity. The thermoelectric power, $S(T)$, of $Mg_{1-x}Al_{x}B_{2}$ is shown in Fig. 1. The inset clearly shows the decrease of $T_{c}$ with Al-substitution in accordance with susceptibility[@20] as well as resistivity data[@21]. The most remarkable features of $S(T)$ are the positive sign over the whole temperature range and the linear temperature dependence from $T_{c}$ to about 160 $K$ ($MgB_{2}$). At higher temperatures $S(T)$ deviates from the straight line and tends to saturate at room temperature. The sign and the linear dependence $S\thicksim T$ are interpreted as the diffusion thermopower of a hole-type normal metal. The hole character of the charge carriers in $MgB_{2}$ was also seen in the positive Hall number.[@18] Band structure calculations[@3] have shown that the Fermi surface consists of several hole as well as electron like sheets. At low temperatures ($T<160\ K$) the hole carriers obviously dominate the charge transport, but at higher $T$ electron-like states add a negative contribution to $S(T)$. This may explain the deviations from the linearity above 160 K.[@21; @22] Neglecting higher order corrections the diffusion thermopower, $S_{d}$, is described by the Mott formula,[@23]
$$S_{d}=\frac{\pi ^{2}k^{2}T}{3e}\left[ \frac{\partial \ln \sigma (\varepsilon
)}{\partial \varepsilon }\right] _{E_{F}} \eqnum{2}$$
$k$ denotes Boltzmann’s constant, $e$ the charge of the carriers, $E_{F}$ the Fermi energy, and $\sigma (\varepsilon )$ is a conductivity-like function for carriers of energy $\varepsilon $. In the residual resistance region the logarithmic derivative is simply $1/E_{F}$,
$$S_{d}=\frac{\pi ^{2}k^{2}T}{3eE_{F}} \eqnum{3}$$
For hole carriers the Fermi energy, $E_{F}$, refers to the top of the conduction band. From equation 3 and the measured slope of $S(T)$ ($%
dS/dT=0.042\ \mu V/K^{2}$ for $x=0$) a rough estimate of $E_{F}$ can be obtained, $E_{F}\thickapprox 0.57\ eV$. This value may be underestimated since we have not considered yet any additional contribution (e.g. phonon drag) to $S(T)$. The phonon drag effect results in a non-linear $S\thicksim
T^{3}$ at low temperatures, but this is not seen in the data of Fig. 1. For metals with high defect or impurity concentration it is expected that phonon drag is diminished due to the suppression of the phonon heat current.[@23] Furthermore, the accessible temperatures ($T>40\ K$) for the normal state thermoelectric power appear to be too high to reveal the true low temperature behaviour of $S(T)$. The extrapolation of the linear $S(T)$ to zero temperature yields a small negative value, a possible indication of a ”hidden” phonon drag contribution. Therefore, the slope of $S(T)$ and the estimated $E_{F}$ should be considered as an upper bound for the diffusion part and as a lower limit for the Fermi energy, respectively. Assuming that charge transport below $160\ K$ is mainly due to hole carriers in the $%
\sigma $ bands our estimate for $E_{F}$ is in fair agreement with the calculated difference between the Fermi energy and the top of the $\sigma $ bands, $0.9\ eV$ .[@24] It is more interesting to investigate the effects of electron doping (Al substitution) on $S(T)$ and $T_{c}$. According to the calculated band structure[@3] (within a rigid band model) the addition of electrons reduces the Fermi energy (for $\sigma $ holes) and the density of states $N(E_{F})$. Suzuki et al.[@24] calculated a decrease of $E_{F}$ by $17\ \%$ for $Mg_{0.9}Al_{0.1}B_{2}$. From the data of Fig. 1 we estimate an increase of slope of $S(T)$ in the linear region from $0.042\ \mu V/K^{2}$ ($x=0$) to $0.047\ \mu V/K^{2}$ ($%
x=0.05$) and $0.050\ \mu V/K^{2}$ ($x=0.1$). The corresponding decrease of $%
E_{F}$ by $16\ \%$ ($x=0.1$) is in excellent agreement with the calculated value. The decrease of the superconducting transition temperature with Al substitution is explained as a density-of-states effect within the strong coupling BCS theory. $T_{c}$ is given by the McMillan formula,
$$T_{c}=\frac{\omega _{\ln }}{1.2}\exp \left[ -\frac{1.04\left( 1+\lambda
\right) }{\lambda -\mu ^{\ast }(1+0.62\lambda )}\right] \eqnum{4}$$
$\omega _{\ln }$ is the logarithmically averaged phonon frequency, $\mu
^{\ast }$ the screened Coulomb potential and $\lambda =N(E_{F})\left\langle
I^{2}\right\rangle /M\left\langle \omega ^{2}\right\rangle $ is the electron-phonon coupling constant. $\left\langle I^{2}\right\rangle $ and $%
\left\langle \omega ^{2}\right\rangle $ are the average square of the electronic matrix element and the phonon frequency, respectively, and $M$ is the atomic mass. Band structure calculations have shown that $E_{F}$ of $%
MgB_{2}$ is right at an edge of rapidly decreasing density of states.[@3] The increase of the electron number (or decrease of the hole number) leads to a decrease of $N(E_{F})$ and $\lambda $ and, according to (4), to the observed reduction of $T_{c}$.
The Influence of Defects on Electronic Transport and $T_{c}$
------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical resistivity data for $MgB_{2}$ samples reported by various groups are qualitatively well described by (1). However, huge differences in the residual resistance ratio have been reported. Whereas the $RRR$ varies generally between 2 and 3 values as small as 1 and as large as 25 are possible. Low $RRR$ values are an indication of a large concentration of defects and impurities and, within the BCS theory, a decrease of $T_{c}$ is expected with the increase of defect density.[@25]
We have synthesized a large number of polycrystalline $MgB_{2}$ samples with $RRR$ values between 2 and 8 (depending on the conditions of synthesis). The $T_{c}$ values as function of $RRR$ are shown in Fig. 2. Although the variance in $T_{c}$ is less than $2\ K$ there is a clear tendency of $T_{c}$ increasing with $RRR$ in accordance with similar data for A15 thin film superconductors.[@25; @26] Extending the range of $T_{c}$ and $RRR$ by including available data on $MgB_{2}$ films and neutron irradiated bulk samples it was shown very recently that the Testardi correlation is fulfilled over a wider range of $T_{c}$ and $RRR$ values[@2] and an explanation was proposed in form of a defect-induced weak localization correction to the electron-phonon coupling constant.[@27] Further evidence for a high defect density should be found in structural parameters, e.g. an increase of the lattice constant due to defects was observed in the A15 compounds.[@26] It is also expected that the broader distribution of (local) lattice parameters due to the presence of defects causes a broadening of x- ray peaks. This effect can be extracted from x-ray spectra and is quantitatively characterized by the microstrain, $\epsilon $. Fig. 3 shows both, the lattice parameters $a$, $c$ and $\epsilon $ as a function of $RRR$ (a more detailed discussion is given in ref. 28). Whereas $c$ shows the expected increase with decreasing $RRR$ (i.e. increasing defect density) a similar clear tendency is missing in the lattice parameter $a$. Obviously, defects in $MgB_{2}$ mainly affect the inter-plane spacing. The microstrain is strongly increasing because of the larger (local) distortion of the lattice at the higher defect content (Fig. 3 B). The results of this Section show that the majority of the $MgB_{2}$ bulk samples and thin films (with low $RRR$) have a high defect concentration giving rise to the differences in $T_{c}$, $RRR$, and structural parameters reported by various groups in recent publications.
Pressure Effects on $T_{c}$: Current Understanding and Unsolved Problems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon after the discovery of superconductivity in $MgB_{2}$ there was the speculation[@6] that the application of pressure might enhance $T_{c}$ well above 40 $K$ similar to what has been found more than a decade ago in high $T_{c}$ cuprate superconductors. Unfortunately, the first pressure experiments clearly indicated a suppression of $T_{c}$ with hydrostatic pressure.[@17; @19] This result was confirmed by a number of subsequent high-pressure investigations.[@29; @30; @31; @32; @33; @34; @35] Whereas all reports agree about the negative sign of $dT_{c}/dp$, the differences in the value are still a matter of discussion. $T_{c}$ decreases linearly with $p$ in the low-pressure range ($p<2\ GPa$) with a coefficient varying between $-1\
K/GPa $ and $-2\ K/GPa$.[@17; @29; @30; @31; @32; @33; @34] Experiments on $MgB_{2}$ in an extremely non-hydrostatic environment yield an even lower value ($-0.3$ to $-0.8\ K/GPa$) for the pressure coefficient of $T_{c}$.[@19; @35] At higher pressure ($p>10\ GPa$) deviations from linearity become obvious.[@32; @33; @34] The order of magnitude and the sign of $dT_{c}/dp$ are well explained by the strong coupling BCS theory. Calculations of the pressure effect on the band structure and the electron-phonon coupling found reasonable agreement with the experimental data.[@36] Using equation (4) the pressure coefficient is calculated as
$$\frac{d\ln T_{c}}{dp}=\frac{d\ln (\omega _{\ln })}{dp}+\frac{1.04\lambda
(1+0.38\mu ^{\ast })}{\left[ \lambda \left( 1-0.62\mu ^{\ast }\right) -\mu
^{\ast }\right] ^{2}}\left\{ \frac{d\ln N\left( E_{F}\right) }{dp}-\frac{%
d\ln \left\langle \omega ^{2}\right\rangle }{dp}\right\} \eqnum{5}$$
Thereby, any pressure dependence of $\mu ^{\ast }$ and $\left\langle
I^{2}\right\rangle $ was neglected. With reasonable values for $\mu ^{\ast
}\thickapprox 0.1$ and $\lambda \thickapprox 0.7$ Loa and Syassen[@36] found good agreement of the calculated $dlnT_{c}/dp$ with the available data. It is interesting to note that both terms in the wavy brackets of (5) give a negative contribution ($N(E_{F})$ decreases and the average phonon frequency increases with pressure) but the change of $\left\langle \omega
^{2}\right\rangle $ dominates the pressure effect.
There is an ongoing discussion about the very different values of $dT_{c}/dp$ reported so far. Tomita et al.[@30] speculated that the pressure coefficient might be sensitive to the pressure medium used in the experiments and to shear stress possibly introduced by less hydrostatic pressure conditions resulting in a larger absolute value (closer to $2\ K/GPa
$) of $dT_{c}/dp$. Contrary to this assumption, the smallest values of $%
\left| dT_{c}/dp\right| $ have been obtained using the most non-hydrostatic media, steatite.[@19; @35] It should be noted that all pressure media (except He below $0.5\ GPa$) freeze above $T_{c}$ of $MgB_{2}$. We have measured different $MgB_{2}$ samples at hydrostatic (He gas pressure) and quasi-hydrostatic (Fluorinert liquid) conditions and did not find a strong sensitivity of $dT_{c}/dp$ to the pressure medium.[@17; @31] In particular, we found different pressure coefficients for different samples under the same hydrostatic pressure conditions.[@31] No change of $%
dT_{c}/dp$ was observed in our He gas pressure experiments in passing through the 0.5 GPa threshold above which the He freezes above $T_{c}$. However, our experiments clearly show a correlation of the pressure coefficient and the ambient pressure $T_{c}$ (Fig. 4). Samples with smaller $%
T_{c}$ tend to have a larger pressure coefficient. Additional data from literature are also included in Fig. 4 (open symbols) and support the correlation between $T_{c}$ and the pressure coefficient. Based on the discussion of the previous Section the lower $T_{c}$ reflects a higher degree of defects and distortions of the $MgB_{2}$ structure. Park et al. [@27] suggested that the defects mainly cause a reduction of the electron-phonon coupling constant, $\lambda $, due to weak localization effects. One may raise the question if the same reduction of $\lambda $ can also explain the observed differences in the pressure coefficient. The maximum change of $T_{c}$ of about $2\ K$ corresponds to an increase of $%
dT_{c}/dp$ by a factor of 2 (from $-1\ K/GPa$ to $-2\ K/GPa$, Fig. 4). Using equation (4) with reasonable parameters, $\lambda =0.7...1$ and $\mu ^{\ast
}=0.1...0.13$, we estimate that $\lambda $ decreases by about $2$ to $3.5\ \%
$ for a $2\ K$ drop of $T_{c}$. Using equation (5) and the estimated values for $dln\omega /dp\thickapprox 0.71\ \%/GPa$ and $dln\lambda /dp\thickapprox
-1.7\ \%/GPa$[@36] we calculate the change of $dT_{c}/dp$ if it is solely due to the decrease of $\lambda $. We find that the expected change of the pressure coefficient is negligibly small ($<1\ \%$) for the reasonable values of $\lambda $ and $\mu ^{\ast }$ listed above. Therefore, the large differences of $dT_{c}/dp$ observed for different $MgB_{2}$ samples and the correlation with $T_{c}$ (Fig. 4) cannot be explained by the decrease of the ambient pressure $\lambda $ due to defect-induced weak localization effects.[@27] Other mechanisms have to be considered to understand the high-pressure data.
One possibility we may speculate about is an increase of defect concentration by pressure. This would give rise to an additional suppression of $\lambda $ and $T_{c}$ with pressure. The effect could be small for samples with higher $T_{c}$ (or lower initial defect density) but larger for ”poor” samples with a high defect concentration at ambient conditions. In fact, recent experiments have shown that application of high pressure may even irreversibly change the superconducting properties, particularly $T_{c}$.[@37] Careful structural characterization of $MgB_{2}$ at high pressure should give additional insight into the role of defects and how they are affected by external pressure.
This work was supported in part by NSF Grant No. DMR-9804325, MRSEC/NSF Grant No. DMR- 9632667, the T. L. L. Temple Foundation, the John and Rebecca Moores Endowment, the State of Texas through the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston, and at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of Basic Sciences, Division of Material Sciences of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE- AC0376SF00098.
Nagamatsu, J., Nakagawa, N., Muranaka, T., Zenitani, Y., and Akimitsu, J. (2001) Superconductivity at 39 K in magnesium diboride, Nature 410, 63.
Bueza C. and Yamashita T. (2001) Review of superconducting properties of $MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0108265, August 26.
Kortus, J., Mazin, I. I., Belashenko, K. D., Antropov, V. P., and Boyer, L. L. (2001) Superconductivity of metallic boron in $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 4656.
Finnemore, D. K., Ostenson, J. E., Bud’ko, S. L., Lapertot, G., and Canfield, P. C. (2001) Thermodynamic and transport properties of superconducting $Mg^{10}B_{2}$, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 2420.
Kong, Y., Dolgov, O. V., Jepsen, O., and Andersen, O. K. (2001) Electron-phonon interaction in the normal and superconducting states of $%
MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0102499 February 27.
Hirsch, J. E. (2001) Hole superconductivity in $MgB_{2}$: a high $T_{c}$ cuprate without Cu, Physics Letters A 282, 392.
Bud’ko, S. L., Lapertot, G., Petrovic, C., Cunningham, C. E., Anderson, N., and Canfield, P. C. (2001) Boron isotope effect in superconducting $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 1877.
Karapetrov, G., Iavarone, M., Kwok, W. K., Crabtree, G. W., and Hinks, D. G. (2001) Scanning tunnelling spectroscopy in $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 4374.
Sharoni, A., Felner, I., Millo, O. (2001) Tunneling spectroscopic measurements of the superconductor gap parameter of $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B 63, 220508.
Schmidt, H., Zasadzinski, J. F., Gray, K. E., Hinks, D. G. (2001) Energy gap from tunnelling and metallic Sharvin contacts onto $MgB_{2}
$: Evidence for a weakened surface layer, Phys. Rev. B 63, 220504.
Wang, Y., Plackowski, T., and Junod, A. (2001) Specific heat in the superconducting and normal state (2-300 K, 0-16 T), and magnetic susceptibility of the 38 K superconductor $MgB_{2}$: evidence for a multicomponent gap, Physica C 355, 179.
Osborn, R., Goremychkin, E. A., Kolesnikov, A. I., and Hinks, D. G. (2001) Phonon density-of-states in $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. Letters 87, 017005.
An, J. M. and Pickett, W. E. (2001) Superconductivity of $%
MgB_{2}$: Covalent bonds driven metallic, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 4366.
Kong, Y., Dolgov, O. V., Jepsen, O., and Andersen, O. K. (2001) Electron-phonon interaction in the normal and superconducting states of $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B 64, 020501.
Yildirim, T., Gulseren, O., Lynn, J. W., Brown, C. M., Udovic, T. J., Qing, H. Z., Rogado, N., Regan, K. A., Hayward, M. A., Slusky, J. S., He, T., Haas, M. K., Khalifah, P., Inumaru, K., and Cava, R. J. (2001) Giant anharmonicity and non-linear electron-phonon coupling in $MgB_{2}$: A combined first-principles calculations and neutron scattering study, Phys. Rev. Letters 87, 037001.
Bohnen, K.-P., Heid, R., and Renker, B. (2001) Phonon dispersion and electron-phonon coupling in $MgB_{2}$ and $AlB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. Letters 86, 5771.
Lorenz, B., Meng, R. L., and Chu, C. W. (2001) High pressure study on $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B 64, 012507.
Kang, W. N., Jung, C. U., Kim, K. H. P., Park, M. S., Lee, S. Y., Kim, H. J., Choi, E. M., Kim, K. H., Kim, M. S., and Lee, S. I. (2001) Hole carrier in $MgB_{2}$ characterized by Hall measurements, preprint cond-mat/0102313 February 20.
Monteverde, M., Nunez-Regueiro, M., Rogado, N., Regan, K. A., Hayward, M. A., He, T., Loureiro, S. M., and Cava, R. J. (2001) Pressure dependence of the superconducting transition temperature of magnesium diboride, Science 292, 75.
Slusky, J. S., Rogado, N., Regan, K. A., Hayward, M. A., Khalifah, P., He, T., Inumaru, K., Loureiro, S., Haas, M. K., Zandbergen, H. W., and Cava, R. J. (2001) Loss of superconductivity with the addition of Al to $MgB_{2}$ and a structural transition in $Mg_{1-x}Al_{x}B_{2}$, Nature (London) 410, 343.
Lorenz, B., Meng, R. L., Xue, Y. Y., and Chu, C. W. (2001) Thermoelectric power and transport properties of $Mg_{1-x}Al_{x}B_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B 64, 052513.
Muranaka, T., Akimitsu, J., and Sera, M. (2001) Thermal transport properties of $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B 64, 020505.
Blatt, F. J., Schroeder, P. A., and Foiles, C. L. (1976) Thermoelectric power of metals, Plenum Press, New York.
Suzuki, S., Higai, S., and Nakao, K. (2001) Two-dimensional sigma-hole systems in boron layers: A first principles study on $%
Mg_{1-x}Na_{x}B_{2}$ and $Mg_{1-x}Al_{x}B_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0102484 February 27
Testardi, L. R., Meek, R. L., Poate, J. M., Royer, W. A., Storm, A. R., and Wernick, J. H. (1975) Preparation and analysis of superconducting Nb-Ge films, Phys. Rev. B 11, 4304.
Poate, J. M., Testardi, L. R., Storm, A. R., and Augustyniak, W. M. (1975) $^{4}He$-induced damage in superconducting Nb-Ge films, Phys. Rev. Letters 35, 1290.
Park, M. A., Savran, K., and Kim, Y. J. (2001) A new method of probing the phonon mechanism in superconductors, including $MgB_{2}$, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 14, L31.
Xue, Y. Y., Meng, R. L., Lorenz, B., Meen, J. K., Sun, Y. Y., and Chu, C. W. (2001) Nonstoichiometry, defects and transport properties in $%
MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0105478 May 24.
Saito, E., Takenobu, T., Ito, T., Iwasa, Y., Prassides, K., and Arima, T. (2001) Pressure dependence of $T_{c}$ in the $MgB_{2}$ superconductor as probed by resistivity measurements, J. Phys. Cond. Matter 13 L267.
Tomita, T., Hamlin, J. J., Schilling, J. S., Hinks, D. G., and Jorgensen, J. D. (2001) Dependence of$T_{c}$ on hydrostatic pressure in superconducting $MgB_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B 64, 092505.
Lorenz, B., Meng, R. L., and Chu, C. W. (2001) Hydrostatic pressure effect on the superconducting transition temperature of $MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0104303 April 17.
Tissen, V. G., Nefedova, M. V., Kolesnikov, N. N., and Kulakov, M. P. (2001) Effect of pressure on the superconducting $T_{c}$ of $%
MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0105475 May 24.
Deemyad, S., Schilling, J. S., Jorgensen, J. D., and Hinks, D. G. (2001) Dependence of the superconducting transition temperature of $%
MgB_{2}$ on pressure to 20 GPa, preprint cond-mat/0106057 June 5.
Goncharov, A. F., Struzhkin, V. V., Gregoryanz, E., Mao, H. K., Hemley, R. J., Lapertot, G., Bud’ko, S. L., Canfield, P. C., and Mazin, I. I. (2001) Pressure dependence of the Raman spectrum, lattice parameters and superconducting critical temperature of $MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0106258 June 13.
Bordet, P., Mezouar, M., Nunez-Regueiro, N., Monteverde, M., Nunez-Regueiro, M. D., Rogado, N., Regan, K. A., Hayward, M. A., He, T., Loureiro, S. M., and Cava, R. J. (2001) Absence of a structural transition up to 40 GPa in $MgB_{2}$ and the relevance of magnesium non-stoichiometry, preprint cond-mat/0106585 June 28.
Loa, I. and Syassen, K. (2001) Calculated elastic and electronic properties of $MgB_{2}$ at high pressures, Solid State Commun. 118, 575.
Schlachter, S. I., Fietz, W. H., Grube, K., and Goldacker, W. (2001) High pressure studies of $T_{c}$ and lattice parameters of $MgB_{2}$, preprint cond-mat/0107205 July 10.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J.O. Stenflo'
title: Dark energy as an emergent phenomenon
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
According to standard cosmology the universe is 13.8 billion years old and spatially flat, but only 4.9% of the critical mean energy density that is required for flatness is in the form of ordinary matter, baryons. The rest of the energy density resides in two enigmatic components, 25.9% as dark matter and 69.1% as dark energy [@stenflo-planck2016]. While the discovery of dark matter goes back to @stenflo-zwicky1937 and remains a mystery eight decades later, dark energy was introduced two decades ago to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe that was revealed by the use of supernovae type Ia as standard candles [@stenflo-riessetal1998; @stenflo-perlmutteretal1999]. The physical nature of dark energy also remains a complete mystery and is being treated as a fitting parameter in the standard cosmological models, in the form of a cosmological constant.
@stenflo-einstein17 introduced the cosmological constant to allow for a static universe but considered it a blunder after observations revealed that the universe was not static but expanding. All later observations were compatible with a zero cosmological constant $\Lambda$ until the accelerated expansion was discovered. $\Lambda$ represents a property of the spacetime metric in the form of a vacuum energy that one would expect in quantum field theories (QFT). It can therefore be expected to represent the vacuum energy in a theory of quantum gravity. The problem is that estimates based on straightforward dimensional analysis lead to a predicted value for $\Lambda$ that is about 122 orders of magnitude larger than the presently observed value (cf. Eq. (\[eq:rhoscaling\]) below). This monumental discrepancy illustrates how far we are from an understanding of the gravitational role of the quantum vacuum. It has led to the belief that a resolution of the dark energy enigma will require a theory of quantum gravity [cf. @stenflo-binetruy2013].
If the vacuum energy were as large as expected from QFT, and if this energy were a source of gravity, then the universe would collapse on a miniscule time scale without the opportunity to grow large to allow a sufficient time scale for biological evolution. Long before the accelerated expansion was discovered @stenflo-weinberg1987 invoked the anthropic principle to set tight upper limits on the magnitude of $\Lambda$, which would be compatible with our existence as observers. While such an argument effectively restricted the allowed range, it opened the door to the possibility of parallel universes with other values of $\Lambda$, most of which (an infinity of them) with values incompatible with the existence of life. String theory allows a “landscape” of $10^{500}$ possible universes, and as no theoretical procedure to choose among them has yet been found, the anthropic argument has again been invoked and presented as if it would offer an explanation for the kind of universe that we live in [cf. @stenflo-ellis2009].
Before the discovery of accelerated expansion it seemed that the mean energy density of the universe was much smaller than the critical density required for spatial flatness, even when accounting for all the invisible dark matter. This would be incompatible with inflation, which predicts that the present universe must have nearly zero curvature. The discovered dark energy filled the gap. All forms of energy, baryonic, non-baryonic, and vacuum energy, now add up to the critical density, thus restoring flatness.
One major conceptual problem with a cosmological constant is that it leads to a cosmology that is in gross violation of the Copernican principle, which states that we are not privileged observers in the universe. In the cosmological context it is often referred to as the cosmic coincidence problem. When the universe expands as described by a scale factor $a(t)$, $\Lambda$ stays constant while the densities of matter and radiation vary as $a^{-3}$ and $a^{-4}$, respectively. This implies that the radiation energy density in the Planck era dominated over the vacuum energy density by 122 orders of magnitude, while in the future it is the vacuum energy density that will dominate by an increasing number of orders of magnitude. We happen to live in an epoch when the vacuum and matter energy densities are of the same order. This extraordinary coincidence has not been given any explanation other than again referring to the anthropic principle.
Let us now turn from dark energy to dark matter. Evidence for its existence comes from a variety of observations, the most important ones being the rotation curves of galaxies, the velocity dispersion of galaxies in clusters, and gravitational lensing. While explanations in terms of modified gravity have been tried, the general consensus is now that dark matter really exists in the form of particles. Particularly convincing evidence for this comes from observations of a collision between two galaxy clusters, the Bullet Cluster, which shows that the visible component is significantly displaced by the collision relative to the invisible (but gravitating) dark matter component, something that has no explanation in terms of modified gravity [cf. @stenflo-bullet2004; @stenflo-bullet2006].
It is clear that dark matter must consist of cold (non-relativistic), dark collisionless matter, but this does not exclude that it can be baryonic. The main reason why it is widely believed to be non-baryonic comes from the constraints of BBN (Big Bang nucleosynthesis) calculations. Only about 5% of the critical density of the universe can be in baryonic form if the BBN predictions are to agree with the observed abundances of the light elements. Since the total matter fraction is about 30%, the implication is that there is about 5 times more non-baryonic than baryonic matter. Often the non-baryonic matter is referred to as WIMPs, weakly interacting massive particles.
Nobody knows what kind of particles WIMPs are made of, although major search efforts have been carried out for several decades. The searches are made with large underground detectors in order to filter out spurious signals from cosmic-ray particles. Attempts to produce hypothetical dark matter particles by colliders like LHC at CERN have also been unsuccessful so far. As time goes on without anything else than null results, the credibility of the belief that most of the dark matter is in an exotic non-baryonic form suffers. However, as good alternative explanations of dark matter are unavailable, the search continues unabated.
The aim of the present paper is to show that the unaltered Einstein equations without a cosmological constant lead to an accelerated expansion of the universe of the observed magnitude, as a consequence of the boundary conditions that must be enforced to preserve consistency. The observable universe is bounded by being enclosed inside a causal horizon, which exists because the age of the universe is finite. The causal boundary constraint leads to a resonance condition. Because this condition is always tied to the size of the causal horizon, the coincidence problem disappears. The main resulting modification of the cosmological evolution is an expansion rate in the early universe that is 2.1 times faster than in the standard model. With this faster rate the BBN predictions appear to give agreement with the observed abundances of the light elements only if the baryonic mean density is increased from 5% to values of order 30%, which would eliminate the need to invoke the existence of non-baryonic matter or WIMPs to account for these abundances.
In Sect. \[sec:gravpot\] we first explore the properties of the gravitational potential in the presence of a cosmological constant. The Newtonian potential gets changed into a Helmholtz potential that represents the solution of a wave equation. The spatial scale of the wave is related to the radius of the causal horizon. In Sect. \[sec:origin\] we then remove the cosmological constant from the equations and determine the resonance condition that is induced by the presence of the causal horizon. This requires the use of conformal coordinates, with which the expansion factor $a(t)$ is transformed away, as well as the transformation to Euclidian spacetime. The resonance condition uniquely determines the value of $\Lambda$ without the use of any free parameters. In Sect. \[sec:darkmatter\] we use a simplified BBN treatment of deuterium production in the early universe to show that with our non-standard enhanced expansion rate the baryon density needs to be enhanced to the level of the total matter density to preserve agreement with the observed deuterium abundance. We finally summarize the conclusions in Sect. \[sec:concl\].
Gravitational potential in the presence of a cosmological constant {#sec:gravpot}
==================================================================
The present paper aims at explaining dark energy as an emergent phenomenon that is not explicitly present in the underlying equations for the metric and the gravitational field. Before addressing the question of its origin, let us here start by taking a look at the roles played by the cosmological $\Lambda$ term when it is inserted ad hoc in the Einstein equations in the standard way. This term has two main effects. While its role of a vacuum energy density (dark energy) acting as repulsive gravity is well known, its second role as a kind of vacuum polarization representing a feedback of the vacuum energy on the gravitational interaction has been largely overlooked. In the present section we will highlight this feedback and show how it leads to a wave equation for the interaction.
Poisson equation for the gravitational potential {#sec:poisson}
------------------------------------------------
Newtonian gravity faces serious inconsistency problems when trying to deal with an infinite distribution of matter. If one tries to apply the shell theorem, the force on a particle depends on the arbitrary choice of center for the spherical geometry. As described by @stenflo-ghosh16, already @stenflo-laplace1880 tried to deal with this problem by introducing a Yukawa-like exponential cut-off of the gravitational potential $\Phi$: $$\Phi \sim -e^{-r/r_s}/r\,,
\label{eq:scpot}$$ where $r_s$ is the screening or cut-off distance that defines the finite range of the gravitational force.
Such a Yukawa-like potential was also applied for similar reasons by @stenflo-seeliger1895 and @stenflo-neumann1896. It results from the screened Poisson equation $$\nabla^2 \Phi -\lambda\,\Phi =4\pi \,G\,\rho\,,
\label{eq:scpoisson}$$ which served as Einstein’s Newtonian starting point when he introduced his cosmological constant $\lambda$ in his 1917 cosmological paper [@stenflo-einstein17].
There has since been considerable confusion whether or not a positive cosmological constant really leads to a Yukawa-like gravitational potential. Thus @stenflo-straumann02 points out that Einstein, Weyl, and Pauli saw the cosmological term as a Yukawa term, but he then argues that this interpretation is incorrect, since the stationary solution for $\Phi$ given by general relativity for a homogeneous universe is $$\nabla^2 \Phi = 4\pi\, G\,(\rho -2\rho_\Lambda)\,,
\label{eq:poissuniv}$$ where $\rho$ is the mean matter density, while $$\rho_\Lambda\equiv {c^2\Lambda\over 8\pi\, G}
\label{eq:rholam}$$ represents the vacuum energy density, with $\Lambda$ being the cosmological constant. When the vacuum energy term in Eq. (\[eq:poissuniv\]) is moved over to the left-hand side, we see that its sign is opposite to that of the corresponding term in Eq. (\[eq:scpoisson\]), and this has been taken to imply that the gravitational potential would not be screened. This conclusion has been restated in the nice review by @stenflo-raifear17.
However, when comparing Eqs. (\[eq:scpot\])-(\[eq:poissuniv\]) with each other, we notice that there is something profoundly missing. While the vacuum energy term in Eq. (\[eq:poissuniv\]) is a constant, independent of space and time, $\lambda$ in Eq. (\[eq:scpoisson\]) is a multiplicative factor for the $r$ dependent potential $\Phi$ in Eq. (\[eq:scpot\]). The $\lambda$ term therefore induces a feedback from $\Phi$ to its own spatial gradients in the screened Poisson equation, and it is this feedback that is the reason for the screening. Regardless of the sign issue, this feedback is missing in Eq. (\[eq:poissuniv\]).
Derivation in general relativity {#sec:standder}
--------------------------------
To understand the origin of this feedback, let us here provide a brief derivation, starting with the standard formulation of the Einstein field equation with a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ term: $$R_{\mu\nu} -{1\over 2} \,g_{\mu\nu} R +\Lambda\, g_{\mu\nu}=-\,{8\pi \,G\over c^4} \,\,T_{\mu\nu}\,.
\label{eq:einstein1}$$ Our treatment will be based on the convention ($+--\,-$) for the spacetime signature.
Before introducing the weak-field approximation it is convenient to rewrite Eq. (\[eq:einstein1\]) in the form $$R_{\mu\nu} =-\,{8\pi \,G\over c^4} \,\,S_{\mu\nu}\,,
\label{eq:einstein2}$$ where $$S_{\mu\nu} =T_{\mu\nu} -{1\over 2} \,g_{\mu\nu} T -\,{c^4\,\Lambda\,
g_{\mu\nu}\over 8\pi \,G}\,.
\label{eq:smunu}$$ This form is readily obtained from Eq. (\[eq:einstein1\]) in the standard way by making contraction with $g^{\mu\nu}$ and using the circumstance that $g^{\mu\nu}$ contracted with $g_{\mu\nu}$ equals 4.
Let us write $g_{\mu\nu} \equiv
\eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}$, where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ represents the invariant Minkowski metric with diagonal elements unity and signs $+--\,-$, while $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the spacetime dependent part of the metric. In the weak-field approximation $\vert h_{\mu\nu}\vert\ll 1$, and $R_{\mu\nu}\approx
{1\over 2}\,\partial^2 g_{\mu\nu}\,$ if we, as is usually done, adopt the harmonic gauge. $\partial^2\equiv(1/c^2)\,\partial^2/\partial t^2 -\nabla^2$ is the 4D d’Alembertian operator. Its spatial part is the negative Laplace operator $-\nabla^2$. We further assume here for simplicity that the stress-energy tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$ consists of baryonic matter with zero equation of state (zero pressure terms), so that $T_{00} -{1\over
2} \,g_{00} T$ can be replaced by $\rho \,c^2/2$. Then only the $g_{00}$ part of the metric has material sources. Its weak field equation is $$\partial^2 g_{00} = -{8\pi \,G\over c^2}\,\Bigl(\,
\rho -\,{c^2\,\Lambda \,g_{00}\over 4\pi \,G}\,\Bigr)\,.
\label{eq:poissong00}$$
As $\partial^2 g_{00} =\partial^2 h_{00}$ because the derivatives of $\eta_{00}=1$ vanish, the weak-field equation is usually written in a form where $g_{00}$ on the left-hand side is replaced by $h_{00}$, and $g_{00}$ on the right-hand side is replaced by unity, since both $h_{00}$ and $\Lambda$ are small quantities. However, it is essential to retain the $h_{00}$ contribution to the $\Lambda$ term on the right-hand side, because it is the source of vacuum polarization effects that will give us a wave equation for the potential. Therefore we need to write the weak field equation in terms of $g_{00}$, not in terms of $h_{00}$.
Since the small $\Lambda h_{00}$ term has generally been neglected in previous literature for the weak-field case, let us explain why it is essential here. $\Lambda\sim 1/r^2_\Lambda$, where $r_\Lambda$ is a characteristic length scale (cf. Eq. (\[eq:krs\])). As we will see in Sect. \[sec:scalehelm\], the small observationally determined value of $\Lambda$ corresponds to an $r_\Lambda$ that is approximately equal to the radius of the particle horizon of the universe. On distance scales $r\ll r_\Lambda$ one can safely ignore the $\Lambda h_{00}$ term, as has been correctly done for instance in @stenflo-jetzer_sereno2006 when considering the effect of $\Lambda$ on the dynamics of stellar systems. It is however incorrect to neglect it for cosmological distances, when the condition $r\ll
r_\Lambda$ is no longer satisfied, because it is the sole source of either exponential, Yukawa-like cutoff (when the cosmological constant is negative) or wave behavior of the potential (when the cosmological constant is positive) at the characteristic $r_\Lambda$ distance scale.
As usual the identification $h_{00}=2\Phi$ is made to satisfy the Newtonian limit, where $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, here per unit energy (not per unit mass, which would differ by the factor $1/c^2$), so that $$g_{00} =1+2\Phi\,.
\label{eq:g00}$$ The stationary version of Eq. (\[eq:poissong00\]) then gives us an extended Poisson equation with $\Lambda$ term for the potential $\Phi$: $$\nabla^2 \Phi +2\Lambda\,\Phi= {4\pi\, G\over c^2}\,(\,
\rho -\,2\rho_\Lambda\,)\,.
\label{eq:poissonlambda}$$ Apart from the definition of $\Phi$ with respect to unit energy instead of unit mass, the equation would be identical to Eq. (\[eq:poissuniv\]), if it were not for the profound $2\Lambda$ term on the left-hand side, which represents a feedback of the medium (the vacuum) to the potential $\Phi$.
Equation (\[eq:poissonlambda\]) explicitly brings out the two physical roles played by the cosmological constant $\Lambda$: (1) The $\rho_\Lambda$ term on the right-hand side is a source of repulsive gravity, while (2) the $\Lambda$ term on the left-hand side provides feedback to the potential, similar to the effect of vacuum polarization. It is important to remember that these two roles reflect two faces of the same coin, namely the two terms that make up $g_{00}$ in Eq. (\[eq:g00\]). Role (1) comes from the term 1, role (2) from the term $2\Phi$. Both terms always contribute in concert. We do not have the freedom to change their relative proportions.
This unity of the two roles is implicitly contained in Eq. (\[eq:poissong00\]), which can be rewritten in a form that makes its structural similarity to field theory formulations transparent: $$\partial^2 \varphi \,-\,m^2\,\varphi\,-J= 0\,,
\label{eq:kleingordon}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phijk2}
\varphi &\equiv& g_{00}\,,\nonumber\\ J &\equiv&\!\!\!-\,{8\pi\, G\over c^2}\,\rho
\,,\\m^2\!&\equiv&2\Lambda\,.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
In general the gravitational field is a tensor field, while Eq. (\[eq:kleingordon\]) represents it as a scalar field, because we have disregarded the off-diagonal components of the stress-energy tensor. This simplification is valid for our exploration of the gravitational potential, and in particular when we later consider global wave modes in a cosmological medium that is isotropic and homogeneous.
With this formulation the effect of $\Lambda$ appears exclusively in the single $m^2$ term, there is no separate vacuum energy density $\rho_\Lambda$ that combines with the mass density $\rho$. This unification occurs because $\varphi$ is a physical field that represents the metric (more precisely its $g_{00}$ component), which implicitly contains both $\Lambda$ effects, in contrast to the potential $\Phi$, which only represents a fractional aspect of the metric.
In standard QFT (quantum field theory) $m$ represents a mass scale, while here it is more convenient to let it represent a wave number $k_\Lambda$. This difference is however immaterial and only dependent on the choice of dimensions that we use for $\varphi$. Equation (\[eq:kleingordon\]) then has formal similarity to the Klein-Gordon equation, except for the sign of the $m^2$ term. The Klein-Gordon sign is the origin of the Yukawa-type exponential cutoff of the potential. The solution is the same if we formally replace the Yukawa mass $m$ with the imaginary mass $i\,m$. This leads to a potential with oscillatory behavior.
If the $\Lambda$ term in the Poisson Eq. (\[eq:poissonlambda\]) were negative, the equation would be a so-called screened Poisson equation and give rise to a Yukawa potential. In reality, however, the term is positive, which gives us a Helmholtz equation with oscillatory solutions [cf. @stenflo-roza2017]. Such wave equations are familiar in numerous areas of physics. The Schrödinger equation belongs to this type.
It is helpful to represent the wave number in terms of a characteristic distance scale for the oscillations: $$m\equiv k_\Lambda \equiv 2\pi/r_\Lambda
\label{eq:krs}$$ It follows that $r_\Lambda = 2\pi/\sqrt{\,2\Lambda}\,$. It turns out to be equal to the causal radius of the universe (distance to the particle horizon), as we will see in Sect. \[sec:origin\] (cf. Eq. (\[eq:m2derived\])).
The scalar Eq. (\[eq:kleingordon\]) follows from the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L} ={\textstyle{1\over
2}}\,[\,(\partial^2\varphi)^2\,+\,m^2\,\varphi^2\,]\,+\,J\,\varphi\,.
\label{eq:lagrange}$$ Its Green’s function or propagator $D(x-y)$ is determined by $$-(\partial^2\,-\,m^2)\,D(x-y)= \delta^4(x-y)
\label{eq:propeq}$$ with the solution $$D(x-y)= \int\,{{\rm d}^4 k\over (2\pi)^4}\,{e^{ik(x-y)}\over k^2 + m^2}\,.
\label{eq:propsol}$$ We will refer to the expression for the propagator in Sect. \[sec:indosc\].
Feedback from the vacuum to the gravitational force field {#sec:vaceffects}
---------------------------------------------------------
The stationary version of Eq. (\[eq:poissong00\]) is the Helmholtz equation $$\nabla^2 g_{00} +k_\Lambda^2 \,g_{00} ={8\pi\, G\over c^2}\,\rho\,,
\label{eq:helmstatg00}$$ where $k_\Lambda^2\equiv 2\Lambda\equiv (16\pi\, G/c^2)\,\rho_\Lambda$ with our previous definitions. $\rho$ is the mass density, while all vacuum effects come from the $k_\Lambda^2$ term. Below we will give the solution of the equation for a point source. In this case we need to replace $\rho$ in the source term on the right-hand side with $M\,\delta^3(r)$, where $M$ is the mass of the point source, and $\delta^3(r)$ is the 3D Dirac delta function.
The left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:helmstatg00\]) has the structure of a negative Hamiltonian in the time-independent Schrödinger equation, when the force field is attractive so that the potential energy is negative. The $k_\Lambda^2$ term corresponds to minus the potential energy in the Schrödinger equation if $g_{00}$ plays the role of the wave function. This analogy illustrates why we get a wave behavior for $g_{00}$ that is similar to waves in quantum physics.
The general point source solution of Eq. (\[eq:helmstatg00\]) in spherical coordinates is $$g_{00}=\sum_{\ell =0}^\infty\,\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell\,[\,a_{\ell
m}\,j_\ell(k_\Lambda r)
+b_{\ell m}\,y_\ell(k_\Lambda r)\,]\,Y_\ell^m(\theta,\varphi)\,,
\label{eq:generalsol}$$ where $j_\ell$ and $y_\ell$ are the two orthogonal spherical Bessel functions of order $\ell$ (the radial wave functions in quantum mechanics), and $Y_\ell^m$ are the spherical harmonics. The coefficients are determined by boundary conditions.
While the non-radial solutions lead to the rich structuring that we encounter in atomic physics, we assume that the gravitational potential exhibits exact spherical symmetry. This implies that $\ell,\,m=0$, so that only the spherical Bessel functions $j_0$ and $y_0$ need to be considered. $$\begin{aligned}
j_0&=&\phantom{-\,}{\sin k_\Lambda r\over r}\,,\nonumber\\ y_0&=&
-\,{\cos k_\Lambda r\over r}\,.
\label{eq:j0y0}\end{aligned}$$ The solution then reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
g_{00}=a_{00}\,j_0 +b_{00}\,y_0\,.
\label{eq:reducedsol}\end{aligned}$$
Let us here denote the gravitational potential from a point source by $\phi$ to distinguish it from $\Phi$, which referred to the total potential that included extended sources. According to Eq. (\[eq:g00\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\phi={\textstyle{1\over 2}}\,(g_{00}-1)\,.
\label{eq:phig00}\end{aligned}$$ Let $\phi_N$ refer to the corresponding Newtonian potential, which represents the case when $\Lambda =0$. The Newtonian limit is expressed through $$\begin{aligned}
\phi =\phi_N \,\,\,{\rm when}\,\,r\ll r_\Lambda\,,
\label{eq:newtlim}\end{aligned}$$ which represents the inner boundary condition for Eq. (\[eq:reducedsol\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_N =-\,{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\,{r_b\over r}
\label{eq:phin}\end{aligned}$$ with the definition $$\begin{aligned}
r_b \equiv {2GM\over c^2}\,.
\label{eq:rb}\end{aligned}$$ We recognize this as the radius of the event horizon for a black hole of mass $M$. Here we use it to define the convenient parameter $r_b$, using the symbol $\equiv$ instead of $=$ to make it clear that we are not suggesting that we are dealing with solutions for actual black holes. In gravitational physics the same expression appears in different contexts. For instance, for an infinite, homogeneous universe with flat metric, Eq. (\[eq:rb\]) is valid when we let $r_b$ represent the Hubble radius and $M$ the total mass inside the Hubble radius.
The inner boundary condition Eq. (\[eq:newtlim\]) then gives us $$\begin{aligned}
b_{00} =r_b \,.
\label{eq:innerbc}\end{aligned}$$ The remaining parameters ($k_\Lambda$ and $a_{00}$) need to be determined by outer boundary conditions, which we will identify later (Eqs. (\[eq:m2derived\]) and (\[eq:betaatbound\]) in Sect. \[sec:origin\], with the use of the definition in Eq. (\[eq:betadef\])).
Empty space or the vacuum state refers to the case when $\rho =0$. Let us denote the gravitational potential of the vacuum state by $\Phi_\Lambda$. It then follows from Eq. (\[eq:phig00\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_\Lambda =-\,{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\,,
\label{eq:phivacuum}\end{aligned}$$ because $g_{00}\to 0$ as $1/r$ according to Eq. (\[eq:reducedsol\]), when the distance $r$ from the physical sources goes to infinity. This is an intriguing result, since the number ${\textstyle{1\over 2}}$ is familiar from quantum physics as the energy of the vacuum state. There it arises from the quantization of the harmonic oscillator. In contrast, no quantization condition has been applied here, although the Helmholtz Eq. (\[eq:helmstatg00\]) has structural similarity to the equation for a harmonic oscillator. In our context the non-zero, flat $\Phi_\Lambda$ arises because the gravitational field, which is represented by the metric and not by the potential alone, is a superposition of the potential (the fluctuating part) and the flat Minkowski background. The gravitational field that is represented by $g_{00}$ does not have a non-zero vacuum state. The minus sign of $\Phi_\Lambda$ is related to the circumstance that gravitation is attractive for “charges” (masses) of the same sign. The distinction between $g_{00}$ and $2\phi$ vanishes when we consider the gravitational forces or accelerations, because the derivative of the flat part of the potential is zero.
The gravitational acceleration is obtained from the potential through $g_{\rm acc}=
-\,\partial\phi/\partial r =-\,{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\,\partial
g_{00}/\partial r$, which for the Newtonian case is $g_N
=-r_b/(2r^2)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:phin\]). Here we add index “acc” to $g$ to make clear that we are talking about the acceleration and not the metric, which is also referred to by $g$. From Eqs. (\[eq:reducedsol\]), (\[eq:phig00\]), and (\[eq:innerbc\]) we find the ratio between the Helmholtz and Newtonian accelerations to be $$g_{\rm acc}/g_N =(1+\beta\,x)\cos x\, +\,(x-\beta\,)\sin x\,,
\label{eq:gratio}$$ where for convenience we have introduced the dimensionless distance scale $$x\equiv k_\Lambda r
\label{eq:xdefklr}$$ and the simplified notation $$\beta \equiv a_{00}/b_{00}\,.
\label{eq:betadef}$$ The value of $\beta$ needs to be fixed by an outer boundary condition, which we will address in Sect. \[sec:bccausal\].
Scale of the Helmholtz oscillations {#sec:scalehelm}
-----------------------------------
As we saw in Eq. (\[eq:krs\]), the scale $r_\Lambda$ of the Helmholtz oscillations, defined by $k_\Lambda r_\Lambda \equiv 2\pi$, is $r_\Lambda =2\pi/\sqrt{\,2\Lambda}\,$. We now want to express it in units of the Hubble radius of the universe, $r_H =c/H_0$, where $H_0$ is the current value of the Hubble constant. For a Friedmann universe with zero curvature $H_0$ is related to the critical density $\rho_c$ through $$\rho_c={3H_0^2\over 8\pi\, G}\,.
\label{eq:rhoc}$$ In the standard cosmological models the cosmological constant represents a vacuum energy density $\rho_\Lambda =\Omega_\Lambda \,\rho_c$, where $\Omega_\Lambda=0.69$ according to @stenflo-planck2016. With Eq. (\[eq:rholam\]) we then find $${r_\Lambda\over r_H}={2\pi\over \sqrt{\,6\,\Omega_\Lambda}}\,,
\label{eq:rlamh}$$ which equals 3.1 if we insert the observationally determined value for $\Omega_\Lambda$. As we will see in Sect. \[sec:horizons\] and in Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]), $r_\Lambda$ is equal to the causal radius (distance to the particle horizon) of the universe. It is the scale that is relevant to dark energy while being vastly larger than the scales that are relevant to dark matter. Still the resolution of the dark energy enigma leads to non-standard effects that have direct implications for the nature of dark matter, namely that all of dark matter appears to be baryonic, without the need for yet to be discovered exotic forms of matter. We will return to this issue in Sect. \[sec:darkmatter\].
Origin and nature of the dark energy {#sec:origin}
====================================
Throughout the previous section we have tried to clarify some of the aspects in which gravity is affected by the $\Lambda$ term, when it is inserted ad hoc in the Einstein equation in the form of a cosmological constant. We have highlighted, in particular with the help of Eqs. (\[eq:kleingordon\]), (\[eq:phijk2\]), and (\[eq:helmstatg00\]), the fundamentally different roles played by the $\Lambda$ term and the real physical sources (which are represented by the density $\rho$). The role of the $\Lambda$ term is exclusively to generate a feedback of the vacuum from the metric (or the gravitational field) to itself, and not as a direct source of gravity, a role that is instead played by real matter-energy (e.g. as demonstrated by Eq. (\[eq:helmstatg00\])).
If the $\Lambda$ term would represent a physical field as a constant to satisfy the energy-momentum conservation equation and the Bianchi identities, then the near coincidence of the $\Lambda$-induced wave scale with the size of the current cosmic horizon would be extraordinarily unnatural as it would violate the Copernican principle (which asserts that we are not privileged observers). The horizon scale has increased by about 60 orders of magnitude since the Planck era, while $\Lambda$ would not change if it were a true constant. This cosmic coincidence would not disappear unless we abandon the view that $\Lambda$ is part of the underlying equations. The alternative is that the $\Lambda$ effects instead emerge from boundary conditions that constrain the solutions of the equations, as we will show below. If we would try to account for such boundary conditions by inserting a fitting parameter $\Lambda$ into the original equations, this parameter would masquerade as if it were a new physical field, which it is not.
In the following we will show that the $\Lambda$ effects are induced as a consequence of the finite age of the universe. This implies that the wave scale that is represented by $\Lambda$ and the scale of the causal horizon must remain linked throughout all epochs of cosmic history. The cosmic coincidence problem then goes away.
Vacuum energy induced by the finite age of the universe {#sec:vacenergy}
-------------------------------------------------------
Usually time is viewed as a coordinate along an infinite axis, which extends backwards before the Big Bang and forwards into the (as yet non-existing) future beyond the present moment. If however the age of the universe is finite, time is bounded in a physical sense, because it does not exist beyond the two temporal boundaries (Big Bang and the present moment), as we will further clarify below. Let $\Delta t$ denote the length of time between these two boundaries. While a Fourier decomposition of a constant field along an infinite time line would give a delta function $\delta
(\omega)$, an infinitely sharp peak at zero frequency, the corresponding decomposition for a truncated time line would give a frequency spread $\Delta\omega$ that is approximately given by $$\Delta\omega\,\Delta t\approx {\textstyle{1\over 2}}\,.
\label{eq:domegdt}$$ If we multiply both sides by $\hbar$ we recognize Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, with $\Delta E=\hbar\,\Delta\omega$ interpreted as the vacuum energy that is induced by constraining the temporal interval. The smaller this interval is, the more violent are the fluctuations in energy. These general arguments will be made more precise in Sect. \[sec:indosc\], where we develop a concrete, quantitative theory for the emergence of a vacuum energy $\Lambda$ of the observed magnitude, as a consequence of the finite age of the universe.
If a finite-age universe is to be compatible with quantum mechanics (and obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), then it is inevitable that the universe must have started with a hot Big Bang, because the energy variance $\Delta E$ that represents the vacuum fluctuations goes to infinity when $\Delta t$ goes to zero. Likewise $\Delta E$ goes to zero in the distant future because it is inversely proportional to the age of the universe. This vacuum energy density, induced by the existence of temporal boundaries or horizons, represents a scale that is always linked to the horizon scale for any magnitude of the horizon radius.
While it is generally accepted that time may have a beginning or edge at the Big Bang, time is usually considered to be unbounded in the forward, future direction. This seems to contradict our notion of a finite time line that ends at the present moment and does not extend into the future, and which therefore represents a 1D temporal cavity. The reason why time is finite and not semi-infinite is that the future is unobservable.
When we look out into the universe, we look back in time, until we reach the edge presented by the Big Bang. One speaks of look-back time, but there is no such thing as look-forward time. There can be no causal influences reaching us from the future. Therefore the present represents a causal boundary that cannot be crossed from the “outside” (the future). Our temporal 1D cavity is constrained between two causal boundaries, at the Big Bang and at the present time. Similarly, space is bounded, between “here” and the causal (particle) horizon. The bounded, observable 4D volume increases continually as the horizon advances both spatially and temporally (into the future) with the age of the universe.
Flatness of space {#sec:flatness}
-----------------
Equation (\[eq:helmstatg00\]) explicitly showed us that only real mass-energy (represented by $\rho$) but not $\Lambda$ is a source of gravity. To understand this statement better, a comparison with Debye screening may be helpful. The source of the electric field is the point charge that is embedded in a plasma environment that is filled with a continuum of charges. These environmental charges are however not a source of the field, their role is to provide the screening of the potential. Similarly, $\rho$ is the source, while $\Lambda$ provides the feedback, which because of its sign does not result in screening, but instead endows the (Helmholtz) potential with wave properties.
Gravity manifests itself by changing the metric. In the absence of sources for gravity spacetime is flat. An empty universe ($\rho =0$) has no gravity, no curvature. In a non-empty universe that expands forever $\rho\to 0$ as time $t\to\infty$. The obvious boundary condition at infinity for such a universe must therefore be that it has Minkowski metric and not something else (like de Sitter metric).
If the curvature of space is zero at a given epoch, then it follows from the standard cosmological equations that it is zero at all epochs. There is no need to invent a hypothetical inflationary phase for the purpose of explaining why the metric of the universe is observed to be flat. Since $\Lambda$ without $\rho$ cannot be a source of gravity, as we have shown above, it follows that there cannot be an exponentially expanding phase in the distant future, the end phase of the universe is not a de Sitter phase.
The starting point of the following treatment is therefore to consider a homogeneous and isotropic universe with zero curvature and without any cosmological constant present in the underlying equations. We will then show how the finite age of the universe leads to effects, which are the same as those of a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ with a value that matches the observed one. No free parameters or model fitting are used to derive this. Nature did not have a choice to generate $\Lambda$ effects of different magnitude.
Cosmic horizons and conformal coordinates {#sec:horizons}
-----------------------------------------
In Sect. \[sec:vacenergy\] we gave qualitative arguments why $\Lambda$-like effects should emerge when we constrain the time line, because the set of Fourier modes that can fit within the finite interval gets restricted. To express these ideas in a precise and quantitative way we first need to clarify the meaning of causal boundaries or horizons in an expanding universe. This also allows us to clarify what we mean by the stationary solution for the Helmholtz potential in Sect. \[sec:vaceffects\], when we are dealing with an expanding universe with a time-varying scale factor $a(t)$.
Observations tell us that the current age of the universe is 13.8Gyr, while the Hubble time ($1/H_0$) is 14.4Gyr. Although the Hubble radius at 14.4 billion light years (GLyr) is often referred to as the “cosmic horizon”, this terminology is a bit misleading, because the Hubble radius is “just” a parameter, not a physical horizon. The causal or particle horizon, from beyond which no forces or interactions can reach us, is at 46.9GLyr. This distance equals the speed of light times the [*conformal*]{} age of the universe (which is 46.9Gyr). It is the time it would take for a photon to reach us from the causal horizon if the universe would stop expanding. The normal and the conformal age of the universe are different because the points from which the propagating light tries to reach us continually recede from us due to the cosmic expansion.
The radius of the horizon is differentially stretched by the expansion, as expressed by the distance-redshift relation. The usual way to describe this is in terms of the Robertson-Walker metric with a scale factor $a(t)$ that multiplies the spatial differential distance. For many purposes it is much more useful to instead use conformal coordinates, with which the scale factor has been transformed away so that the metric formally becomes Minkowski-like.
While ordinary cosmic time $t=\int_0^t {\rm d}t$, conformal time $\tau$ is defined by $$\tau =\int_0^t{{\rm d}t\over a}
\label{eq:conftime}$$ or, equivalently, ${\rm d}\tau/{\rm d}t=1/a$. In a spacetime diagram based on conformal coordinates (conformal time vs. comoving radial distance), light rays are straight lines with a slope given by the speed of light, just like they are in inertial coordinate systems.
The conformal coordinate background provides an arena in which it makes sense to make Fourier decompositions, because conformal invariance implies that geometric shapes and angles are preserved. The sine and cosine components of a Fourier decomposition do not get deformed (differentially redshifted) by the stretching of space when we use conformal coordinates, they retain their sine and cosine shapes. It is against this coordinate background that one should interpret the metric perturbations that one finds when solving the weak-field Einstein equations for the stationary case, as we did in Sect. \[sec:standder\]. In a normal, expanding coordinate system it is not well defined what we mean by a stationary case. The Helmholtz potential that we found in Sect. \[sec:standder\] needs to be expressed in terms of conformal coordinates.
Euclidian spacetime {#sec:euclid}
-------------------
The treatment of the $\Lambda$-like effects that emerge because the observable time line is constrained can best be done in 4D Euclidian spacetime, because time can then be viewed as an angular coordinate, which reveals the existence of a resonance condition that is the reason for the effects that we refer to as dark energy. The transformation from Minkowski to Euclidian spacetime is done through Wick rotation in the complex plane, such that ordinary time $t$ becomes Euclidian time $t_E= i\,c\,t$, where we have inserted $c$ to express $t_E$ in spatial units like the three other coordinates. Since time now becomes imaginary, it may be interpreted as an angular coordinate with period $2\pi$, which corresponds to the length $\ell$ of a finite time string that has periodic boundary conditions. In our case $\ell$ is the conformal age of the universe expressed in Euclidian time. The various wave modes of the Fourier decomposition then have wave number $2\pi\,n/\ell$, where $n$ is an integer.
The transformation to Euclidian spacetime leads to remarkable, even miraculuos advantages and insights. The Lagrangian, which is used for the formulation of the Einstein equations (cf. Eq. (\[eq:lagrange\]) for the weak-field case), becomes the Hamiltonian, which is the agent that drives the cosmic evolution. Quantum field theory QFT transforms into the structure of classical statistical mechanics. The path integral in field theory then corresponds to the partition function in statistical mechanics, with the oscillating phase factors in QFT now appearing as the Boltzmann factors, which allow the definition of a temperature. The transformation thereby establishes a direct link between field theories like general relativity or QFT and thermodynamics. In particular it provides a direct route to the derivation of the Hawking temperature of black holes. For a brief introduction to this topic, see for instance @stenflo-zee2010.
Wave modes induced by the finite age of the universe {#sec:indosc}
----------------------------------------------------
The following wave mode discussion will relate to the treatment of the weak-field approximation that we did in Sect. \[sec:standder\]. This approximation is valid for all cosmological epochs except for the very early universe, in particular when we approach the Planck era. However, as this strong-field era is of miniscule temporal extent as compared with the relevant cosmological time scales that we are dealing with here, the resonant condition that we will identify as the origin of the $\Lambda$ effects remains valid although it is based on the weak-field treatment.
In the Euclidian spacetime the 4D d’Alembertian operator becomes $\partial^2=\partial^2/\partial t_E^2 +\nabla^2$, because this spacetime has signature $(+++\,+\,)$. Its inverse, representing the field propagator, is $\sim 1/k^2$, where the square of the 4D wave number can be written as $k^2=k_4^2 +\vec{k}^2$. Here $\vec{k}^2=k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2$, with $k_{1,2,3}$ representing the usual spatial wave numbers, while $k_4$ is now the angular frequency of Euclidian time and represents the temporal modes.
As a consequence of the periodic boundary conditions (that result because Euclidian time is cyclic), the temporal Fourier transform with the factor $\exp(i\,k_4 t_E)$ gets restricted to values for which $k_4
=2n\,\pi/\ell$ for the $n$th harmonic, where the string length $\ell=i\,c\,t_c$, with $t_c$ being the conformal age of the universe, 46.9Gyr according to standard cosmology. It follows that the square of the 4D wave number is $k^2=\vec{k}^2+(2n\, \pi/\ell)^2$ for the $n$th harmonic mode, implying that we have effectively lost one dimension. The expression represents a discrete set of stationary modes for the spatial 3D wave number. Because it is the temporal dimension that has been lost, we have retrieved the stationary case that we need to make direct comparison with the corresponding stationary case of Eqs. (\[eq:propsol\]) and (\[eq:helmstatg00\]). This allows us to relate our expression for $k_4$ with the dark energy parameters $\Lambda$ or $k_\Lambda$.
The partition function that governs the probability distribution over the possible wave modes is the sum over the respective Boltzmann factors that are generated by the Wick rotation: $\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-2n\pi} =1/(e^{2\pi} -1)$, which shows how a Planck distribution emerges. As the probability for excitation to the next higher harmonic decreases by the Boltzmann factor $e^{-2\pi}\approx 1/535$, it is a good approximation to only consider the fundamental mode (with $n=1$) as relevant. We will do this here.
With the help of the Boltzmann factor one may introduce a temperature. Although we do not need to make use of the temperature concept in order to derive $\Lambda$, we mention it here because it may be of interest to indicate how it is related to the Hawking temperature and a horizon. If we in the Boltzmann factors make the identification $\hbar\,\omega/(k_B T)=\omega\, t_c$, we get $T=\hbar/(k_B t_c)$, which here has the stupendously small value of about $10^{-29}$K due to the gigantic value of $t_c$. Using the expression for the Schwarzschild radius of black holes, $r_{\rm
BH}\equiv c\,t_{\rm BH}=2GM/c^2$, where we for convenience of comparison have introduced a black hole time scale $t_{\rm BH}$, we can convert the standard expression for the Hawking temperature $T_H$ to the form $T_H=\hbar/(4\pi k_B t_{\rm BH})$. This expression is the same as that of our simplistic derivation if we replace $t_{\rm BH}$ with $t_c$, with the exception of the numerical factor $4\pi$, which may be due to the greatly different geometrical situations in the two cases (as our universe does not have a Schwarzschild metric). While not directly needed for our derivation of $\Lambda$, it is worth paying attention to the potentially profound implicit connections that causal horizons have with thermodynamics and quantum physics.
When converting back from Euclidian age $\ell$ to ordinary conformal age $t_c$ while disregarding the higher harmonics, we get in conformal coordinates $k^2=\vec{k}^2-m^2$, where $$m^2 \equiv k_\Lambda^2=[\,2\pi/(c\,t_c)\,]^2\,.
\label{eq:m2derived}$$ Here we have for later use (in Sect. \[sec:bccausal\]) reintroduced the wave number $k_\Lambda$ that we first introduced in Eq. (\[eq:krs\]). The field propagator $1/k^2$ that we started off with has thus become $1/(\vec{k}^2-m^2)$, exclusively as a result of the finite length of the time line. As this now represents a stationary spatial wave pattern, it needs to be compared with the propagator of Eq. (\[eq:propsol\]) for the stationary case, when $\partial/\partial t$ and the corresponding wave number $k_0$ are zero. In this case the denominator in Eq. (\[eq:propsol\]) is $-\vec{k}^2+m^2$, which is identical to the propagator that we derived via bounded time, except for the overall sign. This global sign is however immaterial. It is a consequence of using the signature ($+--\,-$) for the Minkowski metric rather than ($-++\,+$), and because of the circumstance that when we transformed to Euclidian coordinates, we switched the sign of the temporal but not the spatial part in the signature of the metric. While the overall sign does not matter, the relative sign between the $\vec{k}^2$ and $m^2$ terms is essential. It agrees with Eq. (\[eq:propsol\]), which implies that the stationary gravitational potential is of Helmholtz and not Yukawa type, and that the cosmological $\Lambda$ parameter, which is obtained from the identification $m^2 =2\Lambda$ of Eq. (\[eq:phijk2\]), is positive.
For readers who may be confused by this derivation of the sign for $\Lambda$, because we have gone back and forth between Euclidian and Minkowski coordinates, the following heuristic argument why the sign of $\Lambda$ must be positive may be helpful. The finite time string may be viewed as an infinite time line on which we have imposed a rectangular window of width $t_c$, which cuts off everything outside the window. This rectangular restriction is qualitatively similar to the exponential Yukawa-type cutoff, when applied to the time line. In the time domain this cutoff has the consequence that $k_0^2$ changes to $k_0^2 +m^2$ (with $m$ representing the inverse cutoff scale), where we notice the same signs in front of $k_0^2$ and $m^2$. However, this cutoff-induced $m^2$ term then has a sign that is opposite to that of the spatial $\vec{k}^2$ term because of the signature of the Minkowski metric. As we have shown before, this has the consequence that in the spatial domain the gravitational potential is of Helmholtz and not Yukawa type, and that $\Lambda$ is positive.
Let us note that for a homogeneous universe without spatial gradients, the circumstance that $k_0^2$ combines with $m^2$ with a + sign implies a Yukawa-type exponential temporal behavior (induced by time being finite). This exponential temporal behavior is in cosmology usually expressed in terms of a de Sitter ($\Lambda$) term, which, if being the sole source of evolution, would lead to an exponential expansion, in contrast to exponential decay in the standard Yukawa case. However, in both the de Sitter and Yukawa cases the equations allow both exponentially growing and decaying solutions, the selection is made by the boundary conditions that we impose. The de Sitter solutions are growing, because we choose to start off with a compact Big Bang.
Boundary condition at the causal horizon {#sec:bccausal}
----------------------------------------
With the concepts and tools that we have developed in the preceding sections, let us now come back to our exploration of the Helmholtz potential that we did in Sect. \[sec:gravpot\], since we are now in a position to define the previously unspecified outer boundary condition. This will allow us to illustrate (in Fig. \[fig:gacc\] below) the behavior of Helmholtz gravity and to compare it with Newtonian gravity. The treatment in the present section is not needed for our derivation of the dark energy parameter $\Omega_\Lambda$, which is the subject of the following section, it is only needed for the completion of our presentation of the behavior of Helmholtz gravity.
The particle horizon constitutes the natural outer boundary, since no causal effects or interactions emanating from objects beyond this distance can reach us, including all gravitational effects. Then continuity demands that all interactions, including all accelerations, must vanish at this distance.
A treatment of the inner boundary condition, in the Big Bang at the beginning of time, is beyond the scope of the present paper, because it is in the realm of quantum gravity. Let us however briefly reflect on the implications of the requirement that all interactions should vanish at both causal boundaries, also the inner one, to satisfy continuity. Similar to the outer boundary case, there should be no interactions from anything before the beginning of time, because this part of the universe does not exist (if physical time is truly finite).
The vanishing of all interactions as time $t\to 0$ implies that the beginning is a state of asymptotic freedom. At sufficiently small temporal and spatial scales the gravitational interactions should go to zero if this natural boundary condition is to be satisfied. While we are not yet in a position to specify the scales at which such asymptotic freedom would be reached, it is reasonable to expect the transition to be related to the scales of the Planck era, but this is a topic that we will not pursue more here.
According to Eq. (\[eq:gratio\]) the Helmholtz gravitational acceleration $g_{\rm acc}$ can be written (ignoring the constant of proportionality) as $$g_{\rm acc}\sim -[\,(1+\beta\,x)\cos x\, +\,(x-\beta\,)\sin x\,]\,/\,x^2\,.
\label{eq:gacc}$$ With the same constant of proportionality the corresponding Newtonian acceleration is $\sim -1/x^2$. Here $x$ is the dimensionless distance parameter defined by $x\equiv k_\Lambda r$ as in Eq. (\[eq:xdefklr\]), with the wave number given by $k_\Lambda=2\pi/(c\,t_c)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:m2derived\]). As before $t_c$ is the conformal age of the universe, and $r$ is the comoving distance coordinate (speed of light times conformal time).
$\beta$ is a parameter of the Helmholtz solution that has to be determined by an outer boundary condition. This condition is that $g_{\rm acc}$ must vanish at the causal boundary, where $r=c\,t_c$ and therefore $x=2\pi$. While $\sin x$ then vanishes at the boundary, $\cos x$ does not. Therefore $g_{\rm acc}$ can only vanish there if $1+2\pi\,\beta=0$, which unambiguously fixes the value of $\beta$: $$\beta =-{1\over 2\pi} \approx -0.159\,.
\label{eq:betaatbound}$$
In Fig. \[fig:gacc\] we have used this value for $\beta$ to plot the expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:gacc\]) (after reversing its sign) as the solid curve, with the corresponding Newtonian $1/x^2$ as the dashed curve. The horizontal axis represents the comoving radial distance in units of the Hubble radius, which is marked by the vertical dotted line. The curve for the Helmholtz acceleration ends where it meets the vertical solid line that marks the position of the causal horizon. The exact position of the causal horizon in these distance units is uniquely determined from the solution of Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]), as will be explained in the next section.
We notice that the attractive Helmholtz force is substantially stronger than the Newtonian force at smaller and intermediate distances. About halfways to the outer boundary the Helmholtz force changes sign and becomes repulsive, before it has to vanish at the boundary.
The enhancement of the force at smaller distances may raise the question whether such a deviation from Newtonian gravity could potentially be an explanation for the phenomenon behind what we refer to as “dark matter”. The answer to this question is “no”. The enhancement that we get with our Helmholtz force does not exceed a factor of two, which is far too little to account for dark matter. To be a viable explanation for dark matter the enhancement would need to be larger by more than an order of magnitude and occur at scales about $10^4$ times smaller than the horizon scale. We are not aware of any physical effects that would lead to modified gravity with such properties.
Link to the Planck era and the uniqueness of $\Omega_\Lambda$ {#sec:linkplanck}
-------------------------------------------------------------
The critical value $\rho_c$ of the mean mass density in a Friedmann universe with zero spatial curvature is $$\rho_c ={3\over 8\pi \,G \,t_H^2}\,,
\label{eq:rhocrit}$$ where $t_H =1/H$ is the Hubble time. This scaling between $\rho$ and time $t$ is identical to that for a black hole of radius $r_{\rm
BH}\equiv c\,t_{\rm BH}$ (used to define the time scale $t_{\rm
BH}$) and mass $M_{\rm BH}$. From the expression $$t_{\rm BH} ={2\,GM_{\rm BH}\over c^3}
\label{eq:tbh}$$ for the Schwarzschild radius and assuming a homogeneous density distribution $\rho$ so that $M_{\rm BH}=4\pi\rho \,c^3\,t_{\rm BH}^3/3$, we recover Eq. (\[eq:rhocrit\]) if we replace $\rho$ with $\rho_c$ and $t_{\rm BH}$ with $t_H$.
In Friedmann cosmology $\rho_c$ marks the boundary case between open and closed model universes. For black holes the corresponding density marks the boundary between stability and instability with respect to black-hole formation. To see how this relates to the Planck era, and subsequently how the present mean density of the universe relates to the Planck density, let us first define the Planck era as the epoch when mini black holes get spontaneously formed by vacuum fluctuations. Let us for convenience use the notation $\Delta E \equiv M_{\rm BH}\,c^2$ to define the energy content of such a mini black hole, and denote $\Delta t\equiv t_{\rm BH}$. Then, with the use of Eq. (\[eq:tbh\]), the Heisenberg criterion for spontaneous formation of such mini black holes is $$\Delta E \,\Delta t ={c^5\over 2\,G}\,\,t_{\rm BH}^2\,=\textstyle{1\over 2}\,\hbar\,,
\label{eq:spontform}$$ which defines the Planck time $t_P$ as the $t_{\rm BH}$ that satisfies Eq. (\[eq:spontform\]): $$t_P=\left({\hbar \,G\over c^5}\right)^{\!1/2}\!.
\label{eq:tplanck}$$
Because all black holes and flat Friedmann universes, regardless of their size, scale according to Eq. (\[eq:rhocrit\]), we can relate the present critical mean density $\rho_c$ of the universe to the density $\rho_P$ in the Planck era (at time $t=t_P$) through $${\rho_c\over \rho_P}=\left({t_H\over
t_P}\right)^{\!-2}=H_0^2\,t_P^2\,\approx 10^{-122}\,,
\label{eq:rhoscaling}$$ since $t_P=5.38\times 10^{-44}$s and $t_H=14.4$Gyr $=4.54\times
10^{17}$s. This beautiful scaling relation over 122 orders of magnitude would be wrecked if a hypothetical inflationary phase would be introduced.
Let us now see how the emergent vacuum energy that is represented by the $\Lambda$ parameter relates to all this. The most convenient representation of $\Lambda$ is in the form of the dimensionless parameter $\Omega_\Lambda$, which we introduced in Sect. \[sec:scalehelm\]. It is defined via the vacuum energy density $\rho_\Lambda$ that was introduced in Eq. (\[eq:rholam\]) through $$\Omega_\Lambda\,\rho_c\equiv \rho_\Lambda\equiv {c^2\Lambda\over 8\pi \,G}\,.
\label{eq:omldef}$$ With Eq. (\[eq:rhocrit\]) we then obtain $$\Lambda ={3\,\Omega_\Lambda\over c^2\,t_H^2}\,,
\label{eq:lamrhoc}$$ while from Eqs. (\[eq:m2derived\]) and (\[eq:phijk2\]) we get the same $\Lambda$ when derived as an emergent quantity that is a consequence of the finite age of the universe: $$\Lambda ={2\,\pi^{\,2}\over c^2\,t_c^{\,2}}\,,
\label{eq:lamemergent}$$ where $t_c$ is the conformal age of the universe. Combining Eqs. (\[eq:lamrhoc\]) and (\[eq:lamemergent\]) we find the expression for the dimensionless $\Omega_\Lambda$: $$\Omega_\Lambda\,={2\over 3}\left({\pi\,t_H\over t_c}\right)^2.
\label{eq:omlfinal}$$
Note that $\Lambda$ in Eq. (\[eq:lamemergent\]) depends exclusively on the conformal age $t_c$, while $\Omega_\Lambda$ in Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]) depends on the ratio $t_c/t_H$. The reason why the Hubble time appears in Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]) is that $\Omega_\Lambda$ represents the fraction of the critical density $\rho_c$ that is in the form of dark energy, and $\rho_c\sim
1/t_H^2$ according to Eq. (\[eq:rhocrit\]).
In the models of standard cosmology the ratio $t_c/t_H$ between the conformal and Hubble times depends on the cosmological parameters, including $\Omega_\Lambda$ (because it depends on the shape of the $a(t)$ function), but it is close to $\pi$ for the parameters used in standard cosmology. Equation (\[eq:omlfinal\]) then gives $\Omega_\Lambda\approx
2/3$, which is consistent with the value adopted from observations.
Due to the dependence of $t_c/t_H$ on $\Omega_\Lambda$, there is in fact a unique solution for both $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $t_c/t_H$ from Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]), namely $\Omega_\Lambda=0.664$ and $t_c/t_H=3.15$ (in the case that $\Omega_M$ is due to matter rather than radiation, see below). Any other value is prohibited, since it would not be consistent with this equation. These values should be compared with the corresponding values derived by @stenflo-planck2016 from the CMB observations when applying the interpretational framework of standard cosmology: 0.69 and 3.26 ($=46.9$GLyr / $14.4$GLyr), respectively. The agreement between observations and theory can be considered good, in particular since we do not use any free fitting parameters in our theory, and the CMB observations have been interpreted with a theoretical framework that is not identical to ours.
From the definition of conformal time in Eq. (\[eq:conftime\]), the solution for $t_c/t_H$ can be written as $${t_c\over t_H} ={1\over t_H}\int_0^{t_U}{{\rm d}t\over a}=\int_0^\infty {{\rm d}z\over E(z)}\,,
\label{eq:tcthinteg}$$ where $z$ is the redshift, $t_U$ is the age of the universe in normal cosmic time units, and $$E(z)=[\,\Omega_E\,(1+z)^n \,+\,\Omega_\Lambda\,]^{1/2}\,.
\label{eq:ez}$$ Since this expression represents the case of zero curvature, $\Omega_E=1-\Omega_\Lambda$ can be transformed away [cf. @stenflo-longair2012]. Here we have introduced parameters $\Omega_E$ and $n=3(1+w)$, where $w$ is the equation of state parameter, to allow for the two main cases when the universe is matter-dominated ($w=0$) as it is at present, in which case $\Omega_E =\Omega_M$ and $n=3$, and when it is radiation dominated ($w=1/3$ as in the early universe), in which case $\Omega_E
=\Omega_R$ (dimensionless density parameter for radiation) and $n=4$. The expression for $t_c/t_H$ in Eq. (\[eq:tcthinteg\]) can be inserted in Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]), which can then be solved numerically. For the matter-dominated universe in which we now live, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.66$, while in the radiation-dominated era $\Omega_\Lambda=0.93$. Thus almost all of the energy density in the early universe was in the form of the vacuum energy that is a consequence of the restricted extent of the physical time line.
$\Omega_\Lambda$ remains constant for all times as long as there is no change in the equation of state for $\Omega_E$. In the radiation-dominated era $\Omega_\Lambda$ stays at 93% all the way back to the Planck era, in the matter-dominated era it stays at 66% for all future times. The present balance between $\Omega_M$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ leads to the value 1.07 for the ratio between the Hubble time and the age of the universe (while it is $14.4/13.8=1.04$ according to @stenflo-planck2016), which is close to unity. This implies that the expansion parameter $a(t)$ is nearly linear with respect to time except for a small deceleration, and it will remain so forever. There will be no transition to an exponentially expanding phase as is often believed and which would result in an utterly empty universe. In the radiation-dominated early universe the ratio Hubble time to age of the universe is slightly smaller, about 96%, which also implies an almost linear expansion except for a small acceleration as a result of the larger $\Omega_\Lambda$.
Implications for dark matter {#sec:darkmatter}
============================
The results of the previous section demonstrate how our explanation of dark energy as an emergent phenomenon leads to non-standard features outside the current framework, although it accounts for the observed $\Lambda$ effects and is largely consistent with overall aspects of standard cosmology. The non-standard aspects represent an advantage, because the theory becomes amenable to future observational tests that may bring in different perspectives on unsolved issues in cosmology.
Here we will focus on one such unsolved, long-standing enigma in astrophysics: the nature of dark matter. There have been numerous attempts to account for dark matter through a parametrized modification of Newtonian gravity to fit the observed rotation curves of galaxies, starting with the MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) approach introduced by @stenflo-milgrom1983.
The term $a_{00}\,j_0$ in Eq. (\[eq:reducedsol\]) for the Helmholtz potential actually has the right functional form to give an excellent fit to the observed galaxy rotation curves if we were to use $a_{00}$ and wave number $k_\Lambda \equiv
2\pi/r_\Lambda\equiv\sqrt{\,2\Lambda}$ (cf. Eqs. (\[eq:krs\]) and (\[eq:helmstatg00\])) as free parameters. However, in our case the wave scale implied by $k_\Lambda$ is not a free parameter but is fixed by the value of $\Lambda$, which is observationally tied to the accelerated expansion of the universe, and which is also theoretically fixed via Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]).
While our $k_\Lambda$ implies a characteristic distance scale that is given by the radius of the causal horizon, the galaxy distance scale over which we need significant modifications of the Newtonian potential to account for the dark matter signatures is smaller by at least about four orders of magnitude. Since $\Lambda\sim 1/r_\Lambda^2$, we would need a value of $\Lambda$ that is larger by a factor of about $10^8$ to induce significant Helmholtz effects on the Newtonian potential at galaxy scales, but such a possibility is prohibited by cosmological constraints.
There now exists rather convincing observational evidence that disfavor an explanation of dark matter in terms of a modification of gravity, in particular from the observations of a pair of colliding galaxy clusters, the so-called Bullet Cluster [cf. @stenflo-bullet2004; @stenflo-bullet2006], which reveal a significant offset between the visible matter distribution and the dark matter inferred from gravitational lensing. While this offset implies that the invisible component must consist of collisionless matter, it does not imply that this matter should be non-baryonic and consist of some yet to be discovered weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).
The main reason why most of dark matter is believed to be non-baryonic is the required compatibility with predictions from BBN (Big Bang nucleosynthesis) calculations. A small baryonic mean density ($\Omega_B\approx 5$% of the critical density $\rho_c$) is needed within the standard cosmological framework for agreement of BBN with the observed abundances of the light chemical elements. The situation however changes with our new theoretical framework, because the expansion rate at the epoch of nucleosynthesis is different. Here we will show that when this non-standard aspect is accounted for, agreement between observed abundances and BBN calculations requires that $\Omega_B$ is instead of the same order as the present $\Omega_M
=1-\Omega_\Lambda$, which implies that (within the uncertainties of the derivations) all of the dark matter is baryonic, there may no longer be any justification for introducing anything exotic of not yet discovered nature.
For an overview of BBN physics we refer to @stenflo-peebles1993. It is outside the scope of the present paper to carry out comprehensive BBN calculations that fully account for the non-standard effects of our new theoretical framework in quantitative detail. We will limit our focus to the deuterium abundance, which is the “baryometer of choice” [cf. @stenflo-steigman2007] because of its particularly high sensitivity to the adopted value of the relative baryon abundance $\Omega_B$.
The bottleneck for all subsequent BBN processes is deuterium formation. There is competition between deuterium creation through proton-neutron collisions and deuterium photodissociation by the ambient radiation field. BBN could only start when the general photon energy fell below the binding energy of deuterium, which occurred when the temperature in the Big Bang dropped below $10^9$K. Then all the free neutrons got quickly captured to form deuterium. Once a significant fraction of deuterium nuclei $d$ were available, they started to be used up for the production of $^4$He, with $d+d$ collisions as the first step, leading to tritium ($t$) or $^3$He formation, followed by $t+d$ and $^3$He$\,+\,d$ reactions.
This had the result that all free neutrons ended up in $^4$He while deuterium was destroyed in the process. The deuterium destruction was however incomplete because of the density drop due to the expansion of the universe, which brought the deuterium destruction to a halt. The remaining, undestroyed abundance of deuterium is therefore a very sensitive function of the initial baryon density, parametrized by the dimensionless $\Omega_B$, and the expansion rate that is responsible for cutting off the destruction process. This is the reason why deuterium is the baryometer of choice, our measure of the $\Omega_B$ parameter.
In standard cosmology the effects of spacetime curvature and a hypothetical cosmological constant become negligible in the early universe, because matter and radiation scale with the scale factor $a(t)$ like $a^{-3}$ and $a^{-4}$ to become the dominant drivers of the expansion in the early universe. The expansion rate gets uniquely determined by the Friedmann solution that describes the radiation-dominated era, for which the Hubble time is 2.0 times the age of the universe. The only remaining free parameter for the BBN calculations is $\Omega_B$, which is then constrained to be about 5% to agree with the observed deuterium abundance.
A non-standard feature that follows from our explanation of dark energy as an emergent phenomenon is that the expansion rate in the early universe is 2.09 times faster than in the models of standard cosmology (as explained below). This has the consequence that the deuterium destruction process is terminated significantly sooner, leaving a fraction of undestroyed deuterium that is much higher than the observed abundance, unless we compensate the faster expansion rate by using a higher value for the baryon density. Raising $\Omega_B$ increases the deuterium destruction rate, to allow the same fraction of deuterium to be destroyed within the shorter time interval that is available for this process.
Next we will quantify these arguments by showing that an increase of the expansion rate by a factor of 2.09 requires an increase of $\Omega_B$ to the approximate level of the total matter density $\Omega_M$ to restore agreement between the BBN predictions and the observed deuterium abundance. Since $\Omega_M$ includes all of dark matter, we are led to the conclusion that there may be no need to invoke the existence of non-baryonic matter to explain the observed high value of $\Omega_M$. All of it can be baryonic without violating the BBN constraint imposed by the observed deuterium abundance.
Here we will limit ourselves to an idealized BBN treatment, since the full solution of the nuclear rate equations in our non-standard cosmology is beyond the scope of the present paper. Our main idealization is to treat deuterium creation and destruction as occurring in two separated stages: (1) As soon as photodissociation vanishes when the expanding universe cools, all of the free neutrons get captured into deuterium nuclei. (2) Subsequently the deuterium destruction begins, whereby deuterium gets converted into helium via $^3$He or tritium. This destruction process occurs with a rate $\gamma$ and duration $\Delta t$, after which it ceases, leaving a surviving deuterium abundance that is a factor $\exp(-\,\gamma\,\,\Delta t)$ smaller than the initial value at the beginning of stage 2. $\Delta t$ is proportional to the Hubble time or inverse expansion rate.
In reality the two stages overlap. The destruction process does not wait until the creation process is finished, but sets in as soon as a significant amount of deuterium nuclei have been created. Our idealization however not only simplifies the calculations, it has the advantage of bringing out the basic BBN physics in a more transparent way.
Full BBN calculations show that the surviving deuterium abundance, usually represented by the number density $y_D
=$ D/H of nuclei relative to hydrogen, depends on the baryon density $\Omega_B$ in a way that can be approximated in the form of a power law: $y_D\sim \Omega_B^{-\alpha}$. This interpolation formula gives excellent results when using $\alpha =1.6$ for values of $\Omega_B$ around 5%, the value favored in standard cosmology [@stenflo-steigman2007]. However, a glance at Fig. 6.5 in the monograph by @stenflo-peebles1993 shows that the steepness of the curve that depicts the calculated deuterium abundance as a function of the baryon abundance increases significantly with increasing $\Omega_B$. Near the midpoint (on a logarithmic scale) of the range between $\Omega_B$ and $\Omega_M$ the slope of the curve corresponds to $\alpha\approx 3$. Therefore the interpolation formula should only be used for the purpose of crude estimates if applied to a wider $\Omega_B$ range, as we are doing here. We use it for convenience and because it makes the presentation of the physics more transparent.
With these caveats we will use the interpolation formula to treat $\alpha$ as a parameter that gets determined by the assumed requirement that all matter, including dark matter, is baryonic. The consistency of this assumption is then tested by checking if the derived value of the $\alpha$ parameter falls within a physically plausible range around the representative midrange slope value of $\alpha\approx 3$.
Let us with the help of this idealization compare the BBN results of standard and non-standard cosmology, distinguishing them with indices $s$ and $ns$, respectively. If the two versions of cosmology are both going to agree with the same observed value for $y_D$, then the following relation must hold (within the framework of our idealization): $$\Omega_{B,s}^{-\alpha}\,\,e^{-\,\gamma\,\Delta t_s}\,=\,\Omega_{B,ns}^{-\alpha}\,\,e^{-\,\gamma\,\Delta t_{ns}}
\,.\label{eq:ydsns}$$ It describes how any change in the time scale $\Delta t$ must be compensated for by a corresponding change in the baryon density in order to preserve agreement with the observations.
Now let us test if our non-standard cosmology is consistent with a scenario where all dark matter is baryonic, which means that we set $\Omega_{B,ns} =\Omega_M$, where $\Omega_M$ represents all matter, baryonic plus non-baryonic. Removing index $s$ from $\Omega_B$ we then obtain from Eq. (\[eq:ydsns\]) $$\left({\Omega_M\over \Omega_B}\!\right)^{\alpha}\,=\,R_s^{\,\kappa}\,,
\label{eq:ommoveromb}$$ where $$R_s\equiv e^{-\,\gamma\,\Delta t_s}\,,
\label{eq:rs}$$ and $$\kappa \,\equiv\, {\Delta t_{ns}\over \Delta t_s}\,-\,1\,.
\label{eq:kappa}$$ According to @stenflo-planck2016 $\Omega_M/ \Omega_B =6.3$. The destruction factor $R_s$ is the ratio between the final value of $y_D$ and its initial value $y_D^{(0)}$ at the beginning of stage 2 in our idealized scenario. If all free neutrons at the start of stage 1 end up as part of $^4$He with a mass fraction $Y$ and do it after first having been absorbed into deuterium, then the mass fraction of deuterium at the beginning of stage 2 is also $Y$. Expressing $Y$ in terms of the number density $y_D^{(0)}$ relative to hydrogen, we have $Y=2 y_D^{(0)}/(2y_D^{(0)}+1)$, which, when inverted, gives $$y_D^{(0)} = {0.5Y\over 1-Y}\,.
\label{eq:yd0}$$ According to @stenflo-steigman2007 $y_D = 2.6\times 10^{-5}$ and $Y=0.249$, which according to Eq. (\[eq:yd0\]) gives $y_D^{(0)}=0.166$. We then find $R_s =y_D/y_D^{(0)}=1.57\times
10^{-4}$, which demonstrates that only a minor fraction of the deuterium survives destruction in the Big Bang.
The ratio $\Delta t_{ns}/ \Delta t_s$ equals the ratio between the corresponding Hubble times. At the end of Sect. \[sec:linkplanck\] we showed that in the radiation-dominated era of our non-standard cosmology the Hubble time is 95.8% of the age of the universe, while in standard cosmology it is 2.0 times the age. The ratio $\Delta
t_{ns}/ \Delta t_s$ is therefore $0.958/2.0=0.479$, which gives us $\kappa =-0.521$.
As we have now assigned observationally constrained values for all the parameters in Eq. (\[eq:ommoveromb\]) except for the parameter $\alpha$, we can solve for $\alpha$, obtaining $$\alpha =2.5\,.
\label{eq:betasolexp}$$ This value should be compared with the previously mentioned midrange slope value of $\alpha\approx 3$ that is representative for the actual slope derived from rigorous BBN calculations. In view of the uncertainties of our simplified treatment the agreement between the two values is sufficiently close to satisfy our consistency test: With the $1/0.479=2.09$ times faster expansion rate of our theory, agreement between the BBN calculations and the observed deuterium abundance gets restored if the baryon density parameter $\Omega_B$ is raised to the level of the total matter density parameter $\Omega_M$. This suggests that all dark matter may indeed be baryonic without violating BBN, there may be no reason to introduce yet to be discovered exotic particles for the purpose of explaning the observed deuterium abundance. Because of our simplified treatment, however, this conclusion still needs to be validated by full and rigorous BBN calculations.
If all dark matter is indeed baryonic, it is clear that most of it must be cold and collisionless, and therefore have macroscopic properties that are not that different from those of WIMPs. Such behavior would be the case if it for instance would be composed of grains, rocks, and primordial black holes, with a spectrum of sizes spanning from tiny grains to planetary size bodies. Larger dark bodies (MACHO — Massive Astrophysical Halo Objects) appear to be disfavored by constraints from gravitational microlensing as major candidates for dark matter, although the evidence is not yet conclusive [cf. @stenflo-novati2005; @stenflo-tisserand2007]. A high value of $\Omega_B$ poses other issues beyond BBN, which need to be clarified, for example compatibility with the observed signatures of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) in the CMB spectrum. The CMB imprint is in the form of a characteristic distance scale that represents the sound horizon, the comoving distance that sound waves can travel from the time of the Big Bang to the time when the baryons decouple from the radiation field. Like in the BBN case we have two competing effects. The speed of sound depends on the baryon density, while the travel time depends on the expansion rate of the universe. Both are modified in our non-standard cosmology. It is however outside the scope of the present paper to work out the details of this here.
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
Our resolution of both the dark energy and dark matter conundrums has been achieved without the use of any free parameters and without any modification of the Einstein equations for gravity, except for the removal of the “cosmological constant” from these equations. The origin of the observed accelerated expansion of the universe is not in the formulation of the equations for gravity, but has to do with the cosmic boundary conditions.
The cosmological phenomena that are generally referred to with the label “dark energy” may be seen as the result of a global cosmic resonance that emerges because the age of the universe is finite. The $\Lambda$ term has the dimension of the square of a frequency, which we may think of as the “pitch” of the universe. In the beginning, when the horizon of the universe was small, the pitch was high, but it got lower as the universe increased in size, in inverse proportion to the horizon radius.
In contrast, when $\Lambda$ is put in by hand as a cosmological constant, the pitch always remains the same, regardless of whether the universe is small or large. Since there is no physical justification for inserting such a constant, the anthropic principle has often been invoked in the guise of an “explanation”: The existence of biological life constrains the allowed values of $\Lambda$ to a narrow range around the actually observed value. Such an argument opens the door to the proliferation of parallel universes with different values of the cosmological constant, some of which are harbouring life, while most of them do not.
According to the present work the possibility of universes with other values of $\Lambda$ does not exist. Nature did not have a choice, because the requirement of logical consistency leads to uniqueness.
The explanation of dark energy as an emergent phenomenon leads to non-standard cosmological consequences. One of these consequences provides a resolution of the dark matter enigma. This resolution is not in terms of modified gravity, because this would require a major modification at scales several orders of magnitude smaller than the horizon scale, for which there is no justification. Instead dark matter must really be made up of physical particles. However, because of the non-standard cosmology that follows from our explanation of dark energy, all the dark matter particles now may be baryonic, there may not be any need to invoke the existence of some yet to be discovered exotic particles (WIMPs).
The main reason for the belief in the existence of non-baryonic matter has come from the comparison of the observed abundances of the light elements with the predictions from BBN (Big Bang nucleosynthesis) calculations. While the relative fraction $\Omega_M$ of matter in the universe is of order 30%, at most 5% can be baryonic ($\Omega_B$) to satisfy the BBN constraints.
These constraints are however based on the framework of standard cosmology. The non-standard aspects in our theory for dark energy lead to an expansion rate in the early universe that is 2.1 times the expansion rate in the standard cosmological models used for the BBN calculations. When the faster value of the expansion rate is used for the calculations, the baryonic mass fraction $\Omega_B$ must be increased to the level around that of $\Omega_M$ to be compatible with the observed abundances. To show this we have used a simplified treatment focused on the case of the deuterium abundance, so this resolution of the dark matter enigma still needs to be validated by more complete and rigorous modeling of BBN and other relevant observational constraints, like the observed CMB imprints of the baryon acoustic oscillations.
Our explanation of dark energy uses classical theory, at least in the sense that Planck’s constant does not appear in the expression for $\Omega_\Lambda$ in Eq. (\[eq:omlfinal\]). Our conclusion that dark matter is baryonic does not make use of anything beyond the well-established domain of particle physics, no “exotic physics” is called for. Nevertheless the process of clarifying the role of the cosmic boundary conditions has cast some light on intriguing aspects of gravity. Examples: the wave nature of the gravitational interaction, the feedback effects of the vacuum energy (vacuum polarization), structural similarities with quantum field theory, metric-induced thermodynamics, scaling relations between the present and the Planck era, and the necessity of a hot Big Bang from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. These aspects may help guide us in our quest for a theory of quantum gravity.
I am grateful to Philippe Jetzer for helpful comments on the manuscript.
[25]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, P. 2013, , 21, 67
, S., [Paulin-Henriksson]{}, S., [An]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2005, , 443, 911
, D., [Brada[č]{}]{}, M., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [et al.]{} 2006, , 648, L109
, A. 1917, Sitzungsberichte der K[ö]{}niglich Preu[ß]{}ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 142
, G. & [Smolin]{}, L. 2009, [The weak anthropic principle and the landscape of string theory. arXiv:0901.2414 \[hep-th\]]{}
, A. & [Dey]{}, U. R. 2016, Resonance, 21, 447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-016-0348-y
, P. & [Sereno]{}, M. 2006, , 73, 044015
, P. S. 1880, [Traité de mécanique céleste, Vol. 5, Book 16, Chapter 4]{} (Gauthier-Villars, Paris)
, M. 2012, Lecture Notes on Fundamentals of Cosmology, IAC, Tenerife,\
http://www.iac.es/congreso/isapp2012/media/Longair-lectures/Longair1.pdf
, M., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [Clowe]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2004, , 606, 819
, M. 1983, , 270, 365
, C. 1896, [Allgemeine Untersuchungen über das Newtonsche Prinzip der Fernwirkungen]{} (Teubner, Leipzig)
, C., [O’Keeffe]{}, M., [Nahm]{}, W., & [Mitton]{}, S. 2017, European Physical Journal H, 42
, P. J. E. 1993, [Principles of Physical Cosmology]{} (Princeton University Press)
, S., [Aldering]{}, G., [Goldhaber]{}, G., [et al.]{} 1999, , 517, 565
, [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Aghanim]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2016, , 594, A13
, A. G., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [Challis]{}, P., [et al.]{} 1998, , 116, 1009
, E. 2017, Preprints, 2017050164 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201705.0164.v2)
, H. 1895, Astronomische Nachrichten, 137, 129
, G. 2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 463
, N. 2002, ArXiv e-prints: gr-qc/0208027 (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology)
, P., [Le Guillou]{}, L., [Afonso]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2007, , 469, 387
, S. 1987, Physical Review Letters, 59, 2607
, A. 2010, [Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell: Second Edition]{} (Princeton University Press)
, F. 1937, , 86, 217
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop and demonstrate a classification system constituted by several Support Vector Machines (SVM) classifiers, which can be applied to select quasar candidates from large sky survey projects, such as SDSS, UKIDSS, GALEX. How to construct this SVM classification system is presented in detail. When the SVM classification system works on the test set to predict quasar candidates, it acquires the efficiency of 93.21% and the completeness of 97.49%. In order to further prove the reliability and feasibility of this system, two chunks are randomly chosen to compare its performance with that of the XDQSO method used for SDSS-III’s BOSS. The experimental results show that the high faction of overlap exists between the quasar candidates selected by this system and those extracted by the XDQSO technique in the dereddened i-band magnitude range between 17.75 and 22.45, especially in the interval of dereddened i-band magnitude $<$ 20.0. In the two test areas, 57.38% and 87.15% of the quasar candidates predicted by the system are also targeted by the XDQSO method. Similarly, the prediction of subcategories of quasars according to redshift achieves a high level of overlap with these two approaches. Depending on the effectiveness of this system, the SVM classification system can be used to create the input catalog of quasars for the GuoShouJing Telescope (LAMOST) or other spectroscopic sky survey projects. In order to get higher confidence of quasar candidates, cross-result from the candidates selected by this SVM system with that by XDQSO method is applicable.'
author:
- |
Nanbo Peng$^{1,2}$, Yanxia Zhang$^{1}\thanks{E-mail:
[email protected]
(NP),[email protected] (YZ)}$, Yongheng Zhao$^{1}$ and Xuebing Wu$^{3}$\
$^{1}$Key Laboratory of Optical Astronomy, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences 100012, Beijing, P.R.China\
$^{2}$Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 100049, Beijing, P.R.China\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Peking University 100871, Beijing, P.R.China
date: 'Accepted . Received 2011 '
title: Selecting Quasar Candidates by a SVM Classification System
---
\[firstpage\]
Catalogs: galaxies:distance and redshifts; Methods: statistical-quasars: general-stars; Surveys: SDSS.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Over the years, the volume of astronomical data at different wavebands grows dramatically with large space-based and ground-based telescopes surveying the sky, such as SDSS, 2MASS, NVSS, FIRST and 2dF. How to preselect scientific targets from the enormous amount of observed data is a significant and challenging issue. In another words, how to extract knowledge from a huge volume of data by automated methods is an important task for astronomers. In the next decade, the ongoing or planned multiband photometric survey projects, for instance, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST; Tyson 2002), the Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA; McPherson et al. 2006), and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS; Kaiser et al. 2002) will bring more serious challenges for astronomers.
Ball and Brunner (2009) reviewed the current state of data mining and machine learning in astronomy. Borne (2009) also described the application of data mining algorithms to research problems in astronomy. A lot of Data Mining (DM) algorithms have been applied to find quasar candidates in astronomy. Traditional quasar selection relies on cutoff in a two-dimensional color space although most modern surveys are done in several bandpasses. Traditional methods can’t make use of the provided information from the high dimensional space. Otherwise, the DM approaches utilize the features as many as possible. In general, DM methods for quasar candidate selection can be divided into two types: supervised and unsupervised learning. Most methods used in this domain of astronomy belong to supervised learning. Abraham et al. (2010) used a Difference Boosting Neural Network (DBNN) classifier which is a bayesian supervised learning algorithm to make a catalogue of quasar candidates from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Seventh Data Release (SDSS DR7; Abazajian et al. 2009). Carballo et al. (2008) obtained a sample set of redshift $\ge$ 3.6 radio quasi-stellar objects using Neural Network (NN). Quasar candidate detection also can be achieved by using unsupervised clustering algorithms in color spaces, such as the Probabilistic Principal Surface(PPS) algorithm (D’Abrusco, Longo & Walton 2009). The most representative work could be the series of work completed by the SDSS team until now, especially for the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS; Schlegel et al. 2007; Eisenstein et al. 2011). Ross et al. (2011) gave a flowchart for the BOSS quasar target selection and exploited several methods including an Extreme-Deconvolution method (XDQSO; Bovy et al. 2011), a Kernel Density Esitimator (KDE; Richards et al. 2004, 2009), a Likelihood method which likes KDE (Kirkpatrick et al. 2011) and a Neural Network method (NN; Yèche et al. 2010) in this flowchart. After several times comparisons of the efficiency of quasar selection methods, XDQSO was declared to be CORE for the rest of the BOSS quasar survey.
Support Vector Machines (SVM) is a supervised learning method and it can produce a non-probabilistic binary linear classifier given a set of training examples each of which is labeled as one of two categories. SVM provides a good out-of-sample generalization and can be robust, even when the training sample has some bias. This distinguishing feature of SVM attracts many astronomers to use it for selecting quasar candidates. Zhang & Zhao (2003) applied two classification algorithms, Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ), to study the distribution of various astronomical sources in the multidimensional parameter space. Zhang & Zhao (2004) demonstrated that SVM can show better performance than Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ) and Single-Layer Perceptron (SLP) when preselecting AGN candidates. Gao et al. (2008) compared the performance of SVM with K-Dimensional Tree (KD-Tree) to separate quasars from stars and provide a good parameter combination of magnitudes and colors for SVM. Bailer-Jones et al. (2008) developed and demonstrated a probabilistic method for classifying quasars in surveys, named the Discrete Source Classifier (DSC) which is a supervised classifier based on SVM. Kim et al. (2011) presented how to use SVM to do a variability selection for quasars on a set of extracted time series features including period, amplitude, color and autocorrelation value. In this work, we focus on constructing a kind of classification system based SVM and use it to select quasar candidates for the Chinese GuoShouJing Telescope (LAMOST).
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:data\] describes the characteristics of data used in this experiment in detail. In Section \[sec:method\], we presents the brief of SVM, and how to use it to construct a SVM classification system. Section \[sec:pef\] demonstrates the performance of this method for separating quasars from stars in a test set. The comparison of this system with the XDQSO method for classifying quasars and stars will be discussed in Section \[sec:qso\_sel\]. In Section \[sec:conclusion\], we give the conclusion about our method and what should be improved in the future work.
The Data {#sec:data}
========
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is one of the most ambitious and influential surveys in the history of astronomy (York et al. 2000). The SDSS used a dedicated 2.5-meter telescope at Apache Point Observatory, New Mexico, equipped with two powerful special-purpose instruments. The 120-megapixel camera imaged 1.5 square degrees of sky at a time, about eight times the area of the full moon. Over eight years of operations (SDSS-I, 2000-2005; SDSS-II, 2005-2008), it obtained deep, multi-color images covering more than a quarter of the sky and created 3-dimensional maps containing more than 930,000 galaxies and more than 120,000 quasars. Meanwhile, SDSS is continuing with the Third Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS-III), a program of four new surveys using SDSS facilities. SDSS-III began observations in July 2008 and released its first public data as Data Release 8 to emphasize its continuity with previous SDSS releases. SDSS-III will continue operating and releasing data through 2014. SDSS-II carried out three distinct surveys: the Sloan Legacy Survey, SEGUE (the Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration), the Sloan Supernova Survey. SDSS-III builds on the legacy of the SDSS and SDSS-II to generate high-quality scientific data and to make important new discoveries. SDSS-III has been designed to maximize understanding of three scientific themes: Dark energy and cosmological parameters, the structure, dynamics, and chemical evolution of the Milky Way, the architecture of planetary systems.
The creation of a good classifier depends on a complete and representive training sample. Therefore careful preparation of training sample is of great importance. In this specific problem, we just care about separating quasars from stars and thus exclude extended sources (GALAXY). The training sets and test sets used in this method are produced from four data sets Quasar Catalogue V (Schneider et al. 2010), SDSS DR7 (Abazajian et at. 2009), SDSS DR8(Aihara et al. 2011) and SDSS-XDQSO (Bovy et al. 2011). In this section, we simply introduce these four data sets and how to use them to construct the training set for each SVM classifier in detail will be discussed in Section 3.2.
Based upon the SDSS DR7, quasar Catalogue V contains 105,783 (LowZ\_No 88201, MedZ\_No 14063, HighZ\_No 3519) spectroscopically confirmed quasars and represents the conclusion of the SDSS-I and SDSS-II quasar survey. In the following, LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO are short for low-redshift quasars, medium-redshift quasars and high-redshift quasars, respectively. According to the paper (Bovy et al. 2011), the definition of low-redshift, medium-redshift and high-redshift corresponds to $z < 2.2$, $2.2
\leq z \leq 3.5$ and $z> 3.5$, separately. For the several training sets in our SVM classification system, nine tenths of quasars (95,202 quasars including 79,421 LowZ\_QSO, 12,610 MedZ\_QSO and 3,171 HighZ\_QSO) of this catalogue are randomly sampled to construct them and the remaining one tenth of quasars (10,581 quasars including 8,780 LowZ\_QSO, 1,453 MedZ\_QSO and 348 HighZ\_QSO) will be used as test samples of quasars.
The training sample of stars consists of three parts. The first part is from the spectral confirmed stars of SDSS DR8, the second part comes from the unidentified pointed sources with [*psfMag\_i*]{} $<
17.75$ in the subarea of Stripe-82, the third part is made up of the pointed sources with deredened $i$-band magnitude between 17.75 and 22.45 mag in the same subarea of Stripe-82 removing those predicted by SDSS-XDQSO as quasars (the probability of quasars $> 0.5$). The detailed information about the three parts is described as follows.
The spectral confirmed stars used in training sets are produced from [*SpecPhotoAll*]{} Table in SDSS DR8 using the SQL interface to Catalog Archive Server (CAS) mainly following the criteria described in Section 3.2.1 of Richards et al. 2002. Some records in the [*SpecPhotoAll*]{} Table of SDSS DR8 should be removed because the sky survey plan makes some sources to be duplicately observed several times and some spectroscopically identified objects don’t have photometric corresponding sources. We set the attribute [*class*]{} $= STAR$ which means this record is a stellar object, [*sciencePrimary*]{} $= 1$ which represents the best version of spectrum at this location, [*Mode*]{} $= 1$ which denotes this record with the best photometric data and [*zWarrning*]{} $= 0$ to ensure the [*subclass*]{} of STAR more reliable. The records with fatal errors are excluded using [*flags*]{} such as BRIGHT, SATURATED, EDGE and BLENDED. We also reject the objects whose magnitude errors are larger than 0.2 in all five optical bands. In addition, a very few records with the same [*objID* ]{} are weeded out. Finally, we get a catalog of 480,878 spectral confirmed stars from [*SpecPhotoAll*]{} Table of SDSS DR8 and randomly sampled out two thirds (No. 320584) of them for training and the rest (No. 160,294) of them for test.
The sample of photometric stars without spectra is constructed from the [*PhotoObjAll*]{} table in SDSS DR8 using [*mode*]{} $= 1$, [*type*]{} $= 6$, [*specObjID*]{} $= 0$ and [*psfMag\_i*]{} $< 17.75$. Since SDSS Stripe-82 (Abazajian et al. 2009) has been observed many times, the data from this area are reliable. The point sources in this area with the [*psfMag\_i*]{} $< 17.75$ can rarely be quasars, so these photometric sources are regarded as stars. Actually, we select a subarea which covers 150 deg$^2$ (-$30^\circ <
\alpha_{\mathrm{J2000}} <+30^\circ$ and -$1^\circ.25 <
\delta_{\mathrm{J2000}} < +1^\circ.25$) and this area was also chosen by SDSS-XDQSO (Bovy et al. 2011). Consequently, these are 115,010 photometric stars in this subarea of Stripe-82 with the [*psfMag\_i*]{} $< 17.75$.
SDSS-XDQSO method is one of methods which serve SDSS-III for targeting quasars. It uses the extreme-deconvolution method to estimate the underlying density of stars and quasars in flux space and then it convolves this density with flux uncertainties when evaluating the probability that an unknown object is a quasar. In recent blind tests of SDSS-III, it demonstrates a good performance to the faint objects. SDSS-XDQSO quasar targeting catalog contains 160,904,060 point-sources with dereddened $i$-band magnitude between 17.75 and 22.45 mag in the 14,555 $deg^2$ of imaging from SDSD DR8. For our training sets, we just select the objects (No. 301,043) in the subarea of Stripe-82 except those predicted as quasars by SDSS-XDQSO (the probability of quasars $> 0.5$).
The test set are composed of two parts. The first one is one tenth (No. 95,202) of quasar Catalogue V and the second one is one thirds (No. 160,294) of [*SpecPhotoAll*]{} table in SDSS DR8 which has been cleaned in the above paragraph.
METHOD {#sec:method}
======
SVM {#subsec:svm}
---
Support Vector Machines (SVM), proposed by Vapnik (1995), is derived from the theory of structural risk minimization which belongs to statistical learning theory. The core idea of SVM is to map input vectors into a high-dimensional feature space and construct the optimal separating hyperplane in this space. SVM aims at minimizing an upper bound of the generalization error through maximizing the margin between the separating hyperplane and the data. Basically, we are looking for the optimal separating hyperplane between the two classes by maximizing the margin between the classes’ closest points. In Figure \[fig:SV\] [^1] points lying on the boundaries are called support vectors and it means that SVM just uses the most representative points to construct a classifier not using all of them.
![This is a linear separable case of SVM.[]{data-label="fig:SV"}](SV.eps){width="40.00000%"}
For a given training set belonging to two different classes is often called positive class and negative class (or plus class and minus class), $$T={(\vec{x}_1,y_1),\ldots,(\vec{x}_n,y_n)},\qquad
\vec{x}_i\in\mathbf{R^N},y_i\in{\{-1,+1\}}$$ SVM learns linear threshold functions of the type. $$h(\vec{x}_i) = sign\{\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{x}_i+b\}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
+1,& ~~~\mbox{if}~~~\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{x}_i+b > 0\\
-1,& ~~~\mbox{else}
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Each linear threshold function corresponds to a hyperplane in a feature space and the side of the hyperplane on which an example $\vec{x}_i$ lies determines the classified result by the function $h(\vec{x}_i)$. If the training data can be separated by at least one hyperplane $h'$, the optimal hyperplane with maximum margin can be found by minimizing
$$\label{eq:soft_SVMs}
F(\vec{\omega},\vec{\xi})=\frac{1}{2} (\vec{\omega} \cdot \vec{\omega})+C\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi_i$$
which subjects to $$y_i[(\vec{\omega} \cdot \vec{x}_i)+b]\ge 1-\xi_i \qquad i=1,\ldots,n$$ $$\xi_i > 0 \qquad i=1,\ldots,n$$
The factor $C$ is used to trade off training error against model complexity and $\xi$ are slack variables responding to the wrong prediction. In practice, we would like to penalize the errors on positive examples (quasars) stronger than errors on negative examples (stars), because we are much more interested in quasars than stars and the quantity of stars is often much larger than that of quasars. Morik et al. (1999) modified the Eq. \[eq:soft\_SVMs\] through minimizing $$\label{eq:asymmetric_SVMs}
F(\vec{\omega},\vec{\xi})=\frac{1}{2} (\vec{\omega} \cdot \vec{\omega})+C_{-+}\sum_{i:y_i=+1}\xi_i+C_{+-}\sum_{j:y_j=-1}\xi_j$$ which is constrained by $$y_i[(\vec{\omega} \cdot \vec{x}_i)+b]\ge 1-\xi_k \qquad k=1,\ldots,n$$ We can use the both factors $C_{-+}$ and $C_{+-}$ to control the cost of false positives versus false negatives and get the result that we focus on. The books (Vapnik 1995; Vapnik 1998) contain excellent description of SVM and the article written by Burges (1998) provides a good tutorial on it. In this paper, we adopt $SVM^{light}$ coded by Joachims (2002)[^2] which is an implementation of SVM in C language with many extensional and additional softwares, moreover this code provides various model parameters including kernel functions for us to tune.
Build a SVM classification system {#subsec:svm_sys}
---------------------------------
{width="80.00000%"}
In this chapter, we discuss how to use several SVM models to build a SVM classification system for selecting quasar candidates in detail. The input pattern of SVM is a combination of photometric magnitudes and colors, just like the combination (psfMag\_u-psfMag\_g, psfMag\_g-psfMag\_r, psfMag\_r-psfMag\_i, psfMag\_i-psfMag\_z, psfMag\_r) mentioned in Gao et al. (2008). All magnitudes in this combination have been corrected by the map of Schlegel et al. (1998). In Figure \[fig:SVM-draft\], we give the scheme of the SVM classification system with four steps and eleven models. Although many data mining algorithms have been successfully applied on this problem, most of them solved it only with one classifier. Actually this is very hard for one model to include all information at the same time and limits the performance of a classifier. Our idea is that we divide this task into several relative simple subtasks and conquer them respectively. The work of Step\_0 (SVM\_0) is about eliminating the stars that are apparently different from quasars. Step\_1 (SVM\_1) is mainly to separate quasars from the confusing stars. These two steps are the foundation of this system and many other authors combine the both together or just deal with one of them. The duty of Step\_2 (from SVM\_20 to SVM\_25) is to divide the quasar candidates into three subclasses. Finally, Step\_3 (SVM\_30, SVM\_31 and SVM\_32) can make a further clean of the quasar candidates of each subclass and improve the prediction accuracies of the subclasses much higher.
For constructing the classifier of SVM\_0, the above mentioned training samples of stars and quasars in Section \[sec:data\] will be used to build a classifier. The training samples of stars are adopted from two thirds of spectroscopically confirmed stars in SDSS DR8, photometric stars in SDSS DR8 with dereddened $i$-band magnitude $< 17.75$, photometric stars in SDSS-XDQSO with dereddened $i$-band magnitude between 17.75 and 22.45 and the probability-XDQSO less than 0.5. Nine tenths of spectral identified quasars in Schneider’s Catalog V are randomly sampled and taken as the training sample of quasars. Considering the small sample of quasars, we don’t put constraint on quasars in the scope of the subarea of Stripe-82. Generally when the completeness is higher, the efficiency is lower. Since our primary goal in this session is to weed out most stars (i.e. STAR\_0) which are apparently different from quasars and easy to be eliminated, the low efficiency can be accepted. In Table \[tab:tr\_data\], we list all training sets used in each classifier. Many confusing stars will be mixed into our quasar candidates (QSO\_0) of SVM\_0 in this step but we reserve quasars as many as possible.
--------- ---------------- -------------------
Model Positive (QSO) Negative (Star)
No. No.
SVM\_0 95,202 442,309
SVM\_1 93,773 6,474
SVM\_30 79,635 1,381
SVM\_31 10,396 95
SVM\_32 3,001 105
LowZ\_QSO MedZ & HighZ\_QSO
No. No.
SVM\_20 79,421 15,781
MedZ\_QSO HighZ\_QSO
No. No.
SVM\_21 12,610 3,171
MedZ\_QSO LowZ & HighZ\_QSO
No. No.
SVM\_22 12,610 82,529
LowZ\_QSO HighZ\_QSO
No. No.
SVM\_23 79,421 3,171
HighZ\_QSO LowZ & MedZ\_QSO
No. No.
SVM\_24 3,171 92,031
LowZ\_QSO MedZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_25 79,421 12,610
--------- ---------------- -------------------
: The number of training data used in each SVM model. Positive and negative separately denote what role played by the corresponding quasars or stars for constructing a classifier. From SVM\_20 to SVM\_25 just use quasars as the positive and negative samples because their functions are to classify quasar candidates into the three subcategories: LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO. []{data-label="tab:tr_data"}
After getting the SVM\_0 model, we use it to process the data set composed of two thirds of spectroscopically identified stars in SDSS DR8 and nine tenths of quasars in Schneider’s QSO Catalogue V. The objects labeled as quasar candidates (QSO\_0) by SVM\_0 contain most of genuine quasars (No. 94,603) and many confusing stars (No. 6,474). These objects will be used to form the training set for SVM\_1. We directly discard the objects marked as STAR\_0 ( 314,110 stars and 599 quasars) by SVM\_0 because the responsibility of SVM\_1 is to distinguish the objects that can not be solved by SVM\_0. When SVM\_1 model is applied to QSO\_0, many confusing stars will be removed out of it.
In order to divide the quasar candidates into three subclasses: LowZ\_QSO (low-redshift quasars), MedZ\_QSO (medium-redshift quasars) and HighZ\_QSO (high-redshift quasars), there is a multiple classification with three branches needed to be built using nine tenths of quasars in Schneider’s QSO catalog V without adding any star sample. QSO\_1 obtained by SVM\_1 will be processed through three branches, each of them is a two-layer classifier and then the objects in QSO\_1 will be marked as the subclass that gets the most votes. In Figure \[fig:SVM-draft\], for example, there are SVM\_20 and SVM\_21 in the first branch to discriminate LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO. SVM\_20 classifies LowZ\_QSO from MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO and then SVM\_21 distinguishes MedZ\_QSO from HighZ\_QSO. After processing by the two models, the quasar candidates will get a subcategory and the corresponding prediction value made by SVM. In the second branch, SVM\_22 deals with MedZ\_QSO vs. LowZ/HighZ\_QSO and SVM\_23 handles LowZ\_QSO vs. HighZ\_QSO. In the third branch, SVM\_24 deals with HighZ\_QSO vs. LowZ/MedZ\_QSO and SVM\_25 handles LowZ\_QSO vs. MedZ\_QSO. When the object gets the same vote with LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO, the category with the maximum absolute SVM prediction value will be assigned to this object. The maximum absolute SVM prediction value of one quasar candidate means that it is farthest away from the optimal separate hyperplane and it is more likely to belong to this class.
--------- ---------------- -------------------
Model Positive (QSO) Negative (Star)
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_0 3,641 3,849
SVM\_1 5,480 5,424
SVM\_30 1,494 1,381
SVM\_31 168 95
SVM\_32 167 105
LowZ\_QSO MedZ & HighZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_20 4,835 4,889
MedZ\_QSO HighZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_21 666 679
MedZ\_QSO LowZ & HighZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_22 4,145 4,195
LowZ\_QSO HighZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_23 665 662
HighZ\_QSO LowZ & MedZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_24 442 439
LowZ\_QSO MedZ\_QSO
SV No. SV No.
SVM\_25 4,835 4,828
--------- ---------------- -------------------
: The number of support vectors (SV) used in each SVM model. Positive denotes which type of objects marked as *plus* and negative denotes which type of objects marked as *minus* in a SVM model. []{data-label="tab:sv"}
The remaining three SVM models are SVM\_30, SVM\_31 and SVM\_32. Their functionalities are to eliminate some very indistinguishable stars from LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO, respectively. The main idea is that when quasar candidates selected out by SVM\_0 and SVM\_1, the classifiers utilize the general characteristics of quasars and stars. In the subcategory, we can make use of its own characteristics to get a more pure quasar set. Therefore, the training sets for the three models are based on the positive class (QSO\_1) extracted from the data set composed of two thirds of spectroscopically identified stars in SDSS DR8 and nine tenths of quasars in Schneider’s QSO Catalogue V processed by SVM\_0 and SVM\_1 and then this positive class will be divided into three segments by multiple classification. The three segments will be used for generating SVM\_30, SVM\_31 and SVM\_32 separately and each of them includes some indistinguishable stars that can not be simply weeded out by SVM\_0 and SVM\_1. Through these three models, a small amount of star contaminants is removed. It is also noticed that the risk of misclassifying a number of genuine quasars into star contaminants exists especially for high-redshift quasars.
In Table \[tab:sv\], we list the number of support vectors used in each of the SVM models. Obviously SVM does not need to use all samples to construct a classifier because it only uses the samples located on the optimal separating hyperplane in a high-dimensional feature space. The number of support vectors reflects the complexity of the problem solved by a classifier. Although the training set of SVM\_0 is the largest one, the number of support vectors is small because most of stars can be easily separated from quasars. The most hard work belongs to SVM\_1 and this model includes 5,480 quasars and 5,424 stars as support vectors because many quasars and stars are very similar even in a high-dimensional feature space.
THE PERFORMANCE OF SVM {#sec:pef}
======================
----------------- ------ ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ----- ------- -------
Predicted Class
No. E.(%) C.(%) No. E.(%) C.(%) No. E.(%) C.(%)
LowZ\_QSO 8543 97.25 98.66 242 2.75 18.11 0 0.00 0.00
MedZ\_QSO 113 9.37 1.31 1083 89.80 81.06 10 0.83 3.12
HighZ\_QSO 3 0.93 0.03 11 3.40 0.82 310 95.68 96.88
----------------- ------ ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ----- ------- -------
--------------- -------- --------- ------------- ------- ------- ------------- ------- ------- ------------- ------- -------
Star Subclass Test Step\_0
No. No. Step\_3 No. P.(%) P.(%) Step\_3 No. P.(%) P.(%) Step\_3 No. P.(%) P.(%)
A0 17953 349 52 6.92 0.29 15 2.00 0.08 0 0.00 0.00
A0p 348 6 3 0.40 0.86 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
B6 138 20 9 1.20 6.52 2 0.27 1.45 0 0.00 0.00
B9 200 13 4 0.53 2.00 1 0.13 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
CV 594 368 215 28.63 36.20 2 0.27 0.34 0 0.00 0.00
Carbon 79 5 1 0.13 1.27 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
CarbonWD 36 30 17 2.26 47.22 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Carbon\_lines 195 36 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
F2 4170 19 0 0.00 0.00 1 0.13 0.02 0 0.00 0.00
F5 27888 180 10 1.33 0.04 11 1.46 0.04 0 0.00 0.00
F9 34262 133 0 0.00 0.00 5 0.67 0.01 1 0.13 0.00
G0 3289 13 0 0.00 0.00 2 0.27 0.06 0 0.00 0.00
G2 8399 39 1 0.13 0.01 6 0.80 0071 0 0.00 0.00
G5 1 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
K1 8505 141 1 0.13 0.01 1 0.13 0.01 1 0.13 0.01
K3 8997 365 3 0.40 0.03 2 0.27 0.02 4 0.53 0.04
K5 7957 241 1 0.13 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 14 1.86 0.18
K7 5430 99 2 0.27 0.04 0 0.00 0.00 11 1.46 0.20
L0 18 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
L1 14 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
L2 41 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
L3 6 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
L4 9 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
L5 10 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
L5.5 56 9 4 0.53 7.14 1 0.13 1.79 0 0.00 0.00
L9 66 9 7 0.93 10.61 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
M0 3665 53 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 12 1.60 0.33
M0V 604 8 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
M1 3442 30 1 0.13 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 3 0.40 0.09
M2 4922 22 2 0.27 0.04 0 0.00 0.00 5 0.67 0.10
M2V 162 1 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
M3 4604 34 1 0.13 0.02 0 0.00 0.00 2 0.27 0.04
M4 3099 29 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 0.13 0.03
M5 1947 14 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
M6 2669 8 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
M7 1011 2 2 0.27 0.20 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
M8 494 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
M9 360 0 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.– 0 –.– –.–
O 107 5 2 0.27 1.87 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
OB 342 6 3 0.40 0.88 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
T2 100 17 3 0.40 3.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
WD 4070 1023 295 39.28 7.25 6 0.80 0.15 0 0.00 0.00
WDmagnetic 35 11 3 0.40 8.57 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Total 160294 3338 642 85.49 0.40 55 7.31 0.03 54 7.20 0.03
--------------- -------- --------- ------------- ------- ------- ------------- ------- ------- ------------- ------- -------
Predicted Class Efficiency Completeness
----------------- ------------ -------------- -- --
LowZ\_QSO 90.62% 97.35%
MedZ\_QSO 85.88% 74.35%
HighZ\_QSO 82.01% 89.08%
Total 93.21% 97.49%
: The final performances of SVM classification system. The efficiency 90.62% of LowZ\_QSO represents the proportion of low-redshift quasars vs. other quasars and stars. The completeness 97.35% of it shows how many low-redshift quasars will be recovered from all genuine low-redshift quasars.) []{data-label="tab:finalpef"}
The performance of this SVM classification system is tested by the test set including one third of spectroscopically confirmed stars (No. 160,294 ) in SDSS DR8 and one tenth of quasars (No. 10,581) in Schneider’s QSO Catalogue V. This classification system has been described in Chapter \[subsec:svm\_sys\]. The model parameters for each classifier can be found in Appendix A.
After this test set gets through Step\_0, 10,399 quasars and 3,338 stars are kept in QSO\_0. The efficiency of SVM reaches 75.70% and the completeness of it is 98.28%. By means of this model SVM\_0, most of stars (No. 156,956) are weed out and a small amount of quasars (No. 182) are just lost. These weeded stars are so obviously discriminated from quasars that they are easy to remove. It is concluded from the large number (No. 156,956) that such stars occupy the majority of stars. Therefore this step is necessary and helpful to clear away the pollution of most of stars. Usually in previous literatures, this step is lack. They focused on separating confusing stars from quasars. This is the reason that the number of their targeting quasars is rather large.
In Step\_1 (SVM\_1), it will eliminate the confusing stars from QSO\_0 and almost two thirds of stars (No. 2,583) are selected out with 85 quasars lost. The efficiency and the completeness of SVM\_1 becomes 93.18% and 97.49%, respectively. Apparently, this step can further contribute to avoid the pollution of many confusing stars, meanwhile, a small number of quasars are inevitably missing. Perhaps adding infrared information from UKIDSS database (Lawrence et al. 2007) into the SVM model or directly using some color-color criteria (e.g. Wu et al. 2010, 2011) are helpful to recover some missing medium and high-redshift quasars in this step.
When computing the performances of SVM to classify low, medium and high-redshift quasars, stars are not considered in Step\_2. In Table \[tab:redshift\], the efficiency of these three subclasses is 97.25%, 89.80% and 95.68%, separately, and the completeness of them is 98.66%, 81.06% and 96.88%, respectively. The matrix of Table \[tab:redshift\] proves that SVM can obtain good performance with multiple classification and 18.11% of medium-redshift quasars are easily classified into the low-redshift quasars. Perhaps given data from more bands, discrimination of LowZ\_QSO and MedZ\_QSO becomes more efficient.
![Efficiency and completeness as a function of magnitude $i$, solid line for efficiency, dotted line for completeness.[]{data-label="fig:perf"}](performance.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Until SDSS DR8 release, SDSS begins to provide a detailed subclasses of stars. The number of subclasses amounts to 43 considering each spectroscopically confirmed star. Table \[tab:STAR\] shows that the number and the fraction of the 43 subclasses of stars are mixed into our predicted categories LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO, respectively and provides what type of stars may mostly be mixed into quasars by SVM after Step\_3. It is found that WD (45.95%), CV (33.49%), A0 (8.10%), CarbonWD (2.65%) and F5 (1.56%) can easily be misclassified as LowZ\_QSO. Most of contaminants in MedZ\_QSO are A0(27.27%), F5 (20.00%), G2 (10.91%), WD (10.91%) and F9 (9.09%). A0 and F5 stars can be easily misclassified into both low-redshift and medium-redshift quasars. The situation of HighZ\_QSO is different that contaminants mainly come from K or M stars. The number in the parenthesis of Table \[tab:STAR\] represents the misclassified stars before Step\_3. We can find some information about Step\_3 that SVM\_30 can weed out some A0, CV and WD stars, SVM\_31 mainly eliminate some A0 and F5 stars. Finally, the efficiency and the completeness of the SVM classification system is 93.21% and 97.49%, respectively. In Table 4, the final efficiency of these three subclasses is 90.62% (LowZ\_QSO vs. other quasars and stars), 85.88% (MedZ\_QSO vs. other quasars and stars) and 82.01% (HighZ\_QSO vs. other quasars and stars) separately and the completeness of them is 97.35% (correctly predicted LowZ\_QSO vs. all genuine LowZ\_QSO), 74.35% (correctly predicted MedZ\_QSO vs. all genuine MedZ\_QSO) and 89.08% (correctly predicted HighZ\_QSO vs. all genuine HighZ\_QSO). For Carbon\_lines, G5, L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, M0V, M2V, M5, M8, and M9 stars, none of them is misclassified into quasars. Figure \[fig:perf\] shows the efficiency and completeness as a function of magnitude $i$. However, the trend with magnitude $i < 16.5$ is unreliable for the number of sample is just a few during this magnitude range. The real trend needs a larger sample to deduce. As magnitude $i > 16.5$, the number of sample increases to hundreds or more than hundreds. Therefore the tendency in this range is credible. No matter for efficiency or completeness, the run is steady during the range $17 < i < 19.5$, then goes down beyond $i$=19.5. That the efficiency goes up and completeness declines beyond $i$=20.2 is unreliable due to small sample in this magnitude range and magnitude limit.
QUASAR CANDIDATE SELECTION {#sec:qso_sel}
==========================
Through the above experiments, the SVM classification system proved applicable and reasonable to select quasar candidates from large sky survey projects. In order to further demonstrate the efficiency of this system, the comparison with the work of Bovy et al. (2011) has been done as follows. XD-sources is an unknown point-sources produced by Bovy et al. (2011) and we use it to generate a part of the quasar input catalog for Guoshoujing Telescope (LAMOST) with our SVM system in the pilot survey. SDSS-XDQSO quasar targeting catalog can be directly downloaded from the web page [^3] provided by Bovy et al. (2011). It includes 160,904,060 point-sources with dereddened $i$-band magnitude between 17.75 and 22.45 mag from SDSS DR8. The flag cuts for every source in this catalog have been used to filter unqualified ones. The detailed information about these flag cuts can be found in the Appendix A of the paper of Bovy et al. (2011). XDQSO technique has been applied on all objects in this catalog to provide the types and probabilities of them. Objects which satisfy the XDQSO probability cut P(XDQSO\_MedZ)$>$0.424 will be selected as CORE targets in SDSS-III BOSS.
The Guoshoujing Telescope (LAMOST)[^4] is an innovative reflecting Schmidt telescope with 4 meter effective mirror size, 20 square degree field of view and 4000 fibres. It will perform most efficient optical spectroscopic sky survey. It entered the pilot survey phase in the end of 2011 and will carry out the regular survey in this year. Careful preparation of the input catalog for LAMOST is important for the scientific output of LAMOST. Since LAMOST has no own photometric data, the photometric data from other survey projects should be depended on, such as SDSS, UKIDSS, WISE, GALEX. In the pilot survey, two chunks are selected (-$45^\circ <
\alpha_{\mathrm{J2000}}<+60^\circ$ and -$1^\circ.5 <
\delta_{\mathrm{J2000}} < +8^\circ.5$ ; $+180^\circ <
\alpha_{\mathrm{J2000}}<+210^\circ$ and $+12^\circ <
\delta_{\mathrm{J2000}} < +23^\circ$). We use the SVM classification system to select quasar candidates and compare our result with the targets selected by XDQSO technique in the both chunks.
Our SVM classification system obtains 64,660 targets in chunk1 and 29,520 targets in chunk2. Table \[tab:com\] indicates that the selected quasar candidates by SVM overlap those by XDQSO in different probability ranges. Most of targets selected by SVM are covered by XDQSO especially for the highest probability ($P>0.99$) of XDQSO. In chunk1 and chunk2, 57.38% and 87.01% quasar candidates selected by SVM are also targeted by XDQSO. This can make the targets selected by SVM to a higher confidence. Table \[tab:cof\] indicates that the consistency of the two methods for classifying targets into three subcategories: low-redshift quasars, medium-redshift quasars and high-redshift quasars, and that the difference between the two methods is small except that some targets predicted as LowZ\_QSO by SVM are classified by XDQSO as MedZ\_QSO.
Actually, the amount of targets selected by this system is smaller than that by XDQSO because we want to get the higher predicted efficiency of quasars. In Figure \[fig:com-res\], the predicted results of SVM in the two chunks as well as the overlaps of SVM and XDQSO are shown. It is found that the prediction of SVM coincides with that of XDQSO , especially in psfMag\_i$<$20.0. The main reason of the difference of SVM and XDQSO in psfMag\_i$>$20.0 maybe come from that the training sample includes so small a number of faint celestial objects that the ability of this system to recognize these objects is weak.
XDQSO Probability Chunk1 $deg^2$ Chunk2 $deg^2$
-------------------- ---------------- ----------------
$0.990\le P $ 12.7 (15.9) 31.0 (40.0)
$0.950\le P<0.990$ 9.4 (12.6) 22.7 (31.3)
$0.900\le P<0.950$ 4.0 (7.3) 8.0 (16.9)
$0.850\le P<0.900$ 2.1 (5.2) 4.1 (12.1)
$0.800\le P<0.850$ 1.4 (4.7) 2.8 (10.9)
$0.750\le P<0.800$ 1.2 (4.4) 2.0 (10.6)
$0.700\le P<0.750$ 1.1 (4.5) 1.7 (10.6)
$0.650\le P<0.700$ 0.9 (4.7) 1.4 (10.6)
$0.600\le P<0.650$ 0.9 (5.0) 1.0 (10.6)
$0.550\le P<0.600$ 0.8 (5.3) 1.1 (11.6)
$0.500\le P<0.550$ 0.8 (5.9) 0.9 (11.7)
: The number per $deg^2$ of quasar candidates selected by SVM overlaps those selected by XDQSO in chunk1 and chunk2. The number in the parenthesis is produced by XDQSO. []{data-label="tab:com"}
Chunk1 SVM\_LowZ SVM\_MedZ SVM\_HighZ
-------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
XDQSO\_LowZ 30512 234 29
XDQSO\_MedZ 997 4245 41
XDQSO\_HighZ 8 14 1022
Chunk2 SVM\_LowZ SVM\_MedZ SVM\_HighZ
XDQSO\_LowZ 21022 122 6
XDQSO\_MedZ 716 3004 13
XDQSO\_HighZ 0 5 381
: The matrices of quasar candidates predicted as LowZ\_QSO, MedZ\_QSO and HighZ\_QSO by SVM and XDQSO in chunk1 (No. 3,600,423 sources ) and chunk2 (No. 1,531,240 sources). Both the matrices reflect the agreement of the prediction of SVM and XDQSO. []{data-label="tab:cof"}
{width="100.00000%"}
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have put forward a classification system by using a hierarchy of several SVM classifiers. The above experimental results demonstrate that single SVM classifier can not well solve the problem of separating quasars from stars, however the combination of some SVM classifiers gets a rather good performance. This method can help us to select a quasar candidate set with a relative high efficiency (93.21%), though some actual quasars (2.51%) are missing in the whole process. The point we want to get across is that the performance of this system is based on the test sample and not on real data. In order to check the performance of this method applied on the unknown objects, the result produced by the method has been compared with that of the XDQSO technique. The comparison shows that most of quasar candidates selected by the SVM system are also recovered by XDQSO especially in the deredened i-band magnitude $<$ 20.0. In Table \[tab:cof\], actually the prediction of SVM for subclasses of quasars also agrees with that of XDQSO. This means that our method is an effective and feasible approach to construct the input catalog of quasars for large spectroscopic sky survey projects (e.g. LAMOST, SDSS ).
In the future, we plan to adopt the similar method to the XDQSO technique to exploit whether the magnitude errors influence the performance of the system, add the number of faint objects in the training sample increases to improve the performance of the system for the data set of faint objects (deredened i-band magnitude $>$ 20.0). In the process of SVM\_1 where many actual quasars are missing, we can consider some other methods to make the completeness of quasars much higher. Each technique for quasar candidate selection has its strongness and weakness. It is difficult to say which one is better. In terms of good efficiency, the cross-result from different techniques to select quasar candidates is better chosen. However, given the completeness of quasar candidates, the combination of results from various techniques has better be employed. We will give a much more powerful method based on SVM to select quasar candidates for LAMOST or other projects in the world.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
we are very grateful to the anonymous referee’s constructive and insightful comments to strengthen our paper. This paper is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No.10778724, 11178021 and No.11033001, the Natural Science Foundation of Education Department of Hebei Province under grant No. ZD2010127 and by the Young Researcher Grant of National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences. We acknowledgment SDSS database. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
[99]{} Abazajian K.N. et al., 2009, , 182, 543 Abraham S., Sajeeth Philip N., Kembhavi A., Wadadekar Y. G., Sinha R., 2010, eprint arXiv:1011.2173 Aihara H. et al., 2011, , 193, 29 Bailer-Jones C.A.L., Smith K.W., Tiede C., Sordo R., Vallenari A., 2008, , 391, 1838 Ball N. M. & Brunner R. J. 2010, IJMPD, 19, 1049 Borne K., 2002, eprint arXiv:0911.0505 Bovy J. et al., 2011, , 729, 141 Burges, C.J.C., 1998, PR, 167, 161 Carballo R., Gonz[á]{}lez-Serrano J. I., Benn C. R., Jim[é]{}nez-Luj[á]{}n F., 2008, , 391, 369 D’Abrusco R., Longo G., Walton N.A., 2009, , 396, 223 Meyer D., 2001, R News, 23, 1(3) Eisenstein D.J. et al., 2011, eprint arXiv:1101.1529 Gao D., Zhang Y.-X., Zhao Y.-H., 2008, , 386, 1417 Joachims T. 2002, Learning to Classify Text Using Support Vector Machines, Kluwer Academic Publishers, MA Kaiser N. & Aussel H., 2002, , 4836, 154 Kim D.-W., Protopapas P., Alcock C., Byun Y.-I., Khardon R., 2011, ASPC, 442, 447 Kirtpatrik J.A. et al., 2011, eprint arXiv:1104.4995 Lawrence A. et al., 2007, , 379, 1599 McPherson A.M. et al., 2006, , 6267 Morik K., Brockhausen P., Joachims T., 1999, ML, CONF 16, 268 Richards G.T. et al. 2002, , 123, 2945 Richards G.T. et al. 2004, , 155, 257 Richards G.T. et al. 2009, , 180, 67 Ross N.P. et al. 2011, eprint arXiv:1105.0606 Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, , 500, 525 Schlegel D.J. et al. 2007, BAAS, 38, 996 Schneider D.P. et al. 2010, , 139, 2360 Tyson J.A., 2002, , 4836, 10 Vapnik V.N. 1995, The nature of statistical learning theory, Springer US, NY Vapnik V.N. 1998, Statistical Learning Theory, John Wiley and Sons, NY Wu X.-B. & Jia Z.-D., 2010, , 406, 1583 Wu X.-B., Wang R., Schmidt K. B., Bian F., Jiang L., Fan X., 2011, , 142, 78 Yéche C. et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A14 York, D. G., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 Zhang Y.-X., & Zhao Y.-H., 2003, PASP, 115, 1006 Zhang Y.-X., & Zhao Y.-H., 2004, A&A, 422, 1113
THE MODEL PARAMETERS OF SVM
============================
Model parameters of SVM can greatly affect the performance of SVM for selecting quasar candidates. We generate SVM models using the following model parameters. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rrllll}
{\rm A}) \;\, & SVM\_0 & t=2 & c=100 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm B}) \;\, & SVM\_1 & t=2 & c=0.07 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm C}) \;\, & SVM\_20 & t=2 & c=0.2 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm D}) \;\, & SVM\_21 & t=2 & c=0.25 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm E}) \;\, & SVM\_22 & t=2 & c=6 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm F}) \;\, & SVM\_23 & t=2 & c=0.04 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm F}) \;\, & SVM\_24 & t=2 & c=29 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm F}) \;\, & SVM\_25 & t=2 & c=0.16 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm F}) \;\, & SVM\_30 & t=2 & c=0.12 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm F}) \;\, & SVM\_31 & t=2 & c=0.06 & j=1 & g=1 \\
{\rm G}) \;\, & SVM\_32 & t=2 & c=0.5 & j=1 & g=1
\end{array}
\label{arr:model}\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $t=2$ represents that SVM uses radial basis function (RBF) kernel for deriving models. The parameter $c$ controls the trade-off between training error and margin. The parameter $j$ in a SVM model dominates the misclassification cost of quasars or stars. The parameter $g$ means $\gamma$ in RBF kernel. In this work, we just use the default value of $g$ which is equal to 1. The more detailed information about how these parameters affect the performance of SVM can be found in Joachims (2002). In order to search the optimal combination of parameters $c$ and $j$, we usually test each pair of parameters appeared in the specified sequence which is determined by experience. For example, the first model (SVM\_0) of this system, the parameters $c$ and $j$ are from the values \[0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100\]. The above mentioned parameters for each SVM model are produced by an empirical approach because the computing time to search the optimal parameters $c$ and $j$ is expensive. At the beginning, we just set the parameters $j$ and $g$ with default value 1. The value of parameter $c$ can be calculated by using the sample size of stars divided by that of quasars. This empirical method can help us to quickly get a better parameter combination.
[^1]: This figure is plotted by David 2001
[^2]: http://svmlight.joachims.org/
[^3]: http://data.sdss3.org/sas/dr8/groups/boss/photoObj/xdqso/xdcore
[^4]: http://www.lamost.org/website/en
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'N. Rudolf'
- 'H. M. Günther'
- 'P. C. Schneider'
- 'J. H. M. M. Schmitt'
bibliography:
- 'tellrem.bib'
date: 'Received / Accepted '
title: 'Modelling telluric line spectra in the optical and infrared with an application to VLT/X-Shooter spectra[^1][^2]'
---
=1
[Earth’s atmosphere imprints a large number of telluric absorption and emission lines on astronomical spectra, especially in the near infrared, that need to be removed before analysing the affected wavelength regions.]{} [These lines are typically removed by comparison to A- or B-type stars used as telluric standards that themselves have strong hydrogen lines, which complicates the removal of telluric lines. We have developed a method to circumvent that problem.]{} [For our IDL software package `tellrem` we used a recent approach to model telluric absorption features with the line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM). The broad wavelength coverage of the X-Shooter at VLT allows us to expand their technique by determining the abundances of the most important telluric molecules H$_{2}$O, O$_{2}$, CO$_{2}$, and CH$_{4}$ from sufficiently isolated line groups. For individual observations we construct a telluric absorption model for most of the spectral range that is used to remove the telluric absorption from the object spectrum.]{} [We remove telluric absorption from both continuum regions and emission lines without systematic residuals for most of the processable spectral range; however, our method increases the statistical errors. The errors of the corrected spectrum typically increase by 10% for $S/N\sim10$ and by a factor of two for high-quality data ($S/N\sim100$), i.e. the method is accurate on the percent level.]{} [Modelling telluric absorption can be an alternative to the observation of standard stars for removing telluric contamination.]{}
-------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------------ --------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- ----- -----
Object $m_{J}$
seeing \[$^{\prime\prime}$\] airmass UVB VIS NIR UVB VIS NIR
11.6 2010-May-05 03:24:44 0.68 1.26 1$\times$90 1$\times$120 1$\times$120 299 190 71
9.6 2010-May-05 08:30:13 0.88 1.32 2$\times$150 4$\times$60 6$\times$100 268 293 377
10.1 2010-May-05 07:50:21 0.98 1.12 2$\times$300 4$\times$140 6$\times$150 140 241 390
8.2 2010-May-05 09:48:34 1.02 1.07 2$\times$150 4$\times$30 6$\times$50 363 294 791
-------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------------ --------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----- ----- -----
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The strong and variable absorption of Earth’s atmosphere interferes with almost all ground-based astronomical observations. In the optical and infrared spectral range the flux of a celestial body is diminished by extinction; in addition, so-called telluric absorption lines are imprinted on the spectra, a fact particularly relevant for high-resolution spectroscopy. The number of telluric lines depends on wavelength and for the specific case of the VLT/X-Shooter with its wavelength coverage ranging from 3100Å to 24700Å, starting from around 6000Å bands of water (H$_{2}$O) and molecular oxygen (O$_{2}$) are predominantly present, accompanied by large contributions of carbon dioxide (CO$_{2}$) above 12000Å and of methane (CH$_{4}$) above 16000Å. As is well known, the atmospheric transmission already becomes quite small in some restricted wavelength bands in the infrared range.
The typical procedure used to remove telluric absorption features and recover the original spectrum is to observe a standard star close in time and airmass to the object of interest. The spectrum of the object is then divided by the spectrum of the standard star. Early-type stars of spectral type B or A are usually chosen as standard stars because their spectra show few and rather weak metal lines. Unfortunately, these stars have strong intrinsic photospheric hydrogen absorption features that cause severe difficulties if the Paschen and Brackett lines of the science object are the points of interest. The simplest solution for this problem would be to interpolate over the hydrogen absorption and accept the resulting uncertainties.
Several more sophisticated methods have been developed: (a) using solar-like stars as telluric standards and a high-resolution solar spectrum [@1996AJ....111..537M]; (b) combining this first method with the standard early-type star method and the fitting of the hydrogen line profiles [@1996ApJS..107..281H; @2005ApJS..161..154H]; and (c) using A0 stars as telluric standards and a high-resolution model spectrum of Vega [@2003PASP..115..389V]. Despite its wide adoption in the literature, using any astrophysical source as a reference telluric standard has some fundamental limitations (see discussion in ): First, it takes away valuable observing time from the science targets of an observation and second, its accuracy is limited by how well we know the intrinsic spectrum of the calibration star. Often it is sufficient to perform a good calibration in certain regions of the spectrum, and A and B stars can work very well for this purpose unless the flux and shape of hydrogen lines is critical to the scientific analysis. Despite all the advances in spectral modelling, there are uncertainties in the reference spectrum, not least because individual stars might differ in rotational velocity, age, and metallicity. However, telluric standard stars need to be observed at the same airmass and close in time to the science target, so they need to be chosen from a small region on the sky close to the science target. Unfortunately, this might force the observer to select a less well characterised star as the telluric standard. In principle, the same limitations apply to all the variations of this technique mentioned above. For example, when using a solar-type telluric standard, the regions around hydrogen lines might be well calibrated since these lines are weak in solar-like stars, but any spectral region where the Sun has photospheric features might be inaccurate if the star chosen as calibrator does not match the solar abundance, period, or mass exactly.
An alternative approach to the observations of telluric standards is the use of theoretical models of the atmospheric transmission. This idea has been successfully pursued, for example by , , @2007PASP..119..228B, or . The technique to remove telluric absorption presented by was used by e.g. @2010ApJ...713..410B and . Based on their technique we developed a method for removing telluric lines from VLT/X-Shooter spectra. In this paper we explain the details of this method and evaluate its accuracy and its contribution to the overall error budget. This paper is accompanied by a software package that implements the method described here.
Our paper is structured as follows. In Sect. \[sec:obsdatared\] we describe the observations taken with VLT/X-Shooter and their reduction. In Sect. \[sec:specmod\] we describe the spectral modelling of the telluric absorption. We restrict ourselves to describing the general functionality of the package and refer to the user manual accompanying the package for details on its use, which we demonstrate in Sect. \[sec:results\]. We present a summary and our conclusions in Sect. \[sec:sumcon\].
Observations and data reduction {#sec:obsdatared}
===============================
Our specific aim is the application of the method to spectra of classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) observed with the VLT/X-Shooter instrument and in this paper we present example spectra to highlight the benefits of our new method. Details of the observations can be found in Table \[tab:obsdetails\].
Our observations were carried out in visitor mode during the nights of 2010 May 4 and 5. X-Shooter is a multiwavelength medium-resolution spectrograph consisting of 3 arms; each arm is an independent cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph equipped with optimised optics, dispersive elements, and detectors. The UVB arm covers the wavelength range between 3100–5900Å, the VIS arm between 5400–10100Å, and the NIR arm between 9900–24700Å. The objects were observed in nodding mode with the 0.5$^{\prime\prime}\times 11^{\prime\prime}$ slit in the ultraviolet (UVB) arm and the 0.4$^{\prime\prime}\times 11^{\prime\prime}$ slit in the visual (VIS) and the near-infrared (NIR) arms. This instrumental set-up results in a resolution of $R\sim10\,000$ in the UVB arm, $R\sim18\,000$ in the VIS arm, and $R\sim10\,000$ in the NIR arm. Additionally, the flux standard star EG 274, which is a white dwarf, was observed in offset mode with the 5.0$^{\prime\prime}\times 11^{\prime\prime}$ slit in all arms. For all observations the slit was set to the parallactic angle. Object acquisition was done in the optical using a $V$ filter, telescope tracking was done at 4700Å.
The data reduction was carried out with the X-Shooter pipeline [@2010SPIE.7737E..56M] version 1.5.0 for the nodding mode for each spectrographic arm individually, following the standard steps that include bias subtraction, sky subtraction via differencing the images from the nodding position A and B, flat-fielding, order-tracing and merging, wavelength calibration, and extraction. In offset mode a pair of images is taken, one with the object and one with sky only, and sky subtraction is accomplished by differencing. However, instead of using the pipeline flux calibration we carried out our own procedures. For the flux standard star EG 274 we first removed the telluric lines from the spectrum using the method described in this paper. We then determined the response curve by dividing the corresponding spectrum from the X-Shooter spectrophotometric standard stars catalogue [@1994PASP..106..566H; @2010HiA....15..535V] by the observed telluric line corrected spectrum normalised to 1s exposure time. This ratio was smoothed to reduce the noise using a sliding box-car algorithm with a box width of 50 spectral bins ($\approx 20$ Å) in the UVB and VIS arms and 200 bins ($\approx200$ Å) in the NIR arm and used for flux calibration.
Spectral modelling of Earth’s atmosphere {#sec:specmod}
========================================
In order to compute the theoretical transmission of Earth’s atmosphere we apply the technique presented by . Here we provide an overview of this technique and refer to their paper for a more detailed description. Basically, the transmission of Earth’s atmosphere is computed using the radiative transfer code line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM)[^3], which in turn is based on the fast atmospheric signature code [FASCODE; @1992JGR....9715761C; @2005JQSRT..91..233C]. The LBLRTM requires a model of Earth’s atmosphere and line data as input; all the atmospheric data is available independent of the astronomical observation and can be retrieved from public meteorological databases.
The required model of the atmosphere provides the vertical temperature, pressure, and molecular abundance profiles. It is built by combining two models. The meteorological models from the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provide temperature, pressure, and dew point temperature for surface heights $\leq$ 26km. The dew point temperature serves as the density measure for H$_{2}$O in the atmosphere. These so-called sounding files are available at the Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS)[^4] in 3h intervals. For each object we use the model closest in time to the observation. Temperature, pressure, and density for surface heights above 26km for H$_{2}$O and for all surface heights for the other molecules are provided by an equatorial model atmosphere[^5] from the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), constructed by John Remedios (U. Leicester). The required line data comes from the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN) in its 2008 edition [@2009JQSRT.110..533R], which provides frequency, line strength, and pressure broadening coefficients for spectral lines of 42 different molecules.
To compute a telluric model spectrum for a specific observation taken at an observation altitude $h$ with the required accuracy, the total molecular abundances of H$_{2}$O, O$_{2}$, CO$_{2}$, and CH$_{4}$ in the atmospherical model need to be adjusted by fitting. The full model spectrum thus consists of three components: (1) the stellar spectrum, which is multiplied with (2) the atmospheric transmission spectrum and then convolved with (3) the instrumental profile.
Of course, the stellar spectrum is not known a priori. One could thus devise an iterative procedure where we start with a simple guess for the stellar spectrum, fit the telluric abundances and the instrumental profile, and then use this information to extract the stellar spectrum which would serve as the starting point for the next iteration. Fortunately, the signatures of the telluric molecules are very distinct and a very simple description for the stellar spectrum is sufficient to fit the telluric lines.
In principle, all these parameters could be fit for the entire spectrum at once, but in practice we found it much easier to perform the fit in only one small wavelength interval at a time because this is much faster to compute and LBLRTM can only compute a wave number segment of 2020cm$^{-1}$ in one run ($\sim$ 1000Å around 7000Å, $\sim$ 5300Å around 16000Å). We use wavelength intervals of 300Å. Over this short range, the stellar spectrum can be approximated as a straight line for all types of objects in our sample (CTTS, white dwarf, B stars). In fact, the method works well even in the presence of absorption and emission lines unless they dominate the fit instead of the telluric lines. The instrumental profile of X-Shooter is represented by a Gaussian where we fit the width. We also allow for a shift in wavelength, which is necessary to correct for small inaccuracies in the wavelength calibration. The measured shifts could in principle be used to test and improve the wavelength calibration. Both instrumental parameters vary over the wavelength range of X-Shooter. The wavelength shift changes because of changes in the accuracy of the wavelength calibration along the different X-Shooter orders, which lead to slightly different wavelength shifts of a few tenths of Å; the widths of the Gaussian needed to adjust the telluric transmission spectrum to the observed spectrum change because of the different resolutions in the arms. Within segments of 300Å length we found the wavelength calibration and the width of the profile to be stable.
Each molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere has very distinct spectral bands where the absorption lines from this single molecule dominate the total telluric absorption spectrum. We make use of the broad wavelength coverage of X-Shooter and the fact that the abundances do not depend on wavelength. We searched for regions in the spectral range of X-Shooter that are almost free of stellar emission features and dominated by telluric lines, but might still contain some stellar absorption features. We found several spectral regions where only one of the main contributors to the telluric signal generates lines or the only other contributor is H$_{2}$O. They are listed in Table \[tab:molabdet\].
Wavelength range \[Å\] Molecule fitted
------------------------ -----------------
7590–7660 O$_{2}$
9040–9210 H$_{2}$O
9270–9510 H$_{2}$O
12550–12775 O$_{2}$
13160–13280 H$_{2}$O
14470–14685 H$_{2}$O
14685–14900 H$_{2}$O
19950–20300 CO$_{2}$
20450–20800 CO$_{2}$
22850–23110 CH$_{4}$
23370–23630 CH$_{4}$
23630–23900 CH$_{4}$
: Spectral ranges used to determine the abundances of H$_{2}$O, O$_{2}$, CO$_{2}$, and CH$_{4}$.[]{data-label="tab:molabdet"}
First, we investigate the regions where H$_2$O is the only significant contributor. For each of these regions we fit the water abundance in the Earth’s atmosphere, the Gaussian width of the instrumental profile, the wavelength shift, and the slope and intercept of the straight line that represents the stellar continuum. We keep the remaining abundances fixed at some arbitrary value because the other molecules do not contribute to the telluric lines in this region. The abundances found for each region typically differ by less than 10%. We use the mean of these values as the abundance of water for all following computations.
We found it advantageous to determine the abundances of the various contaminants successively. We thus fit the water abundance first, since water lines appear at many wavelengths. With the given water abundance, we identify wavelength regions that contain O$_{2}$ and fit for the O$_{2}$ abundance keeping the water abundance fixed. The remaining molecules (i.e. CO$_{2}$ and CH$_{4}$) are treated in a similar manner. For each selected wavelength region (see Table \[tab:molabdet\]) we fit the abundance of the respective molecule and the width of the instrumental profile, a wavelength shift, and the slope and intercept of the line that represents the stellar continuum. For these fits we use the water abundance determined above and keep the remaining molecules that do not contribute to the telluric absorption in this region fixed. Finally, we compute the mean of the measured abundances for each molecule, which typically agree to within 10%.
With the molecular abundances known, we finally step through the entire observed spectrum in 300Å intervals, fitting the width of the instrumental line profile, the wavelength shift, and the slope and intercept of the straight line that represents the continuum. There is no need to obtain an accurate model for the stellar spectrum as we are only interested in the instrumental profile and the wavelength shift at this point, both of which are seen in the telluric lines. We find that our very simple approximation for the stellar spectrum is sufficient to avoid fitting artefacts. Describing the stellar spectrum with a straight line and not merely by a constant takes into account that the spectrum already may show a significant change over 300Å. Thus we avoid fitting the width of the instrumental line profile with a very large value in cases where there are a few telluric lines on one side of the spectrum, but not on the other where the fit attempts to compensate for the seemingly missing flux if only a constant is used to approximate the stellar spectrum. In principle, this problem can also be circumvented by normalising the observed spectrum prior to the fit. This approach would also work for line dominated spectra, i.e. when the spectrum cannot be reasonably represented by a straight line even on short wavelength ranges. Here, however, we prefer a forward-modelling approach where the data remains unchanged.
For each segment we correct for the telluric absorption by dividing the observed spectrum by the modelled telluric spectrum, convolved with the instrumental line profile, and shifted in wavelength according to the fit. We scale the uncertainties on the observed spectrum that were derived by the data reduction pipeline in the same way.
For all fits we use the least-squares fitting code MPFIT [@2009ASPC..411..251M] to minimise the difference between the observed and the telluric model spectrum. On a standard desktop PC the computation time needed to remove the telluric lines from one X-Shooter spectrum is about 15min.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
We applied the method described in Sect. \[sec:specmod\] to a spectrum of the white dwarf EG 274 and several spectra of CTTS obtained with X-Shooter. Telluric absorption lines are only visible in the VIS and NIR arms of X-Shooter, telluric emission lines are removed by the nodded observation mode. The regions between 13400Å and 14500Å and between 18100Å and 19600Å cannot be corrected with this method because they are too heavily contaminated to obtain a reasonable fit of the telluric lines (see Fig. \[fig:completespecwm\]). This divides the spectrum of the NIR arm into three parts ranging from 9900–13400Å, 14500–18100Å, and 19600–24700Å.
Telluric line removal
---------------------
The performance of the telluric line removal method is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:completespecwm\]. Here, the corrected VIS (upper panel) and NIR (lower panel) arm spectra of EG 274 are shown in black together with the pipeline flux-calibrated spectrum in red and the catalogued flux in blue; the lower parts of the plot show the modelled telluric transmission spectra and the residuals, i.e. the telluric corrected spectrum minus the catalogued flux. We derived the detector response curve for the white dwarf EG 274 using the same spectrum as shown here. Thus, the overall agreement, i.e. on scales larger than the size of the box-car used for smoothing, between the catalogue flux and the stellar flux presented is good by construction. We show Fig. \[fig:completespecwm\] on an absolute flux scale and not as a normalised spectrum to indicate where the spectrum is dominated by white dwarf features. On the other hand, we chose to smooth the response curve on fairly large scales (see Sect. \[sec:obsdatared\]) and all features smaller than this scale *do* depend on our method to remove the telluric lines. Thus, Fig. \[fig:completespecwm\] is intended to demonstrate the performance of our method on scales much narrower than the size of the smoothing used for the response curve.
An inspection of the modelled transmission spectrum shows that in the wavelength regions between 13400Å and 14500Å and between 18100Å and 19600Å the transmitted flux is essentially zero, and therefore the true flux cannot be reconstructed. For most of the spectrum no residuals of telluric lines are visible, making the corrected spectrum indistinguishable from the catalogued flux. The emission-like features visible in the observed spectrum longward of 15000Å are sky emission lines that were not entirely removed by the pipeline. These are also visible in the residuals. It is important to note the differences between the pipeline flux calibration (red) and our flux calibration (black), most pronounced in the region between 20300Å and 21400Å. These differences are mostly due to the interpolation performed by the pipeline in regions with telluric lines. As we remove the telluric lines before we determine the response, we can use these regions and accurately follow the response over the entire spectral region reaching a better flux calibration than the ESO pipeline.
The method works successfully both in continuum regions and at emission lines. Figure \[fig:goodexamples\] shows some examples of the corrected spectrum and the original spectrum. The spectra were normalised for better comparability. While Figs. \[fig:goodexamples\](a) to (c) show various hydrogen emission lines of CTTS, Fig. \[fig:goodexamples\](d) shows a continuum segment of the weak-lined T Tauri star (WTTS) MV Lup. For the continuum segment we also show a PHOENIX model from the Göttingen Spectral Library by PHOENIX [@phoenixmodels] for $T_{\textnormal{eff}}=4800$K, the effective temperature of MV Lup , to illustrate the intrinsic absorption lines of the star.
point out that using telluric transmission models to remove telluric lines is mainly limited by the accuracy of the information in the HITRAN database, especially for water lines, which they say are “the hardest to model”. Not surprisingly, our method also fails to provide a good fit of the telluric lines in some spectral ranges. These failures are illustrated in the following examples. In Fig. \[fig:badexamples\] we show the region around 9400Å, which is dominated by water absorption lines. Both in the continuum segment of the WTTS MV Lup (Fig. \[fig:badexamples\](a)) and in the hydrogen emission line Paschen 8 of CTTS V895 Sco (Fig. \[fig:badexamples\](b)) there are obvious residuals from poorly modelled water lines. We tried to obtain a better fit of the telluric lines, for example by narrowing the fitted region, but did not succeed. We conclude that inaccuracies in the HITRAN database are the likely cause for our failure to reach a better fit.
Apart from the few segments where the telluric line removal cannot be performed or is unsuccessful for the reasons stated above, in general the telluric lines are removed quite successfully.
{width="8.5cm"}{width="8.5cm"}\
{width="8.5cm"}{width="8.5cm"}\
{width="8.5cm"}{width="8.5cm"}\
{width="8.5cm"}{width="8.5cm"}\
{width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"}
{width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"}
{width="8.5cm"}{width="8.5cm"}\
{width="8.5cm"}{width="8.5cm"}
Comparison with the IRAF task `telluric`
----------------------------------------
As already described in the Introduction (Sect. \[sec:intro\]), the typical procedure used to remove telluric absorption employs the observation of a standard star. The IRAF task `telluric` is widely used for this purpose. We performed the telluric line removal for a few objects from the sample with this software and the telluric standard stars (all of which are of spectral type B) taken during the observation run to compare the results to our modelling approach. In Figs. \[fig:goodexamples\] and \[fig:badexamples\] the spectrum corrected using IRAF, normalised for better comparability, is shown in red. In regions where the standard star has no lines, the results from both methods are quite similar (e.g. Fig. \[fig:goodexamples\](d)). In the above-mentioned region dominated by water absorption the correction with IRAF is better than the one using our method (Fig. \[fig:badexamples\](a)). The IRAF task `telluric` does not take into account the intrinsic hydrogen absorption lines of the standard star. Thus, when using the standard star spectrum to correct for telluric lines in the regions of hydrogen lines, these intrinsic lines strongly distort the object spectrum (see Figs. \[fig:goodexamples\](a) to (c) and \[fig:badexamples\](b)). Since we directly model the transmission, correcting the spectrum in these regions poses no difficulty for our method and the line shape of the emission lines can be reconstructed.
Comparison of telluric model with standard ATRAN model
------------------------------------------------------
We also compared the telluric transmission model derived for the white dwarf EG 274 to a telluric transmission spectrum generated by the software tool ATRAN [@atran] in the version provided by the SOFIA Science Center[^6]. We ran ATRAN with standard input parameters for the observation of EG 274 without any specific water vapour overburden. The parameters used following the recommendations of the SOFIA Science Center are summarised in Table \[tab:atran\_params\]; for more details see the explanations by the SOFIA Science Center and @atran. Since ATRAN produces an absorption spectrum without taking into account continuum effects, we reran LBLRTM in its “no continuum” mode using the previously determined parameters for EG 274. Both spectra were convolved with Gaussians according to the previously determined parameters. Figure \[fig:comp\_atran\] shows both spectra and the difference between them, i.e. the ATRAN spectrum minus the LBLRTM spectrum. The ATRAN model clearly underpredicts the depth of the lines in many cases. The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:comp\_atran\] also shows the spectrum of EG 274 corrected for telluric absorption using both model spectra. For a good correction the telluric spectrum has to be modelled as closely as possible. It is thus important to adapt the model to the current conditions in the atmosphere.
Parameter Value
------------------------------ ---------
Observatory altitude 8688ft
Observatory latitude 39deg
Water vapour overburden 0
Number of atmospheric layers 2
Zenith angle 38.4deg
Resolution 0
: Input parameters used for the ATRAN model.[]{data-label="tab:atran_params"}
Error estimation {#ssec:errorest}
----------------
In order to evaluate the performance of our method in a statistical sense we use the spectrum of the white dwarf EG 274. We use the catalogued flux $F_{\mathrm{cat}}$ as the true model and the observed telluric line corrected flux $F^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs}}$ as “data” along with the statistical errors of the observed telluric line corrected flux $\sigma^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}$ (these are simply the errors calculated by the data reduction pipeline scaled by the telluric correction).
The data contains several detector artefacts, most of them in the NIR arm, for example at 10200Å or 11900Å. Since these artefacts are unrelated to the method that we want to test in this section, we exclude affected data points from the analysis presented here. Additionally, we restrict our analysis to the VIS arm and the first part of the NIR arm (9900–13400Å, called NIR1 in the following) because the residuals of the sky lines already cause a deviation from the catalogued flux in the second and third part of the NIR arm that would be mixed with the residuals of the telluric line removal.
We determine affected data points in the following way. We compare a median filtered version of the data (three bins in the VIS arm, seven bins in NIR1) to the original data and exclude all data points in the original data that are more than $6\cdot10^{-15}$ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$Å$^{-1}$ (VIS) or $1.75\cdot10^{-15}$ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$Å$^{-1}$ (NIR1) away from the median filtered version (see purple line in Fig. \[fig:completespecwm\]). In the VIS arm we additionally exclude a larger artefact between 6366Å and 6390Å by hand. We exclude 101 of the 11675 data points in the VIS arm and 47 of the 3440 data points in NIR1. The statistical errors $\sigma^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}$ of NIR1 contain several outliers with errors up to three magnitudes larger than the average errors. Although these errors are the result of the pipeline error propagation, they seem greatly overestimated and we replace these by the mean of the neighbouring errors. This is done for 50 data points.
Because we constructed the data to match the flux of the model spectrum (see above) on large scales, uncertainties in the model or the global flux do not influence the value of $F^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs}} - F_{\mathrm{cat}}$ we calculate here, thus EG 274 offers a clean way to characterise the errors introduced by our telluric line removal method.
First of all, we look at the $\chi^2$ test statistic. Regions unaffected by telluric lines give an estimation of the data quality independent of the telluric line removal. We find the following reduced $\chi^2$ values: $\chi^2_{\mathrm{unaff,\,VIS}}=1.23$ for the VIS arm and $\chi^2_{\mathrm{unaff,\,NIR1}}=2.49$ for NIR1. The pipeline errors seem to be underestimated, especially in the NIR1. In regions affected by telluric lines we find $\chi^2_{\mathrm{aff,\,VIS}}=2.14$ and $\chi^2_{\mathrm{aff,\,NIR1}}=5.67$. To reach a similar $\chi^2$ in the affected and the unaffected regions the errors need to be increased by $\sim$30% in the VIS arm and $\sim$50% in NIR1.
To check if the overall statistical distribution is well behaved, we study the distribution of the individual summands of the $\chi^2$ test statistic, $$\label{equ:diff}
\chi^{}_{\textnormal{F},\,i}=\dfrac{F^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}-F_{\mathrm{cat},\,i}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}}.$$ If there were no additional error contribution by the telluric line removal, the distribution should be a Gaussian with the same standard deviation in regions without telluric lines and with telluric lines in the original spectrum. In the VIS arm we find a standard deviation of the Gaussian of 1.05 for the regions without telluric lines and 1.19 for the regions which are affected by telluric lines. Thus, the standard deviation increases by 13%, implying that the errors in the regions containing telluric lines are underestimated by this amount. In NIR1 we find standard deviations of 1.15 and 1.80, respectively. This indicates that the real errors are 113% and 156% of the pipeline error in the VIS arm and NIR1. We show the corresponding distributions in Fig. \[fig:chi\]. The mean relative statistical error of the fluxes in each bin ($<\frac{\sigma^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}}{F^{\mathrm{t.c.}}_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}}>$) is 0.7% in the VIS arm and 1.1% in NIR1. Adding the factors derived above increases the errors to 0.8% and 1.7%.
![Distribution of $\chi^{}_{\textnormal{F},\,i}$ for VIS arm (*top*) and first part of NIR arm (*bottom*), both with Gaussian fit. *Black*: regions without telluric lines in the uncorrected spectrum and *red*: regions with telluric lines in the uncorrected spectrum.[]{data-label="fig:chi"}](chi_VIS_indices "fig:"){width="\hsize"}\
![Distribution of $\chi^{}_{\textnormal{F},\,i}$ for VIS arm (*top*) and first part of NIR arm (*bottom*), both with Gaussian fit. *Black*: regions without telluric lines in the uncorrected spectrum and *red*: regions with telluric lines in the uncorrected spectrum.[]{data-label="fig:chi"}](chi_NIR1_em_indices "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
![Distribution of $\chi^{}_{\textnormal{rat}}$ (*black*) for VIS arm (*top*) and first part of NIR arm (*bottom*), both with Gaussian fit (*red*).[]{data-label="fig:chi2"}](chi2_VIS_fe "fig:"){width="\hsize"}\
![Distribution of $\chi^{}_{\textnormal{rat}}$ (*black*) for VIS arm (*top*) and first part of NIR arm (*bottom*), both with Gaussian fit (*red*).[]{data-label="fig:chi2"}](chi2_NIR1_em_fe "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
As an example of a practical application, we consider flux ratios. This allows us to check for systematic effects introduced by the telluric line removal. We randomly select from the spectrum two non-overlapping regions $a$ and $b$ of spectral width $w$, integrate the flux in the observed telluric line corrected spectrum and in the model spectrum, and calculate the flux ratio of the two regions. For the selection of the regions $a$ and $b$, we discard regions that are affected by detector artefacts as described above. We repeat this for $n$ ratios and calculate the quantity $$\label{equ:ratios}
\chi^{}_{\textnormal{rat}}=\dfrac{\left(\frac{F_a}{F_b}\right)_{\mathrm{obs}}-\left(\frac{F_a}{F_b}\right)_{\mathrm{cat}}}{\sigma_{\left(\frac{F_a}{F_b}\right)_{\mathrm{obs}}}}.$$ As pointed out above, the pipeline errors seem to be underestimated. To avoid a bias due to underestimated pipeline errors in our study, we increased the errors to 110% of the pipeline error in the VIS arm and to 155% in NIR1. With these error values we reach a $\chi^2\sim1$ in the regions unaffected by telluric lines. For $w=16$Å, a typical width for hydrogen emission lines in CTTS, and $n=10\,000$, the distribution of $\chi^{}_{\textnormal{rat}}$ is approximately Gaussian. In an optimal case the standard deviation of the Gaussian should be 1. Figure \[fig:chi2\] shows the distributions. We find a standard deviation of 0.7 in the VIS arm and 1.9 in NIR1, indicating that the real error is only 70% of the error that would result in $\chi^2\sim1$, which itself is already 110% of the pipeline error for the VIS arm, while in NIR1 the real error is 190% of the error that would result in $\chi^2\sim1$, which itself is already 155% of the pipeline error. The mean relative statistical error of the $n$ ratios ($<\frac{\sigma_{\left(\frac{F_a,\,i}{F_b,\,i}\right)_{\mathrm{obs}}}}{(F_a,\,i/F_b,\,i)_{\mathrm{obs}}}>$, where the index $i$ runs over all $n$ ratios) is 0.19% in the VIS arm, decreased to 0.13% when subtracting the above factor. For NIR1 the mean relative statistical error is 0.67%, increased to 1.31%.
The numbers given here for the additional uncertainty introduced by the telluric line correction are calculated for one specific data set. We also tested the applicability of our software to lower quality data using the data set of EG 274. We created data sets with reduced resolution by increasing the bin size as well as with higher noise (the UV arm does not contain telluric features and in the other arms our spectra are binned to approximately match the spectral resolution with bin sizes $\approx0.4$ Å in the VIS and $\approx1$ Å in the NIR arm). For these simulated data sets, we recover the correct telluric abundances down to a bin size of 4Å in both arms and up to noise levels increased by a factor of 10. For lower signals, the telluric abundances can no longer be fitted. We repeated the above error estimation for the simulated data sets. For an increase in noise the relative importance of the additional error decreases. For tenfold noise the additional error is only a few percentage points. For lower resolution the results are less clear, but the general trend indicates lower additional errors for lower resolution. On the one hand, data with a lower $S/N$ leads to less precise values for the abundance of the molecular, telluric species; on the other hand, a similar *absolute* contribution to the uncertainties (e.g. from an incomplete telluric line list) has a lower *relative* influence on the uncertainties for low $S/N$ data.
Summary and conclusions {#sec:sumcon}
=======================
We present a method to remove telluric lines from VLT/X-Shooter spectra based on the approach originally put forward by in the context of CRIRES. In addition to using the line-by-line radiative transfer code LBLRTM and a model of Earth’s atmosphere to compute telluric transmission spectra, we utilise the very broad wavelength coverage of X-Shooter to determine the abundances of the most dominant producers of telluric lines (i.e. H$_{2}$O, O$_{2}$, CO$_{2}$, and CH$_{4}$) from sufficiently isolated line groups.
The computational effort to implement the telluric line modelling is manageable on a standard desktop PC. Our method removes telluric lines from both continuum regions and emission lines in general without residuals exceeding a small percentage of the initial flux except in a few isolated wavelength regions. The analysis of several error estimators shows that the method adds a systematic error to the data, which we estimate to be in the percent range. Thus, its relative importance depends on data quality and wavelength. At low quality ($S/N\sim10$) and/or shorter wavelengths the error of the corrected spectrum can be increased to $\sim$110% of the statistical errors. At higher quality ($S/N\sim100$) and longer wavelengths the error can be increased to up to 190% of the statistical errors. Thus, the additional statistical error introduced by our method is about 1%. Improved molecular data for the telluric line simulations will hopefully improve these values in the future.
The method works successfully both on high-resolution data ($R\sim70\,000$) as used by and on the medium-resolution data ($R\sim10\,000$) provided by the VLT/X-Shooter instrument. Although the software package `tellrem` in its current form is tailored to handle VLT/X-Shooter spectra, its procedures can in principle be used for every instrument. The manual provides some information and aid concerning the adaption for other instruments. The software is also able to process lower quality data, in terms of lower resolution and of higher noise.
In addition to saving precious observing time the method also circumvents the difficulties arising from the use of A or B stars as telluric standards for certain scientific applications. These stars are chosen because they have relatively featureless spectra, but they still show hydrogen lines. This complicates the situation if the specific interest is these lines in the object stars. Therefore, the use of telluric transmission models to remove telluric lines from observations is a worthwhile alternative to the observation of telluric standard stars.
**Note added in proof:** While this paper was in the refereeing process, other software tools to model the telluric absorption have been released to the community. These alternatives are Telfit [@2014AJ....148...53G] and Molecfit .
NR acknowledges support by the DLR under project no. 50OR1002, a “DAAD-Doktorandenstipendium” as well as the RTG 1351/2 “Extrasolar planets and their host stars”. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System as well as of the SIMBAD database and the VizieR catalogue access tool, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. We also want to thank an anonymous referee for exceptionally helpful reports and constructive criticism that helped to substantially improve the paper.
[^1]: Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile, 085.C-0764(A) and 60.A-9022(C)
[^2]: The `tellrem` package will be available at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/XXX/XXX as soon as the journal publishes the article.
[^3]: http://rtweb.aer.com/lblrtm\_frame.html
[^4]: http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/READYamet.php
[^5]: http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/RFM/atm/
[^6]: https://atran.sofia.usra.edu/cgi-bin/atran/atran.cgi
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
John E. Roberts$^{(1)}$, Giuseppe Ruzzi$^{(1)}$, Ezio Vasselli$^{(2)}$\
\
\
\
\
,\
,\
title: A theory of bundles over posets
---
\[section\] \[definition\][Theorem]{} \[definition\][Proposition]{} \[definition\][Corollary]{} \[definition\][Lemma]{}
\[definition\][Remark]{} \[definition\][Example]{}
\[section\]
Abstract
========
In algebraic quantum field theory the spacetime manifold is replaced by a suitable base for its topology ordered under inclusion. We explain how certain topological invariants of the manifold can be computed in terms of the base poset. We develop a theory of connections and curvature for bundles over posets in search of a formulation of gauge theories in algebraic quantum field theory.
Introduction
============
This paper is motivated by Quantum Field Theory. Whilst the pseudo-Rie- mannian spacetime manifold enters directly into the formulation of Classical Field Theory, it enters into Quantum Field Theory only through a suitable base for its topology ordered under inclusion. This raises the question as to what extent the topological data of the spacetime manifold are still encoded in the partially ordered set. Positive answers have been given as far as connectivity [@Rob03] and the fundamental group go [@Rob03; @Ruz05] and we shall see in this paper that the same applies to the first locally constant cohomology group.
Perhaps the most important open question in Quantum Field Theory concerns gauge theories. There is no formulation of gauge theories which goes beyond a perturbative framework. Whilst it is too much to hope for a single rigorous example of a gauge theory in the near future, one might hope that certain of their structural features could be axiomatized so as to be able to predict aspects of their behaviour. In particular, one might hope to say something about their superselection structure which remains a problem even for Quantum Electrodynamics.
Classical gauge theories are formulated in the language of differential geometry: there are principal bundles, associated bundles, connections and curvature, all referring to the underlying spacetime manifold. The very least change to be made to adapt the formalism to the quantum case would be to use the analogues of the structures of differential geometry over the poset derived from a base for the topology of the spacetime manifold. These analogues form the subject of this paper.
Here we now provide an outline of the paper.
In Section \[X\] we describe a symmetric simplicial set $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ associated with a poset $K$. In particular we observe that the nerve ${\Sigma}_*(K)$ is a subsimplicial set and that the fundamental groupoid of $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ is isomorphic to that of $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K^\circ)$ associated with the opposite poset $K^\circ$.
In Section \[A\] we introduce a class of bundles over posets: the *net bundles*. A net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ over a poset $K$ yields a fibration of symmetric simplicial sets $\pi_*:\tilde {\Sigma}_*(B)\to \tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ with a *net structure* $J$: a 1–cocycle of the nerve ${\Sigma}_*(K)$ taking values in the groupoid of bijections between the fibres. The net structure is used in place of continuity (or differentiability) and morphisms, cross sections and connections should be compatible with the net structure. A connection, in particular, is defined as an extension of the net structure to the simplicial set $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$. An important feature is that any net bundle admits one, and only one, *flat connection*: the unique 1–cocycle $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ extending the net structure $J$ (Proposition \[Ab:3\]). In accordance with these ideas, principal net bundles are defined in Section \[B\] by adding a suitable action of a group on the total space.
The analysis of principal net bundles relies on the observation that local representatives of connections, morphisms and cross sections are all *locally constant*. So, in Section \[C\], we exploit this feature to provide an equivalent description of principal net bundles and their connections in terms of the cohomology of posets as described in [@RR06]: the category of principal net bundles of a poset $K$ having structure group $G$ is equivalent to the category of 1–cocycles of $K$ taking values in $G$ (and analogously for connections, see Theorem \[Cb:2\]). Afterwards, in Section \[D\], we transport the notion of curvature, the relation between flatness and homotopy, the existence of non-flat connections, and the Ambrose-Singer theorem from the cohomology of posets to principal net bundles.
In Section \[E\], we introduce the Čech cohomology of a poset. Then, we specialize our discussion to the poset of open, contractible subsets of a manifold. In this case, the above constructions yield the locally constant cohomology of the manifold, which, as is well known, describes the category of flat bundles (Theorem \[thm\_hmor\] and Proposition \[prop\_c\_lcc\]).
We conclude the paper with an appendix recalling briefly the results of [@RR06].
Homotopy of posets {#X}
==================
In this section we analyze the simplicial sets associated with a poset. We start by introducing symmetric simplicial sets and defining their fundamental groupoid. Afterwards, we consider symmetric simplicial sets associated with categories and establish a relation between the fundamental groupoid of a category and that of the corresponding opposite category. Then we specialize to posets. We conclude with some remarks on the topology of partially ordered sets. References for this section are [@May; @RR06].
Simplicial Sets {#Xa}
---------------
Our investigation of the relation between invariants of a topological space and those of a suitable base for its topology ordered under inclusion makes substantial use of simplicial sets. A simplicial set is a contravariant functor from the simplicial category $\Delta^+$ to the category of sets. $\Delta^+$ is a subcategory of the category of sets having as objects $n:=\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$, $n\in\mathbb N$ and as mappings the order preserving mappings. A simplicial set has a well known description in terms of generators, the face and degeneracy maps, and relations. We use the standard notation $\partial_i$ and $\sigma_j$ for the face and degeneracy maps, and denote the compositions $\partial_{i}\partial_{j}$, $\si_{i}\si_{j}$, respectively, by $\partial_{ij}$, $\si_{ij}$. A path in a simplicial set is an expression of the form $p:=b_n*b_{n-1}*\cdots*b_1$ where the $b_i$ are $1$–simplices and $\partial_0b_i=\partial_1b_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n-1$. We set $\partial_1p:=\partial_1b_1$ and $\partial_0p:=\partial_0b_n$. Concatenation gives us an obvious associative composition law for paths and in this way we get a category without units.
Homotopy provides us with an equivalence relation on this structure. This is the equivalence relation generated by saying that two paths of the form $p=b_n*b_{n-1}*\cdots*b_i*\partial_1c*b_{i-1}*\cdots*b_1$ and $q=b_n*b_{n-1}*\cdots*b_i*\partial_0c*\partial_2c*b_{i-1}*\cdots*b_1$, where $c$ is a $2$–simplex, are equivalent, $p\sim q$. Quotienting by this equivalence relation yields the homotopy category of the simplicial set.
We shall mainly use symmetric simplicial sets. These are contravariant functors from $\Delta^s$ to the category of sets, where $\Delta^s$ is the full subcategory of the category of sets with the same objects as $\Delta^+$. A symmetric simplicial set also has a description in terms of generators and relations, where the generators now include the permutations of adjacent vertices, denoted $\tau_i$. In a symmetric simplicial set we define the reverse of a $1$–simplex $b$ to be the $1$–simplex $\overline{b}:=\tau_0b$ and the reverse of a path $p=b_n*b_{n-1}*\cdots*b_1$ is the path $\overline{p}:=\tau_0b_1*\tau_0b_2*\cdots*\tau_0b_n$. The reverse acts as an inverse after taking equivalence classes so the homotopy category becomes a homotopy groupoid.
We shall be concerned here with three different simplicial sets that can be associated with a poset and we give their definitions not just for a poset but for an arbitrary category ${\mathcal{C}}$. The first denoted $\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ is just the usual nerve of the category. Thus the $0$–simplices are just the objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$, the $1$–simplices are the arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and a $2$–simplex $c$ is made up of its three faces which are arrows satisfying $\partial_0c\partial_2c=\partial_1c$. The explicit form of higher simplices will not be needed in this paper. The homotopy category of $\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ is canonically isomorphic to ${\mathcal{C}}$ itself.
The second simplicial set is just the nerve $\Sigma_*(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$ of the category of fractions $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ [@GZ]. The proof of the result in this section requires some knowledge of how $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$ is constructed. Consider ${\mathcal{C}}$ and the opposite category ${\mathcal{C}}^{\circ}$. These categories have the same set of objects so we may consider paths $p:=b_n*b_{n-1}*\cdots*b_1$ where $\partial_0b_i=\partial_1b_{i+1}$, $i=1,2,\dots,n-1$ as before but now the $b_i$ can be taken at liberty to be arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$ or ${\mathcal{C}}^{\circ}$. We now take the equivalence relation generated by homotopy within adjacent arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$, homotopy within adjacent arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\circ}$ and two further relations $p*b*b^{-1}*q\sim p*q$ where $b^{-1}$ denotes the arrow corresponding to $b$ in the corresponding opposite category and where $p$ and $q$ are not both the empty path. Finally $b*b^{-1}\sim 1_{\partial_0b}$. Quotienting by this equivalence relation yields the category of fractions $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$. The arrows of $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$ can be written in normal form. The units of $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$ on their own are in normal form. The other terms in normal form involve alternate compositions of arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\circ}$ but no units nor compositions of an arrow and its inverse. Every arrow of $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$ is invertible so that $\Sigma_*(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$ is in a natural way a symmetric simplicial set.
The third simplicial set $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ is also symmetric and is constructed as follows. Consider the poset $P_n$ of non-void subsets of $\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$ ordered under inclusion. Any mapping $f$ from $\{0,1,\dots,m-1\}$ to $\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$ induces an order preserving mapping from $P_m$ to $P_n$. Regarding the $P_n$ as categories, we have realized $\Delta^s$ as a subcategory of the category of categories. We then get a symmetric simplicial set where an $n$–simplex of $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ is a functor from $P_n$ to ${\mathcal{C}}$. A $1$–simplex of $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ is a pair $(b_0,b_1)$ of arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$ with $\partial_0b_0=\partial_0b_1$ and $\partial_0(b_0,b_1)=\partial_1b_0$, $\partial_1(b_0,b_1)=\partial_1b_1$. A $2$–simplex of $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ is a set $$(c_0,c_1,c_2;c_{01},c_{02},c_{10},c_{12},c_{20},c_{21})$$ of nine arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$ with $$c_0c_{00}=c_1c_{10},\quad c_0c_{01}=c_2c_{20},\quad
c_1c_{11}=c_2c_{20}.$$ The faces of this $2$–simplex $c$ are given by $\partial_0c=(c_{20},c_{10})$, $\partial_1c=(c_{21},c_{01})$, $\partial_2c=(c_{12},c_{02})$. An explicit description of the higher simplices will not be needed.
\[Xa:1\] The homotopy groupoids of $\Sigma_*(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$ and $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ are isomorphic.
Given a path $p:=b_0*b_1*\cdot*b_n$ in $\tilde\Sigma_1({\mathcal{C}})$ we define a map $\phi$ into paths in $\Sigma_1(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$, setting $\phi(p):=\phi(b_0)\phi(b_1)\cdots\phi(b_n)$, where for $b:=(b_0,b_1)$, $\phi(b):=b_0^{-1}b_1\in\Sigma_1(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$. If $p\sim p'$ then using the barycentric decomposition inherent in a $2$–simplex $c$ of $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$, we see that $$c_{00}^{-1}c_{01}c_{20}^{-1}c_{21}=c_{10}^{-1}c_{11}.$$ Hence $\phi(p)\sim\phi(p')$. Conversely, given a path $\hat p\in\Sigma_1(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$, $$\hat p=\hat b_0*\hat b_1*\cdots *\hat b_n,$$ each $\hat b_i$ being an arrow in $\hat{\mathcal{C}}$, we set $\psi(\hat p)=\psi(\hat b_0)*\psi(\hat b_1)*\cdots*\psi(\hat b_n)$ where $\psi(\hat b_i)$ is defined using the normal form of $\hat b_i$.
If the normal form of $\hat b$ is $b_0b_1\cdots b_m$ then $\psi(\hat b)=\psi(b_0)*\psi(b_1)*\cdots*\psi(b_m)$ where $\psi(b):=(\sigma_0\partial_0b,b)$ for $b$ an arrow of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and $\psi(b^{-1}):=(b,\sigma_0\partial_0b)$ when $b^{-1}$ is an arrow of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\circ}$. For a unit we have $\psi(\sigma_0a)=(\sigma_0a,\sigma_0a)$. We claim that $\hat p\sim\hat p'$ implies $\psi(\hat p)\sim\psi(\hat p')$. It suffices to show that $\psi(\hat p)\sim\psi(\hat b_0\hat b_1\cdots\hat b_n)$ or that $\psi(b_0)*\cdots*\psi(b_k)\sim\psi(b_0b_1\cdots b_k)$. Thus the problem has been reduced to showing that the homotopy class of the left hand side does not change as $b_0b_1\dots b_k$ is put into normal form. This can be done using the following moves: composing two adjacent arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}$, composing two adjacent arrows of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\circ}$, removing an arrow and its inverse if they are adjacent unless they are the only arrows in which case they are to be replaced by the identity. In the first case it is enough to note that $$(\sigma_0\partial_0b,b)*(\sigma_0\partial_0b',b')
\sim(\sigma_0\partial_0b,bb')$$ as follows by taking a $2$–simplex with $c_0=c_1=\sigma_0\partial_0b$ and $c_3=b$. The second case follows by analogy. For the third case we need to know that $$(b,\sigma_0\partial_0b)*(\sigma_0\partial_0b,b)
\sim(\sigma_0\partial_1b,\sigma_0\partial_1b)$$ as follows by taking a $2$–simplex $c$ with $c_0=c_2=\sigma_0\partial_0b$ and $c_1=b$.
To see that $\psi\circ\phi$ induces the identity on homotopy classes, it is enough to note that, choosing a $2$–simplex $c$ with $c_0=c_1=c_2=\sigma_0\partial_0b$, $(b,\sigma_0\partial_0b)*(\sigma_0\partial_0b',b')$ is homotopic to $(b,b')$ when $\partial_0b=\partial_0b'$. This same observation suffices to show that $\phi\circ\psi$ induces the identity on homotopy classes since we may suppose that $\hat p$ is in normal form. Hence $\tilde\Sigma_*({\mathcal{C}})$ and $\Sigma_*(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$ have isomorphic homotopy groupoids.
In view of this result we will denote the homotopy groupoid of these symmetric simplicial sets by $\pi_1({\mathcal{C}})$. Since $\pi_1({\mathcal{C}})$ and $\pi_1({\mathcal{C}}^{\circ})$ can both be calculated using $\Sigma_*(\hat{\mathcal{C}})$, $\pi_1({\mathcal{C}})$ and $\pi_1({\mathcal{C}}^{\circ})$ are isomorphic despite the the fact that the categories can apparently have very little to do with each other.
Simplicial sets of a poset {#Xb}
--------------------------
In the present paper we will work with the simplicial set $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ associated with a poset $K$ showing that it is equivalent to that used in [@RR06]. This will allow us to connect the cohomology of posets, developed in that paper, with bundles over posets.
To begin with, we observe that a poset is a category with at most one arrow between any two objects. This implies that any covariant functor between the categories associated with two posets induces a unique order preserving map between the posets: the mapping between the corresponding set of objects. Conversely, any order preserving map between two posets induces a functor between the corresponding categories.
Now, according to the previous observation, any $n$–simplex $x$ of the symmetric simplicial set $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$, defined in the previous section, can be equivalently defined as an order preserving map $f:P_n\to K$. A detailed description of $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ in these terms has been given in [@RR06]. Here we just observe that a $0$–simplex is just an element of the poset. For $n\geq 1$, an $n-$simplex $x$ is formed by $n+1$ $(n-1)-$simplices $\partial_0x, \ldots,\partial_nx$, and by a $0$–simplex $|x|$ called the *support* of $x$ such that $|\partial_0x|, \ldots,|\partial_{n}x|\leq |x|$. The nerve ${\Sigma}_*(K)$ turns out to be a subsimplicial set of $\tilde{\Sigma}_*(K)$. To see this, it is enough to define $f_0(a):= a$ on $0$–simplices and, inductively, $|f_n(x)|:= \partial_{01\cdots (n-1)}x$ and $\partial_i f_n(x):= f_{n-1}(\partial_ix)$. So we obtain a simplicial map $f_*:{\Sigma}_*(K)\to \tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$[^1]. We sometimes adopt the following notation: $(o;a,\tilde a)$ is the 1–simplex of $\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$ whose support is $o$ and whose 0– and 1–face are, respectively, $a$ and $\tilde a$; $(a,\tilde a)$ is the 1–simplex of the nerve ${\Sigma}_1(K)$ whose 0– and 1–face are, respectively, $a$ and $\tilde a$.
In the present paper we will consider pathwise connected posets $K$. This amounts to saying that the simplicial set $\tilde{\Sigma}_*(K)$ is pathwise connected. The homotopy groupoid $\pi_1(K)$ of $K$ is defined as $\pi_1(\tilde{\Sigma}_*(K))$. Correspondingly, when $\pi_1(K)$ is trivial we will say that $K$ is *simply connected*. Now, a poset $K$ is *upward* directed whenever for any pair $o,\hat o\in K$ there is $\tilde o$ such that $o,\hat o\leq \tilde o$. It is *downward* directed if the dual poset $K^\circ$ is upward directed. When $K$ is upward directed, then $\tilde{\Sigma}_*(K)$ admits a contracting homotopy. So in this case $K$ is simply connected. However, since $\pi_1(\tilde{\Sigma}_*(K))$ is isomorphic to $\pi_1(\tilde{\Sigma}_*(K^{\circ}))$, $K$ is simply connected whenever $K$ is downward directed too. The link between the first homotopy group of a poset and the corresponding topological notion can be achieved as follows. Let $M$ be an arcwise connected manifold, consider a basis for the topology of $M$ whose elements are connected and simply connected, open subsets of $M$. Denote the poset formed by ordering this basis under *inclusion* by $K$. Then $K$ is pathwise connected and $\pi_1(K)$ turns out to be isomorphic to the fundamental groupoid $\pi_1(M)$ of $M$ [@Ruz05 Theorem 2.18].
Posets as topological spaces {#Xc}
----------------------------
Let $K$ be a poset which we will equip with a topology defined by taking $V_a:=\{a'\in K:a'\leq a\}$ as a base of neighbourhoods for the topology. This topology corresponds to the Alexandroff topology on $K^{\circ}$. The reason for choosing this convention is that the map $a\mapsto V_a$ is an order isomorphism so that any poset is a base for a topology ordered under inclusion. We denote $K$ equipped with this topology by $\tau K$. It is easy to verify that a mapping $f$ of posets is order preserving if and only if the corresponding mapping $\tau f$ of topological spaces is continuous. Thus the category ${\mathcal{K}}$ of posets may be regarded as a full subcategory of the category of topological spaces.
Clearly if we just know that $K$ is a base for a topology then this cannot yield more information than can be got by supposing that $\tau K$ is the topological space in question[^2]. Therefore it is worth recalling the principal features of the topological space. $\tau K$ is a $T_0$–space but not Hausdorff unless the ordering is trivial. The components coincide with the arcwise connected components and the associated Hausdorff space is the space of components with the discrete topology. The open set $V_a$ is the smallest open set containing $a$. It has a contracting homotopy and is hence arcwise connected and simply connected. It therefore follows from [@Rob03] that the path connected components of $K$ are in $1$–$1$ correspondence with the arcwise connected components of $\tau K$ and that $\pi_1(K)$ is isomorphic to $\pi_1(\tau K)$. Finally, we will call the open covering ${\mathcal{V}}_0$ of $K$ defined by ${\mathcal{V}}_0:=\{V_a: a\in K\}$ the *fundamental covering*. Note that if ${\mathcal{V}}$ is any other open covering of $K$, then any $V_a$ is contained in some element of ${\mathcal{V}}$. In the following we denote $V_{a_1}\cap V_{a_2}\cap \cdots\cap V_{a_n}$ by $V_{a_1a_2\cdots a_n}$. A function $f$ from a poset $K$ to a set $X$ is *locally constant* whenever $f(o)=f(\tilde o)$ for $o\leq \tilde o$, or, equivalently, if $f(\partial_1b)=f(\partial_0b)$ for any 1–simplex $b$ of the nerve. Another equivalent description is the following: if $X$ is enodwed with the trivial order, then $f:\tau K\to \tau X$ is continuous.
Bundles over posets {#A}
===================
In this section we deal with bundles over posets without any particular structure. We discuss morphisms between bundles, connections and flat connections. We finally study the local properties, like local triviality and the existence of local cross sections. Throughout this paper the poset $K$ is assumed to be pathwise connected.
Net bundles {#Aa}
-----------
We introduce the notion of a net bundle over a poset. As we shall see, a net bundle is a fibration of symmetric simplicial sets associated with posets (see Section \[Xb\]), equipped with a cocycle of the nerve of the poset base, with values in the fibres. This cocycle replaces continuity (or differentiability) in the theory of bundles over manifolds.
\[Aa:1\] A **net bundle** over a poset $K$ is formed by a set $B$, a surjective map $\pi:B\to K$, and a collection $J$ of bijective mappings $$J_{b}:\pi^{-1}(\partial_1b)\to
\pi^{-1}(\partial_0b), \qquad b\in {\Sigma}_1(K),$$ satisfying the following relations:
- $J_{\partial_0c} \, J_{\partial_2c} = J_{\partial_1c}$ for any $c\in {\Sigma}_2(K)$,
- $J_{\si_0a} = \mathrm{id}_{\pi^{-1}(a)}$, for any $a\in{\Sigma}_0(K)$.
The symbol ${\mathcal{B}}$ will denote the net bundle whose data is $(B, \pi,J,K)$.
As usual $B$, $K$ and $\pi$ are called, respectively, the *total* space, the *base* space and the *projection*. The subset $B_o :=\pi^{-1}(o)\subset B$ is called the *fibre* over $o$. The collection $J$ is called the *net structure* of the bundle. Note, in fact that the correspondence $K\ni o \rightarrow B_o\subseteq B$ with $J$ is a net: given $o\leq \tilde o$ then $\mathrm{ad}_{J_{(\tilde o, o)}}:B_o\to B_{\tilde o}$, where $\mathrm{ad}$ denotes the adjoint action, and $(\tilde o, o)$ the 1–simplex of the nerve having 0– and 1–face respectively $\tilde o$ and $o$. In the following symbol $\hat{\mathcal{B}}$ will indicate the net bundle $(\hat B,\hat\pi, \hat J,K)$.
Since $K$ is pathwise connected and the net structure is a bijection, all the fibres of a net bundle are isomorphic. Note, however that we can weaken the above definition assuming the net structure to be just injective. Clearly, in this case the fibres are, in general, not isomorphic. We refer to these bundles as *quasinet bundles*. In the present paper we will not deal with quasinet bundles. However they will play a role in K-theory [@RRV2].
The total space $B$ of a net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ seems to have no structure. But this is not the case since there is an associated fibration of simplicial sets. First of all, note that given $\psi,\phi\in B$ and writing $$\psi\leq_{J} \phi \ \ \iff \ \ \pi(\psi)\leq \pi(\phi) \ \mbox{ and } \
J_{\pi(\phi),\pi(\psi)}\psi = \phi$$ yields an order relation on $B$. So, the total space is a poset too with the fibres $B_o$ having the discrete ordering. This, in turns, implies that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a fibration of simplicial sets. Consider the symmetric simplicial set $\tilde{\Sigma}_*(B)$. Set $\pi_0(\phi) :=\pi(\phi)$ for any $\phi\in\tilde{\Sigma}_0(B)$, and by induction, for $n\geq 1$, define $$\pi_n(x) := (\pi_{0}(|x|), \pi_{n-1}(\partial_0x), \ldots ,
\pi_{n-1}(\partial_nx)),
\qquad x\in\tilde{\Sigma}_n(B).$$ Then, we have a surjective simplicial map $\pi_*:\tilde{\Sigma}_*(B)\to \tilde{\Sigma}_*(K)$. This map is symmetric, i.e., $\pi_n\tau_i = \tau_i\pi_n$, and preserves the nerves, i.e., $\pi_*:{\Sigma}_*(B)\to{\Sigma}_*(K)$. Now, the *fibre* over a $0$–simplex $a$ is the simplicial set $\pi^{-1}_*(a)$ defined by $\pi^{-1}_0 (a)$ and $\pi^{-1}_{k+1} (\si_{k\cdots 10}a)$ for $k\geq 0$. So we have a fibration of symmetric simplicial sets whose 0–fibres are, according to our definition, isomorphic. We observe that this is not a Kan fibration since the simplicial sets involved, in general, do not fulfill the extension condition [@RR06].
We now provide a first example of a net bundle, the *product net bundle*, introducing some notation useful in what follows. Nontrivial examples, will be given in Section \[Da\]. Let $K$ be a poset, and let $X$ be a space. Consider the Cartesian product $K\times X$ and define $\pi(o, x) := o$. Clearly, $\pi: K\times X\rightarrow K$ is a surjective map, and $\pi^{-1}(o)\simeq o\times X$. Let $$\jmath_{b}(\partial_1b,x) := (\partial_0b,x), \qquad (b,x)\in
{\Sigma}_1(K)\times X.$$ Clearly, $\jmath_{b}:\pi^{-1}(\partial_1b)\to\pi^{-1}(\partial_0b)$ is a bijective map.
We now introduce morphisms between net bundles. Since in the present paper we will not need to compare net bundles over different posets, we will consider only morphisms leaving the base space invariant. The general definition can be easily obtained mimicking that for bundles over manifolds.
\[Aa:4\] Let ${\mathcal{B}}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{B}}$ be net bundles over the poset $K$. A **net bundle morphism** $f$ from ${\mathcal{B}}$ into $\hat{\mathcal{B}}$ is a mapping of total spaces $f:B\to \hat B$ preserving the fibres and commuting with the net structure, namely
- $\hat \pi\, f = \pi$;
- $\hat J\, f = f\, J$.
The bundles ${\mathcal{B}}$ and $\hat {\mathcal{B}}$ are said to be **isomorphic** whenever $f:B\rightarrow \hat B$ is a bijection. A bundle isomorphic to a product bundle is said to be **trivial**.
We conclude this section by defining the restriction of a net bundle used later to define local triviality. Let ${\mathcal{B}}$ be a net bundle over $K$. Given an open and pathwise connected subset $U$ of $K$, define $ B|_{U} := \pi^{-1}(U)$, and $\pi|_U(\phi) := \pi(\phi)$ for $\phi\in {\mathcal{B}}|_{U}$. Moreover set ${J|_U}_{b} := J_{b}$ for any $b\in {\Sigma}_1(U)$. Then, $\pi_U:B|_{U}\to U$ is a surjective map and $J|_U$ a net structure. We call this bundle the *restriction* of ${\mathcal{B}}$ to $U$ and denote it by ${\mathcal{B}}|_U$.
Connections {#Ab}
-----------
We introduce the notion of a connection on a net bundle, and related notions like parallel transport and flat connections.
Since the net structure $J$ of a net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ over $K$ is a bijection between the fibres it admits an extension from the nerve ${\Sigma}_1(K)$ to the simplicial set $\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$. In fact, let $$\label{Ab:1}
Z(b) := J^{-1}_{(|b|, \partial_0b)}\,
J_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}, \qquad b\in\tilde\Sigma_1(K),$$ where $(|b|,\partial_ib)$ is the 1–simplex of the nerve with $0$–face $|b|$ and 1–face $\partial_ib$, for $i=0,1$. This is well posed since the support of a 1–simplex of $\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$ is greater than its faces (see Section \[Xb\]). So we have a bijection $Z(b): B_{\partial_1b}\to B_{\partial_0b}$ for any $b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$. Using the defining properties of the net structure we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\partial_0c)\, Z(\partial_2c) &
= J^{-1}_{(|\partial_0c|, \partial_{00}c)}\,
J_{(|\partial_0c|,\partial_{10}c)}\,
J^{-1}_{(|\partial_2c|, \partial_{02}c)}\,
J_{(|\partial_2c|,\partial_{12}c)} \\
& = J^{-1}_{(|c|, \partial_{00}c)}\,
J_{(|c|,\partial_{10}c)}\,
J^{-1}_{(|c|, \partial_{02}c)}\,
J_{(|c|,\partial_{12}c)} \\
& = J^{-1}_{(|c|, \partial_{01}c)}\,
J_{(|c|,\partial_{10}c)}\,
J^{-1}_{(|c|, \partial_{10}c)}\,
J_{(|c|,\partial_{11}c)} \\
& = J^{-1}_{(|c|, \partial_{01}c)}\,
J_{(|c|,\partial_{11}c)} \\
& = Z(\partial_1c),\end{aligned}$$ for any $c\in\tilde{\Sigma}_2(K)$, where the commutation relations of the faces, $\partial_{ij}= \partial_{j-1,i}$, if $i<j$, have been used (recall that $\partial_{ij}$ stands for $\partial_i\partial_j$).
After this observation we are in a position to define connections.
\[Ab:2\] A **connection** on a net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a field $U$ associating a bijective mapping $U(b):B_{\partial_1b}\to B_{\partial_0b}$ to any $1$–simplex $b$ of $\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$, and such that
- $U(\overline{b}) = U(b)^{-1}$, for $b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$;
- $U(b) = J_{\partial_1b,\partial_0b}$ for any $b\in {\Sigma}_1(K)$.
A connection $U$ is said to be **flat** whenever $$U(\partial_0c) U(\partial_2c) = U(\partial_1c), \qquad
c\in\tilde{\Sigma}_2(K).$$ We denote the set of connections of a net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ by ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{B}})$.
According to this definition a connection is any extension of the net structure to the simplicial set $\tilde {\Sigma}_1(K)$; the extension $Z$ defined by (\[Ab:4\]) is a flat connection of the net bundle. This connection is characteristic of the net bundle, as the following proposition shows.
\[Ab:3\] $Z$ is the unique flat connection of ${\mathcal{B}}$.
Given a 1–simplex $b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$ consider the 2–simplex $c\in\tilde{\Sigma}_2(K)$ defined by $$|c|=|b|, \ \ \partial_2c=(|b|;|b|,\partial_1b), \ \
\partial_0c=(|b|;\partial_0b, |b|), \ \
\partial_1c=b.$$ Observe that $\partial_2c$ and the reverse of $\partial_0c$ are 1–simplices of the nerve. If $U$ is a flat connection, then $U(b) = U(\partial_0c)\, U(\partial_2c)$ $= J^{-1}_{(|b|,\partial_0b)}\, J_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}$ $ = Z(b)$.
This result is one of the main differences from the theory of bundles over manifolds. As a direct consequence, we shall see in Section \[Da\] that principal net bundles over a simply connected poset are trivial. Concerning non-flat connections, we point out that, except in trivial situations, the set of non-flat connections of a principal net bundle is never empty (see Section \[Da\]).
Finally given a path $p$ of the form $p=b_n*\cdots *b_1$, the *parallel transport* along $p$, induced by a connection $U$, is the mapping $U(p):B_{\partial_1p}\rightarrow B_{\partial_0p}$ defined by $$\label{Ab:4}
U(p) := U(b_n)\, \cdots \, U(b_2) \, U(b_1) \ .$$ The defining properties of a connection imply $U(\overline{p})=U(p)^{-1}$ for any path $p$, and $U(\si_0a)=\mathrm{id}_{B_a}$ for any 0–simplex $a$.
Local triviality {#Ac}
----------------
We aim to show that any net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ is *locally trivial*. Thus there is a set $X$ and an open covering ${\mathcal{V}}$ of the poset $K$ such that, for any $X\in{\mathcal{V}}$, the restriction ${\mathcal{B}}|_V$ is equivalent to the product net bundle $V\times X$. In particular we will show that this holds for the fundamental covering ${\mathcal{V}}_0$. This suffices for our purposes. In fact if a net bundle can be trivialized on a covering ${\mathcal{V}}$, then it can be trivialized on the fundamental covering ${\mathcal{V}}_0$, too because ${\mathcal{V}}_0\subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$.
\[Ac:1\] Any net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ over $K$ can be trivialized on the fundamental covering ${\mathcal{V}}_0$ of $K$: thus there is a set $X$ such that the restriction ${\mathcal{B}}|_{V_a}$ is isomorphic to the product bundle $V_a\times
X$, for any $a\in K$.
Fix $o\in K$ and define $X := \pi^{-1}(o)$. Using the flat connection $Z$ of ${\mathcal{B}}$ and pathwise connectedness, we can find a bijection $F_{a}: X\rightarrow \pi^{-1}(a)$ for any $0$–simplex $a$ (clearly $F_{a}$ is not uniquely determined). Now recalling the definitions of restriction and product bundle we must show that there is a family of bijective mappings $\theta_a: V_a\times X\to \pi^{-1}(V_a)$, with $a\in K$, such that $\pi\,\theta_a=pr_1$ and $J_b\,\theta_a = \theta_a\,j_b$ for any $b\in{\Sigma}_1(V_a)$. To this end define $$\theta_a(o,v) := J_{(o,a)} F_a(v), \qquad (o,v)\in V_a\times X.$$ Clearly $\theta_a: V_a\times X\to \pi^{-1}(V_a)$, being the composition of bijective maps, is bijective, and $\pi \theta_a = pr_1$. Moreover, If $b\in {\Sigma}_1(V_a)$, then $$J_{b}\, \theta_a (\partial_1b,v) =
J_{b}\, J_{(\partial_1b,a)}\, F_a (v)
= J_{(\partial_0b,a)}\, F_a (v) = \theta_a\, \jmath_{b} (\partial_1b,v),$$ and this completes the proof.
The set $X$ is called the *standard fibre* of ${\mathcal{B}}$. A family of mappings $\theta:=\{\theta_a\}$, with $a\in K$, trivializing the net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ on the fundamental covering will be called a *local trivialization* of ${\mathcal{B}}$.
We now deal with local sections of net bundles.
\[Ac:2\] A **local section** of a net bundle ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a map $\si: V\rightarrow B$, where $V$ is an open of $K$, such that $\pi\,\si =\mathrm{id}_V$, and $$J_{b}(\si(\partial_1b)) = \si(\partial_0b), \qquad b\in {\Sigma}_1(V).$$ If $V=K$, then $\si$ is said to be a **global** section.
Consider a local section $\si:V\rightarrow B$. Let $a$ be 0–simplex with $a\in V$, and recall that $V_a\subseteq V$. Given a local trivialization $\theta$, define $$\label{Ac:3}
\theta^{-1}_a(\si(o)) := (o,s_a(o)), \qquad o\in V_a.$$ We call $s_a$ a *local representative* of $\si$. An important property of net bundles, is that cross sections are *locally constant* (see Subsection \[Xc\]). In fact, $(o, s_a(o)) = \theta^{-1}_a \si(o)$ $= \theta^{-1}_a\, J_{(o,a)}\si(a)=$ $ \jmath_{o,a}\, \theta^{-1}_a \si(a)$ $= (o, s_a(a))$, for any $o\in V_a$. A second property is that any net bundle has local cross sections. In fact, given $a\in\tilde\Sigma_0(K)$, pick $\phi\in\pi^{-1}(a)$ and define $\si_a(o) := J_{(o,a)}(\phi)$ for $o\in V_a$. One can easily sees that $\si_a:V_a\to B$ is a local cross section.
Principal bundles over posets {#B}
=============================
We now introduce the notion of a principal net bundle over a poset. This is a net bundle with a suitable action of a group. Many of the previous notions, like morphisms and connections, generalize straightforwardly by requiring equivariance. We study local trivializations, introduce transition functions and point out their main feature: they are locally constant.
\[B:1\] A **principal net bundle** ${\mathcal{P}}$ over a poset $K$ is a net bundle $(P,\pi,J,K)$ with a group $G$ acting freely on the total space $P$ on the right. The action $R$ preserves the fibres, $\pi\, R_g=\pi$ for any $g\in G$, is transitive on the fibres, and is compatible with the net structure, namely $J \, R = R\, J$. We call $G$ the **structure group** of ${\mathcal{P}}$. We denote the set of principal net bundles having structure group $G$ by ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$.
In the sequel we adopt the following notation for the action of the structure group: $R_g(\psi):= \psi\cdot g$, with $\psi\in P$ and $g\in G$.
It is clear from this definition that the fibres of a principal net bundle are all isomorphic to the structure group. Furthermore, the relevant topology of the structure is the discrete one, since the order induced by the net structure on the total space is trivial when restricted to the fibres (see Section \[Aa\]). Hence the topology induced on the fibres is discrete.
As an example, given a group $G$, consider the product net bundle $K\times G$ introduced in the previous section. Define $$\label{B:1a}
r_h(o,g) := (o,gh), \qquad o\in K, \ g,h\in G.$$ Clearly we have a principal net bundle that we call the *product principal net bundle*.
We now introduce principal morphisms and the category associated with principal net bundles.
\[B:2\] Consider two principal net bundles ${\mathcal{P}}, \hat {\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$. A **morphism** $f$ from $\hat{\mathcal{P}}$ into ${\mathcal{P}}$ is an equivariant net bundle morphism $f:\hat P\to P$, namely $R \, f = f\, \hat R$. We denote the set of morphisms from $\hat {\mathcal{P}}$ to ${\mathcal{P}}$ by $(\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$.
The definition of morphisms involves only principal net bundles over the same poset $K$ and having the same structure group. In Section \[Db\], we will see how to connect principal net bundles having different structure groups. Now, given ${\mathcal{P}},\hat{\mathcal{P}}, \tilde{\mathcal{P}}\in P(K,G)$, let $f_1\in ({\mathcal{P}},\hat{\mathcal{P}})$ and $f_2\in (\hat{\mathcal{P}},\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$. Define $$\label{B:3}
(f_2\, f_1) (\phi) := f_2(f_1(\phi)),\qquad \phi\in P.$$ It is easily seen that $f_2\, f_1\in ({\mathcal{P}},\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$. The composition law (\[B:8\]) makes ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ into a category, the category of *principal net bundles with structure group $G$*. We denote this by the same symbol as used to denote the set of objects. The identity $1_{{\mathcal{P}}}$ of $({\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$ is the identity automorphism of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Since we are considering morphisms between principal bundles with the same structure group, it is easily seen, that any morphism $f\in (\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$ is indeed an *isomorphism*, namely there exists a morphism $f^{-1}\in (\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$ such that $ f\, f^{-1} = 1_{{\mathcal{P}}}$ and $f^{-1}\, f = 1_{\hat{\mathcal{P}}}$. On these grounds, given $\hat {\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, and writing $$\label{B:4}
\hat{\mathcal{P}}\cong{\mathcal{P}}\ \iff \ (\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})\ne\emptyset.$$ we endow ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ of an equivalence relation $\cong$ and we shall say that ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$ *are equivalent*. A principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ is said to be *trivial* if it is equivalent to the principal product net bundle $K\times G$.
Following the scheme of the previous section, we now deal with the notion of a connection on a principal net bundle, and related notions like parallel transport, holonomy group, and flat connection. In particular we analyze this property from a global point of view, i.e. without using local trivializations.
\[B:5\] A **connection** on a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a net bundle connection $U$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ which is equivariant, namely $$U(b) \, R = R \, U(b), \qquad b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K).$$ We denote the set of connections of a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ by ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$.
The notions of parallel transport along paths and flatness for generic net bundles admit a straightforward generalization to principal net bundles. The only important point to note is that if $U$ is a connection of ${\mathcal{P}}$, and $p$ is a path, then the parallel transport $U(p)$ is an equivariant map from $P_{\partial_1p}$ to $P_{\partial_0p}$. The *holonomy and the restricted holonomy* group of the connection $U$ with respect to the base point $\psi\in P$ are defined by $$\label{B:6}
\begin{array}{c}
H_U(\psi) := \{ g\in G \ | \ \psi\cdot g = U(p)\psi, \ \
\partial_0p=\pi(\psi)=\partial_1p\} ; \\[3pt]
H^0_U(\psi) := \{ g\in G \ | \ \psi\cdot g = U(p)\psi, \ \
\partial_0p=\pi(\psi)=\partial_1p, \ \ p\sim \si_0a\} .
\end{array}$$ One sees that both $H_U(\psi)$ and $H^0_U(\psi)$ are indeed subgroups of $G$ and that $H^0_U(\psi)$ is a normal subgroup of $H_U(\psi)$. This will be shown in Section \[Db\] where we will deal with the cohomology of principal of net bundles and relate holonomy with reduction theory. We finally observe that a principal net bundle has a unique flat connection $Z$ defined by equation (\[Ab:1\]).
Let $U,\hat U$ be a pair of connections of the principal net bundles ${\mathcal{P}},\hat{\mathcal{P}}\in {\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ respectively. The set $(\hat U,U)$ of the **morphisms** from $\hat U$ to $U$ is the subset of the morphisms $f\in(\hat {\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$ such that $f\, \hat U = U\, f$. It is clearly an equivalence relation as any element of $(\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$ is invertible. It is worth observing that, given a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$, then $(Z,Z) = ({\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$ ($Z$ is the flat connection on ${\mathcal{P}}$). *The category of connections of principal net bundles over $K$ with structure group $G$,* is the category whose objects are connections on principal net bundles of ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ and whose set of arrows are the corresponding morphisms. We denote this category by ${\mathscr{U}}(K,G)$. Furthermore, given ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ we call the *category of connections on ${\mathcal{P}}$*, the full subcategory of ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ whose set of objects is ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$. We denote this category by ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$ as for the corresponding set of objects.
\[B:7\] The category ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ is isomorphic to the full subcategory $\mathscr{U}_f(K,G)$ of $\mathscr{U}(K,G)$ whose objects are flat connections.
Given ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, define $F({\mathcal{P}}) := Z$ where $Z$ is the unique flat connection of ${\mathcal{P}}$. For any $f\in({\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}}_1)$ define $F(f)=f$. Clearly $F:{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)\rightarrow \mathscr{U}_f(K,G)$ is a covariant functor. It is full because the set of morphisms $({\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}}_1)$ equals the set of the morphisms of $(Z,Z_1)$. It is an isomorphism because for any $Z$, there obviously exists a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$, the bundle where $Z$ is defined, such that $F({\mathcal{P}})=Z$.
We have seen that any net bundle is locally trivial (Proposition \[Ac:1\]). We now show that principal net bundles are locally trivial too. This will allow us to investigate the local behaviour of trivialization maps, cross sections and morphisms. In particular we will point out the main feature of these local notions: all of them are, in a suitable sense, locally constant.
\[B:8\] Any principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ admits a local trivialization on the fundamental covering ${\mathcal{V}}_0$.
The proof is slightly different from the proof of Proposition \[Ac:1\], because equivariance is required. For any $0$–simplex $a$, choose an element $\phi_a\in P_a$, and define $$\label{B:9}
\theta_a(o,g) := J_{(o,a)}(\phi_a)\cdot g,
\qquad (o,g)\in V_a\times G.$$ As the action of the group is free $\theta_a:V_a\times G\rightarrow
\pi^{-1}(V_a)$ is injective. Moreover, given $\phi\in \pi^{-1}(V_a)$ observe that $J_{(\pi(\phi),a)}(\phi_a)$ and $\phi$ belong to the same fibre. Since the action of $G$ is transitive on the fibres, there exists $g_a(\phi)\in G$ such that $\phi= J_{(\pi(\phi),a)}(\phi_a)\cdot g_a(\phi)$. Then $\theta_a(\pi(\phi),g_a(\phi))=
J_{(\pi(\phi),a)}(\phi_a)\cdot g_a(\phi)=\phi$. This proves that $\theta_a$ is bijective. Now, given $b\in {\Sigma}_1(V_a)$, we have $$J_{b}\, \theta_a\, (\partial_1b,g) =
J_{b}\,J_{\partial_1b,a}(\phi_a) \cdot g
= J_{\partial_0b,a}(\phi_a)\cdot g
= \theta_a(\partial_0b,g)
= \theta_a\, \jmath_{b}\,(\partial_1b,g).$$ Finally, it is clear that $R\,\theta_a = \theta_a\, r$.
As for net bundles, a *local trivialization* of a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ means a family of mappings $\theta:= \{\theta_a\}$, $a\in K$, trivializing ${\mathcal{P}}$ on the fundamental covering.
Consider a local trivialization $\theta$ of a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$. Given a pair of 0–simplices $a,\tilde a$, define $$\label{B:10}
\theta^{-1}_{\tilde a} \, \theta_{a} (o, g) :=
(o, z_{\tilde aa}(o)g), \qquad o\in V_{\tilde aa}$$ where $z_{\tilde aa}(o)\in G$. This definition is well posed because of the equivariance of $\theta_a$. So we have a family $\{z_{\tilde aa}\}$ of functions $z_{\tilde aa}:V_{\tilde aa}\rightarrow G$ associated with the local trivialization $\theta$.
\[B:11\] Under the above assumptions and notation, $z_{a\tilde a}:V_a\to G$ are locally constant maps satisfying the cocycle identity $$z_{\hat a\tilde a}(o)\, z_{\tilde aa}(o)= z_{\hat aa}(o), \qquad
o\in V_{a\tilde a\hat a}.$$
Consider the 1–simplex $(o_1,o)$ of the nerve. By the defining properties of a local trivialization (see proof of Proposition \[B:8\]) we have $J_{(o_1,o)}\, \theta_a =
\jmath_{(o_1,o)}\, \theta_a$. This implies that $\theta_a\, \jmath_{(o_1,o)}\, \theta^{-1}_a
=\theta_{\tilde a}\, \jmath_{(o_1,o)} \,\theta^{-1}_{\tilde a}$. Hence $$(o_1, z_{\tilde aa}(o_1))
= \theta^{-1}_{\tilde a}\, \theta_{a}\,
\jmath_{(o_1,o)} \,(o,e)
= \jmath_{(o_1,o)}\, \theta^{-1}_{\tilde a}\,
\theta_{a} \, (o,e)
= (o_1,z_{\tilde aa}(o)),$$ and this proves that these maps are locally constant. The cocycle identity is obvious.
The functions $\{z_{\tilde aa}\}$ defined by equation (\[B:10\]) will be called *transition functions* of the principal net bundles. The cocycle identity says that transition functions can be interpreted in terms of the Čech cohomology of posets. This aspect will be developed in Section \[E\]. Finally, the dependence of transition functions on the local trivialization will be discussed in Section \[Ca\] in terms of the associated 1–cocycles.
Consider a cross section $\si:V\rightarrow P$. We have already seen that $\si$ is locally constant (see Subsection \[Ac\]). Now, it is easily seen that, if $o\in V_{\tilde aa}$ and $\tilde a,a\in U$, then $s_{\tilde a}(o) = z_{\tilde aa}(o)\, s_{a}(a)$.
\[B:13\] ${\mathcal{P}}$ is trivial if, and only if, it admits a global section.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Given $f\in (K\times G, {\mathcal{P}})$, then $\si(o) := f(o,e)$ is a global cross section of ${\mathcal{P}}$. $(\Leftarrow)$ Given a global section $\si$, define $f(o,g) := \si(o)\cdot g$ for any pair $(o,g)$. It is easily seen $f: K\times G\to P$ is an equivariant and fibre preserving bijective map. Furthermore, for any 1–simplex $b$ of the nerve we have $$\begin{aligned}
f\, \jmath_{b} (\partial_1b,g) & = f(\partial_0b,g) =
\si(\partial_0b)\cdot g
= J_{b}(\si(\partial_1b)) \cdot g \\
& = J_{b}(\si(\partial_1b)\cdot g)
= J_{b}\, f (\partial_1b, g), \end{aligned}$$ completing the proof.
Morphisms between principal net bundles, like sections and local trivializations, are locally constant. Consider $f\in (\hat{\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{P}})$, and let $\hat\theta$ and $\theta$ be local trivializations of $\hat{\mathcal{P}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$ respectively. Define $$\label{B:12}
(o, f_a(o,g)) :=
\theta^{-1}_a\ f\ {\hat\theta}_a (o, g), \qquad
(o,g)\in V_a\times G.$$ This equation defines, for any 0–simplex $a$, a function $f_a:V_a\times G \rightarrow G$ enjoying the following properties:
\[B:14\] Under the above notation and assumptions, the function $f_a:V_a\times G \rightarrow G$ is locally constant and $f_a(o,g) = f_a(o,e)g$, for any $(o,g)\in V_a\times G$.
Given $b\in {\Sigma}_1(V_a)$. Since $f$ $J\, f = f\, \hat J$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_0b, f_a (\partial_0b,e)) & =
\theta^{-1}_a\, f\, {\hat\theta}_a\, (\partial_0b, e)
= \theta^{-1}_a\, f\,
{\hat\theta}_a\, \jmath_{b}\, (\partial_1b, e) \\
& = \theta^{-1}_a\, f\,
{\hat J}_{b}\, {\hat\theta}_a\,(\partial_1b, e)
= \theta^{-1}_a\, J_{b} \, f\,
{\hat\theta}_a \, (\partial_1b, e) \\
& = \jmath_{b}\, \theta^{-1}_a\, f\,
{\hat\theta}_a \, (\partial_1b, e) =
\jmath_{b}\, (\partial_1b, f_a(\partial_1b,e))
\\
& = (\partial_0b, f_a(\partial_1b,e)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $f_a$ is locally constant. Equivariance of $f$ completes the proof.
Cohomological representation and equivalence {#C}
============================================
Because of the lack of a differential structure, we replace the differential calculus of forms with a cohomology taking values in the structure groups of principal net bundles. In the present section we show that the theory of principal bundles and connections over posets described in the previous section, admits an equivalent description in terms of a non-Abelian cohomology of posets [@RR06]. We will construct mappings associating to geometrical objects like principal net bundles and connections, the corresponding cohomological objects: 1–cocycles and connections 1–cochains. We refer the reader to the Appendix for notation and a brief description of the results of the cited paper.
Cohomological representation {#Ca}
----------------------------
Consider a connection $U$ on a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$. Let $\theta$ be a local trivialization of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Given a 1–simplex $b$ of $\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$, define $$\label{Ca:1}
(\partial_0b, \Gamma_\theta(U)(b) \cdot g) :=
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\, U(b) \,
\theta_{\partial_1b}\, (\partial_1b,g),$$ for any $g\in G$. By equivariance, this definition is well posed. This equation associates a 1–cochain $\Gamma_{\theta}(U):\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)\rightarrow G$ to the connection $U$.
\[Ca:2\] Given ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, let $\theta$ be a local trivialization of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then the following assertions hold:
- $\Gamma_\theta(U)\in {\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ for any $U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$;
- $\Gamma_\theta(Z)\in {\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$;
- $\Gamma_\theta(U)\in
{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,\Gamma_\theta(Z))$ for any $U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$.
It is convenient to introduce a new notation. Given two 0–simplices $a$ and $a_1$ and an element $g\in G$, let $\ell_{a,a_1}(g): {a_1}\times G\to a\times G$ be defined by $\ell_{a,a_1}(g) (a_1,h) := (a,gh)$ for any $h\in G$. Then observe that equation (\[Ca:1\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{Ca:3}
\ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b} \big(\Gamma_{\theta}(U)(b)\big) =
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\, U(b) \, \theta_{\partial_1b} \ .$$ Now, given $U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$ and a 1–simplex $b$, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_{\partial_1b,\partial_0b}\big(\Gamma_{\theta}(U)(\overline{b})\big)
& =
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_1b}\, U(b)^{-1} \,
\theta_{\partial_0b}
\\
& =
\big(\theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\, U(b)\,
\theta_{\partial_1b}\big)^{-1} = \ell_{\partial_1b,\partial_0b}\big(
\Gamma_{\theta}(U)(b)^{-1}\big) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\Gamma_\theta(U)(\overline{b})= \Gamma_\theta(U)(b)^{-1}$. If $b$ is a 1–simplex of the nerve, then $$\ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}\big(\Gamma_{\theta}(U)(b)\big) =
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\, J_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}\,
\theta_{\partial_1b}
= \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\, Z(b)\,
\theta_{\partial_1b}
= \ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}\big(\Gamma_{\theta}(Z)(b)\big) \ .$$ Hence $\Gamma_\theta(U)$ is equal to $\Gamma_\theta(Z)$ on 1–simplices of the nerve. It remains to show that $\Gamma_\theta(Z)$ is a 1–cocycle. Given a 2–simplex $c$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_{\partial_{00}c,\partial_{12}c}
\big(\Gamma_{\theta}(Z)(\partial_0c)\, \Gamma_{\theta}(Z) &
(\partial_2c)\big)
= \\
& = \theta^{-1}_{\partial_{00}c}\, Z(\partial_0c)\,
\theta_{\partial_{10}c}\,
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_{02}c}\, Z(\partial_2c)\,
\theta_{\partial_{12}c}\\
&
= \theta^{-1}_{\partial_{01}c}\,
Z(\partial_1c)\,
\theta_{\partial_{11}c}
= \theta^{-1}_{\partial_{00}c}\,
Z(\partial_1c)\,
\theta_{\partial_{12}c}\\
& = \ell_{\partial_{00}c,\partial_{12}c}
\big(\Gamma_{\theta}(Z)(\partial_1c)\big) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and this completes the proof.
Sometimes, when no confusion is possible, we will adopt the following notation $$\label{Ca:4}
\begin{array}{ll}
u_\theta := \Gamma_\theta(U), & U\in{\mathscr{U}}({\mathcal{P}}),\\[3pt]
z_\theta := \Gamma_\theta(Z), & Z\in{\mathscr{U}}({\mathcal{P}}),
\end{array}$$ where $Z$ is the flat connection of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Since $Z$ is unique, we will refer to $z_\theta$ as the *bundle cocycle* of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Furthermore, we will call $u_\theta$ the *connection cochain* of the connection $U$. We shall see in Proposition \[Ca:7\] how these objects depend on the choice of local trivialization. Notice that the assertion $(iii)$ of the above proposition, says that for any connection $U\in{\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$, $z_\theta$ is the 1–cocycle induced by $u_\theta$ (see Appendix).
The next result shows the relation between the bundle cocycle and transition functions of the bundle.
\[Ca:5\] Given a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$, let $\theta$ be a local trivialization and $\{ z_{a\tilde a}\}$ the corresponding family of transition functions. Then $$z_\theta(b) = z_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}(|b|)\ ,
\qquad b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K).$$
Using the definition of transition functions, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_{|b|,|b|}\big(z_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}& (|b|) \big)
= \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\,
\theta_{\partial_{1}b} \\
& = \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\,
\theta_{\partial_{1}b}\
\jmath_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}\ \jmath^{-1}_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}\\
& = \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\, J_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}
\, \theta_{\partial_{1}b}\ \jmath^{-1}_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}\\
& = \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\,
J_{(|b|,\partial_0b)} \, J_{(|b|,\partial_0b)}^{-1}\, J_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}
\, \theta_{\partial_{1}b}\ \jmath^{-1}_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}\\
& = \jmath_{(|b|,\partial_0b)}\ \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b}\,
Z(b)
\, \theta_{\partial_{1}b} \ \jmath^{-1}_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}\\
& = \jmath_{(|b|,\partial_0b)} \
\ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}\big(z_\theta(b)\big) \
\jmath^{-1}_{(|b|,\partial_1b)}\\
& = \ell_{|b|,|b|}\big( z_\theta(b)\big) \ , \end{aligned}$$ and this completes the proof.
The mapping $\Gamma_\theta$ defines a correspondence between connections and connection 1–cochains. Moreover, as a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ has a unique flat connection $Z$, the relation $\Gamma_\theta(Z)=z_\theta$ gives a correspondence between principal net bundles and 1–cocycles. We will show that these correspondences are equivalences of categories. To this end, we extend this map to morphisms.\
Consider $\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, and let $\hat\theta$ and $\theta$ be, respectively, local trivializations of $\hat{\mathcal{P}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$. Given $f\in (\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$, define $$\label{Ca:6}
\big(a, \Gamma_{\theta\hat\theta} (f)_a\, g\big) :=
\big(\theta^{-1}_a\, f\, {\hat\theta}_a \big)(a,g) \ ,$$ for any 0–simplex $a$ and for any $g\in G$. Clearly, $\Gamma_{\theta \hat\theta}(f):\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K)\rightarrow G$.
\[Ca:7\] Let $\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, and let $\hat\theta$ and $\theta$ be, respectively, local trivializations. Then, given $\hat U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,\hat{\mathcal{P}})$ and $U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$, we have $$\Gamma_{\theta\hat\theta}(f)
\in(\hat u_{\hat\theta} , u_\theta), \qquad
f\in(\hat U,U).$$ In particular if $f\in(\hat{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$, then $\Gamma_{\theta\, \hat\theta}(f)\in(\hat z_{\hat\theta}, z_\theta)$.
First of all observe that the equation (\[Ca:6\]) is equivalent to $$\label{Ca:9}
\ell_{aa}\big(\Gamma_{\theta\hat\theta} (f)_a\big) =
\theta^{-1}_a \, f\, {\hat\theta}_a \ .$$ Now, given a 1-simplex $b$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}
\big(\Gamma_{\theta\hat\theta}&(f)_{\partial_0b}\,\hat
u_{\hat\theta}(b)\big)
= \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b} \,
f \, {\hat\theta}_{\partial_0b} \,
{\hat\theta}^{-1}_{\partial_0b} \,
\hat U(b) \,
{\hat\theta}_{\partial_1b}\\
& = \theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b} \,
U(b) \,
\theta_{\partial_1b} \,
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_1b} \, f \,
{\hat\theta}_{\partial_1b} =
\ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}
\big( u_\theta(b)\,
\Gamma_{\theta \hat\theta}(f)_{\partial_1b}\big),\end{aligned}$$ and this completes the proof.
This result provides the formula for changing a local trivialization. In fact let $\theta$ and $\phi$ be two local trivialization of the bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then $$\label{Ca:10}
\Gamma_{\theta\phi}(1_{\mathcal{P}})\in
(u_\phi,u_\theta), \qquad U\in{\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}}).$$ Hence, changing the local trivializations leads to equivalent connection 1–cochains.
We now show that $\Gamma_\theta$ is invertible. To this end, given $u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K, z_\theta)$, $\hat u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,{\hat z}_{\hat\theta})$, and $\mathrm{f}\in (u,\hat u)$, define $$\label{Ca:11}
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Upsilon_\theta(u)(b) (\psi) & :=& \big(\theta_{\partial_0b}\,
\ell_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}(u(b)) \,
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_1b}\big)(\psi) \ , &
\psi\in\pi_1^{-1}(\partial_1b) \ , \\[5pt]
\Upsilon_{\theta\hat\theta}(\mathrm{f})(\psi) & :=&
\big(\theta_a\, \ell_{a,a}(\mathrm{f}_a) \, {\hat\theta}^{-1}_a \big) (\psi)\ , &
\psi\in\pi_1^{-1}(a)\ .
\end{array}$$ for any $b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$ and $a\in\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K)$.
\[Ca:12\] Let ${\mathcal{P}},\hat{\mathcal{P}}$ be principal net bundles with local trivializations $\theta,\hat\theta$, respectively. Then
- $\Upsilon_\theta:{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)\to
{\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$ is the inverse of $\Gamma_\theta$.
- Given $u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)$ and $\hat u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,{\hat z}_{\hat\theta})$, then $\Upsilon_{\theta\hat\theta}: (\hat u,u)
\to(\Upsilon_{\hat\theta}(\hat u),
\Upsilon_\theta(u))$ is the inverse of $\Gamma_{\theta\hat\theta}$
$(i)$ Clearly $\Upsilon_\theta(u)(b)$ is a bijection from $\pi^{-1}(\partial_1b)$ into $\pi^{-1}(\partial_0b)$. Given the reverse $\overline{b}$ of $b$ we have $$\Upsilon_\theta(u)(\overline{b}) = \theta_{\partial_0\overline{b}}\
\ell_{\partial_0\overline{b},\partial_1\overline{b}}(u(\overline{b}))
\ \theta^{-1}_{\partial_1\overline{b}}
= \theta_{\partial_1b}\,
\ell_{\partial_1b,\partial_0b}(u(b)^{-1}) \
\theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b} = \Upsilon_\theta(u)(b)^{-1}.$$ Let $b$ be a 1–simplex of the nerve. Since $u(b)=z_\theta(b)$, by (\[Ca:3\]), we have $$\Upsilon_\theta(u)(b) =
\theta_{\partial_{0}b} \,
\ell_{\partial_{0b},\partial_{1}b}(z_\theta(b))
\, \theta^{-1}_{\partial_{1}b}
= \theta_{\partial_{0}b} \, \theta^{-1}_{\partial_{0}b} \, Z(b) \,
\theta_{\partial_{1}b}\, \theta^{-1}_{\partial_{1}b}
= J_{\partial_0b,\partial_1b}.$$ Hence $\Upsilon_\theta(u)$ is a connection of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The identities $\Gamma_\theta(\Upsilon_\theta(u)) = u$ and $\Upsilon_\theta(\Gamma_\theta(U)) = U$ follow straightforwardly from the definitions of $\Gamma_\theta$ and $\Upsilon_\theta$. $(ii)$ Given a 1–simplex $b$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon_{\theta\hat \theta}(\mathrm{f}) \, \Upsilon_{\hat\theta}(u)(b) & =
\theta_{\partial_0b} \,
\ell_{\partial_0b\partial_0b}\big(\mathrm{f}_{\partial_0b}\big) \,
\ell_{\partial_{0}b,\partial_{1}b}\big(u(b)\big)
\, {\theta_1}^{-1}_{\partial_{1}b} \\
& =
\theta_{\partial_0b} \,
\ell_{\partial_0b\partial_1b}\big(\mathrm{f}_{\partial_0b}\, u(b)\big)
\, {\hat\theta}^{-1}_{\partial_{1}b} \\
& =
\theta_{\partial_0b} \,
\ell_{\partial_0b\partial_1b}\big(u(b)\, \mathrm{f}_{\partial_1b}\big)
\, {\hat\theta}^{-1}_{\partial_{1}b} \\
& = \Upsilon_{\theta}(u)(b)\, \Upsilon_{\theta\hat\theta}(\mathrm{f}) \ \end{aligned}$$ This, in particular, implies that $\Upsilon_{\theta\hat\theta}(f)\, {\hat J}_{b} = J_{b}\, f$ for any $b\in {\Sigma}_1(K)$, as any connection coincides with the flat connection when restricted to the nerve. Equivariance is obvious.
The previous results point to an equivalence between the category of connections of a principal net bundle and the category of connection $1$–cochains of the corresponding bundle cocycle.
\[Ca:13\] Given a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ and a local trivialization $\theta$. Then the categories ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$ and ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)$ are isomorphic.
Using Propositions \[Ca:2\] and \[Ca:5\], it is easily seen that the mappings ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})\ni U\to u_\theta\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)$ and $(U,\tilde U)\ni f\to \Gamma_{\theta\theta}(f)\in (u_\theta,
{\tilde u}_\theta)$, define a covariant functor from ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)$ to ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$. Conversely, by Proposition \[Ca:12\], the mappings ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)\ni u\to
\Upsilon_\theta(u)\in{\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$ and $(u,\tilde u)\ni \mathrm{f}\to
\Upsilon_{\theta\theta}(\mathrm{f})\in
(\Upsilon_{\theta}(u),\Upsilon_{\theta}(\tilde u))$ define a covariant functor from ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z_\theta)$ to ${\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$. Proposition \[Ca:12\] implies that these two functors are isomorphisms of categories.
General equivalence {#Cb}
-------------------
We want to prove that any $1$–cocycle $z$ gives rise to a principal net bundle and any connection $1$–cochain $u\in {\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$ to a connection of the principal net bundle associated with $z$. We will prove this by a series of results. The first one imitates the reconstruction of a principal bundle from its transition functions.
\[Cb:1\] Given any $1$–cocycle $z\in{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ there is a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}_z$, with structure group $G$, and a local trivialization $\theta_{z}$ such that $\Gamma_{\theta_z}(Z) = z$, where $Z$ is the flat connection of ${\mathcal{P}}_z$.
Given $z\in{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$, for any pair $a,\tilde a$, define $$z_{a\tilde a}(o) := z(o;a,\tilde a), \qquad o\in V_{a\tilde a}$$ where $(o;a,\tilde a)$ is the 1–simplex with support $o$, 1–face $\tilde a$ and 0–face $a$. It is easily seen that the functions $z_{a\tilde a}: V_{a\tilde a}\rightarrow G$ satisfy all the properties of transition functions (Lemma \[B:11\]). Let $$P := \bigcup_{a\in\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K)} V_a\times G\times \{a\}$$ Any element of $P$ is of the form $(o,g,a)$ where $a\in\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K)$, $o\in V_a$ and $g\in G$. Equip $P$ with the equivalence relation $$(o,g,a) \sim_z (o_1,g_1,a_1) \ \iff \ o=o_1\in V_{aa_1}
\mbox{ and } g = z_{aa_1}(o)g_1.$$ Denote the equivalence class associated with the element $(o,g,a)$ by $[o,g,a]_z$, and define $$P_z
:= \{ [o,g,a]_{z} \ | \ a\in\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K), \ o\in V_a, \ g\in G \}$$ There is a surjective map $\pi_z: P_z\to K$ defined by $\pi_{z}([o,g,a]_z) := o$ with $[o,g,a]_z\in P_z$. Given $b\in {\Sigma}_1(K)$, define $${J_z}_{b}[\partial_1b,g,a]_z := [\partial_0b,g,a]_z.$$ This definition is well posed. In fact, if $(\partial_1b,g,a)\sim_z
(\partial_1b,g_1,a_1)$, then $g=z_{aa_1}(\partial_1b)\cdot g_1$. Since $\partial_1b\leq\partial_0b$ we have $z_{aa_1}(\partial_1b) = z_{aa_1}(\partial_0b)$. Hence $(\partial_0b,g,a)\sim_z (\partial_0b, g_1,a_1)$. ${J_z}_{b}$ is a bijection and the fibres are isomorphic to $G$. Define $${R_z}_h [o,g,a]_z := [o, gh,a]_z, \qquad h\in G.$$ This is a free right action on $P_z$ because $[o,g,a]_z=[o,gh,a]_z$ if, and only if, $g = gh$ and is transitive on the fibres. Given $b\in {\Sigma}_1(K)$ we have $${J_z}_{b}\, {R_z}_h [\partial_1b,g,a]_z
= [\partial_0b, gh,a]_z
=
{R_z}_h[\partial_0b,g,a]_z = {R_z}_h\, {J_z}_{b}
[\partial_1b,g,a]_z.$$ So the data ${\mathcal{P}}_z := (P_z, \pi_z, J_z, G,K)$ is a principal net bundle over $K$ with structure group $G$. Given a $0$–simplex $a$, let $${\theta_z}_a(o,g) := {J_z}_{(o,a)}([a,e,a]_z)\cdot g,
\qquad (o,g)\in V_a\times G.$$ Observe that $${\theta_z}^{-1}_{a_1}\, {\theta_z}_a(o,g) =
{\theta_z}^{-1}_{a_1} [o,g,a]_z
= {\theta_z}^{-1}_{a_1} [o,z_{aa_1}(o)g,a_1]_z
= (o,z_{aa_1}(o) g).$$ The proof then follows by Lemma \[Ca:5\].
Thus the principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}_z$ has bundle cocycle $z$. Now, since any connection 1–cochain induces a 1–cocycle, we expect that any connection 1–cochain comes from a connection on a principal net bundle. This is the content of the next result.\
For any ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, choose a local trivialization $\theta$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and denote such a *choice* by the symbol ${\underline{\theta}}$.
\[Cb:2\] The following assertions hold:
- The categories ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ and ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ are equivalent;
- The categories ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ and ${\mathscr{U}}(K,G)$ are equivalent.
We first prove the assertion $(ii)$. Define $$\begin{array}{ll}
\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}(U) := \Gamma_{\theta}(U) \ , & U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})\ ; \\[3pt]
\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}(f) := \Gamma_{\theta\hat\theta}(f) \ , &
f\in (\hat U,U),
\end{array}$$ where $U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$, and $U_1\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,\hat {\mathcal{P}})$. It easily follows from Propositions \[Ca:2\] and \[Ca:7\] that $\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}:{\mathscr{U}}(K,G)\to {\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ is a covariant functor. Conversely, observe that ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ is a disjoint union of the ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$ as $z$ varies in ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ (see Appendix), and define $$\begin{array}{ll}
\Upsilon(u) := \Upsilon_{\theta_z}(u) \ , & u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z);\\[3pt]
\Upsilon(\mathrm{f}) :=
\Upsilon_{\theta_{\hat z}\theta_z}(\mathrm{f}) \ , &
\mathrm{f}\in(u,\hat u),
\end{array}$$ where $u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$ and $\tilde u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(\tilde z)$, and $\theta_z$ is the local trivialization of ${\mathcal{P}}_z$ in Proposition \[Cb:1\]. By Proposition \[Ca:12\], $\Upsilon$ is a covariant functor.\
We now prove that the pair $\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}$, $\Upsilon$ is an equivalence of categories. To this end, consider a connection $U$ on ${\mathcal{P}}$ and the connection $\Upsilon\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}(U) = \Upsilon_{\theta_{z_\theta}}(u_\theta)$ defined on the principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}_{z_\theta}$ reconstructed from the bundle cocycle $z_\theta$. Define $$x(U)[o,\, g, \, a]_{z_\theta} :=
\theta_a(o,g), \qquad (o,\, g)\in V_a\times G \ .$$ This definition is well posed. In fact if $(o,\, g,\, a)\sim_{z_\theta}(o,\, g_1,\,
a_1)$, that is, if $g = {z_\theta}_{aa_1}(o)g_1$, then $\theta_a(o, g) =
\theta_a(o, {z_\theta}_{aa_1}(o) g_1) =
\theta_a\, \theta^{-1}_a \,
\theta_{a_1}
(o,g_1)
= \theta_{a_1}(o,g_1)$, where $\{{z_\theta}_{aa_1}\}$ are the transition functions associated with $z_\theta$. The definitions of $\Upsilon_{\theta_{z_\theta}}$ and $\Gamma_{\theta}(U)$ imply that $x$ is a natural isomorphism between $\Upsilon \, \Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}$ and $1_{{\mathscr{U}}(K,G)}$. Conversely given a $z\in{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$, define $$y(u) := \Gamma_{\theta_z \theta'}(\mathrm{I}_{{\mathcal{P}}_z}), \qquad
u\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z),$$ where $\theta'$ denotes the local trivialization of ${\mathcal{P}}_z$ associated with ${\underline{\theta}}$, and $\theta_z$ that defined in Proposition \[Cb:1\]. Proposition \[Ca:7\] implies that $y$ is a natural isomorphism between $\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}\,\Upsilon$ and $1_{{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)}$. $(i)$ follows from $(ii)$ by observing that $\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}:{\mathscr{U}}_f(K,G)\to {\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ and $\Upsilon:{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)\to {\mathscr{U}}_f(K,G)$ and that ${\mathscr{U}}_f(K,G)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ (Lemma \[B:7\]).
Curvature and reduction {#D}
=======================
The equivalence between the geometrical and the cohomological description of principal bundles over posets allows us to analyze connections further. In particular, we will discuss: the curvature of a connection, relating it to flatness; the existence of non-flat connections; the reduction of principal net bundles and connections.
Curvature {#Da}
---------
We now introduce the curvature of a connection and use the notation of (\[Ca:4\]) to indicate the connection cochain and the bundle cocycle.
\[Da:1\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ have a local trivialization $\theta$. The **curvature cochain** of a connection $U$ on ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the $2$–coboundary $\mathrm{d}u_\theta\in\mathrm{B}^2(K,G)$ of the connection cochain $u_\theta\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$, namely $$\begin{array}{lcll}
(\mathrm{d} u_{\theta})_1(b) & := &
({\iota}, \ \mathrm{ad}(u_{\theta}(b)), & b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K) \ , \\
(\mathrm{d}u_{\theta})_2(c) & := &
(w_{u_{\theta}}(c), \ \mathrm{ad}(u_{\theta}(\partial_1c)),
& c\in\tilde{\Sigma}_2(K) \ ,
\end{array}$$ where $w_{u_{\theta}}: \tilde{\Sigma}_2(K)\to G$ is defined by $$w_{u_{\theta}}(c) := u_{\theta}(\partial_0c)\,
u_{\theta}(\partial_2c)\,
u_{\theta}(\partial_1c)^{-1}, \qquad c\in\tilde{\Sigma}_2(K) \ ,$$ and $\mathrm{ad}(g)$ denotes the inner automorphism of $G$ defined by $g\in G$.
Some observations are in order. *First*, this definition does not depend on the choice of local trivialization. To be precise, if $\theta_1$ is another local trivialization of ${\mathcal{P}}$, the two coboundaries $\mathrm{d}u_\theta$ and $\mathrm{d}u_{\theta_1}$ are equivalent objects in the category of 2–cochains (see [@RR06; @Rob79]). However, we prefer not to verify this as it would involve the heavy machinery of non-Abelian cohomology. *Secondly*, in this framework, the Bianchi identity for a connection 1–cochain $u$ corresponds to the 2–cocycle identity, namely $$\label{Da:2}
w_u(\partial_0d) \ w_u(\partial_2d) =
\mathrm{ad}(u(\partial_{01}d))\big(w_u(\partial_3d)\big) \
w_u(\partial_1d),$$ for any 3–simplex $d$. *Thirdly*, in [@RR06] a connection $u$ is defined to be flat whenever its curvature is trivial. This amounts to saying that $w_u(c) =e$ for any 2–simplex $c$. Now as the mapping $\Gamma_\theta$ is invertible, a *connection $U$ is flat if, and only if, its curvature is trivial*.
We now draw on two consequence of this definition of curvature and of the equivalence between the geometrical and the cohomological description of principal bundles over posets.
\[Da:3\] There is, up to equivalence, a 1-1 correspondence between flat connections of principal net bundles over $K$ with structure group $G$ and group homomorphisms of the fundamental group $\pi_1(K)$ of the poset with values in the group $G$.
By Theorem \[Cb:2\] the proof follows from [@RR06 Corollary 4.6].
This is the poset version of a classical result of the theory of fibre bundles over manifolds (see [@KN]). Note that this corollary and Theorem \[Cb:2\]$(i)$ imply that principal net bundles over a simply connected poset are trivial. The existence of nonflat connections is the content of the next result.
\[Da:4\] Assume that $K$ is a pathwise connected but not totally directed poset, and let $G$ be a nontrivial group. Then, the set of nonflat connections of a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ is never empty.
By Theorem \[Cb:2\], the proof follows from [@RR06 Theorem 4.25].
Reduction theory {#Db}
----------------
The cohomological representation allows us to compare principal bundles having different structure groups. Any group homomorphism $\gamma:H\to G$ defines a covariant functor $\gamma\circ:{\mathrm{C}}^1(K,H)\to {\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$ (see Appendix). This functor maps 1–cocycles and connection 1–cochains with values in $H$ into 1–cocycles and connection 1–cochains with values in $G$. Moreover ${{\gamma}\circ}$ turns out to be an isomorphism whenever ${\gamma}$ is a group isomorphism. So using the functors $\Upsilon$ and $\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}$ introduced in the proof of Theorem \[Cb:2\], we have that $$\Upsilon \, {\gamma\circ} \,
\Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}: {\mathscr{U}}(K,H)\to {\mathscr{U}}(K,G)$$ and, clearly, $$\Upsilon\, {\gamma\circ} \, \Gamma_{{\underline{\theta}}}: {\mathscr{P}}(K,H)\to {\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$$ are covariant functors and even equivalences of categories when ${\gamma}\circ$ is a group isomorphism.\
We now define reducibility both for connections and principal net bundles.
\[Db:1\] A **connection** $U$ on a principal net bundle ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ is said to be **reducible**, if there is a proper subgroup $H\subset G$, a principal net bundle $\tilde {\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,H)$ and a connection $\tilde U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,\tilde {\mathcal{P}})$ such that $$\Upsilon_{\theta_{{\tilde z}_\phi}} \,
{{\iota}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{G,H}}}}\,
\Gamma_{\phi}(\tilde U) \cong U \ .$$ for a local trivialization $\phi$ of $\tilde {\mathcal{P}}$. A **principal net bundle** $ {\mathcal{P}}$ is **reducible** if its flat connection is reducible.
In this definition ${\iota}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{G,H}}}:H\to G$ is the inclusion mapping. So, recalling the notation (\[Ca:4\]), $\Upsilon_{\theta_{{\tilde z}_{\phi}}} \,
{{\iota}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{G,H}}}}\,
\Gamma_{\phi}(\tilde U)$ is the reconstruction of a connection from the connection 1–cochain ${\tilde u}_{\phi}\in {\mathrm{U}}^{1}(K,H)$ considered as taking values in the larger group $G$. $\theta_{\tilde z_{\phi}}$ is the local trivialization of the principal net bundle reconstructed from the bundle cocycle ${\tilde z}_{\phi}$ (see Proposition \[Cb:1\]) considered as a cocycle with values in $G$. Moreover, the bundle cocycle ${\tilde z}_\phi$ is equal to the 1–cocycle induced by $\tilde u_\phi$ (Proposition \[Ca:2\]). Finally, by Theorem \[Cb:2\] this definition is independent of the local trivialization.
We now derive an analogue of the Ambrose-Singer theorem for principal bundles and connections over posets. This has already been done in the cohomological approach [@RR06 Theorem 4.28]. The next two lemmas are needed for extending this result to fibre bundles.
\[Db:2\] A connection $U$ on ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ is reducible if, and only if, the connection cochain $u_\theta$ of a local trivialization $\theta$ is reducible.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Assume that $u_\theta$ is reducible. Then there is a proper subgroup $H$ of $G$ and a connection 1–cochain $ v\in{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,H)$ such that $v \cong u_\theta$ in the category ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$. By virtue of Theorem \[Cb:2\], there is a connection $\tilde U\in{\mathscr{U}}(K,\tilde {\mathcal{P}})$ with $\tilde {\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,H)$ such that $\tilde u_{\tilde\theta} = v$ for a local trivialization $\tilde\theta$ of $\tilde {\mathcal{P}}$. Hence ${\tilde u}_{\tilde\theta}\cong u_\theta$ in ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$. The corresponding bundle cocycles ${\tilde z}_{\tilde\theta}$ and $z_{\theta}$ are then equivalent in ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ [@RR06 Lemma 4.14]. By Proposition \[Ca:12\]$(ii)$ we have $$\Upsilon_{\theta_{{\tilde z}_{\tilde\theta}}}
({\tilde u}_{\tilde\theta}) \cong
\Upsilon_{\theta_{z_{\theta}}} (u_\theta) = U.$$ This completes the proof. The implication $(\Leftarrow)$ follows similarly.
We next relate the holonomy groups of a connection to those of the corresponding connection cochain. The holonomy group $H_u(a)$ and the restricted holonomy group $H^0_u(a)$, based on a 0–simplex $a$, of a connection 1–cochain $u$ of ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ are defined, respectively, by $H_u(a) = \big\{ u(p)\in G \ | \ \partial_0p=a=\partial_1p\big\}$ and $H^0_u(a) = \big\{ u(p)\in G \ | \ \partial_0p=a=\partial_1p,
\ p\sim\si_0a\big\}$ (see [@RR06]). Then we have the following
\[Db:3\] Let $U\in{\mathscr{U}}({\mathcal{P}})$ and $\psi\in{\mathcal{P}}$ with $\pi(\psi)=a$. Given a local trivialization $\theta$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$, $H_U(\psi)$ and $H_{u_\theta}(a)$ are conjugate subgroups of $G$. The same assertion holds for the restricted holonomy groups.
If $g\in H_U(\psi)$, then there is a loop $p$ such that $\partial_0p=a=\partial_1p$ and $R_g(\psi) = U(p)\psi$. Now, let $(a,g_\psi):= \theta_a^{-1}\psi$, then $$\begin{aligned}
(a,g_\psi g) & = r(g)\, \theta^{-1}_a \psi = \theta_a^{-1} R_g\psi
= \theta^{-1}_a\, U(p)\psi\\
& = \theta^{-1}_a\, U(b_n)\cdots U(b_1)\psi\\
& = \theta^{-1}_a\, U(b_n)\theta_{\partial_1b_n} \theta^{-1}_{\partial_1b_n} \cdots U(b_2)\theta^{-1}_{\partial_0b_1}
\theta_{\partial_0b_1} U(b_1)\theta_a \theta^{-1}_a\psi\\
& = \ell_{a,\partial_1b_n}(u_\theta(b_n))\cdots
\ell_{\partial_0b_1,a}(u_\theta(b_1)) \theta^{-1}_a\psi\\
& = \ell_{a,a}(u_\theta(p)) \theta^{-1}_a\psi \\
& = (a, \ u_\theta(p) g_\psi)\end{aligned}$$ The mapping $H_U(\psi)\ni g\to g_\psi g g_\psi^{-1}\in H_{u_\theta}(a)$ is clearly a group isomorphism.
This result and [@RR06 Lemma 4.27] lead to the following conclusions: the holonomy groups are subgroups of $G$; the restricted group is a normal subgroup of the unrestricted group; a change of the base $\psi$ leads to conjugate holonomy groups and equivalent connections lead to isomorphic holonomy groups.
Finally, we have the analogue of the Ambrose-Singer theorem for principal net bundles.
\[Db:4\] Given ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$, let $\psi\in {\mathcal{P}}$. Let $U\in {\mathscr{U}}(K,{\mathcal{P}})$. Then
- ${\mathcal{P}}$ is reducible to a principal net bundle $\tilde {\mathcal{P}}\in
{\mathscr{P}}(K,H_U(\psi))$.
- $U$ is reducible to a connection $\tilde U\in
{\mathscr{U}}(K,\tilde {\mathcal{P}})$.
The proof follows from the previous lemmas and [@RR06 Theorem 4.28].
Čech cohomology and flat bundles {#E}
================================
In the previous sections, we introduced the transition functions of a (principal) net bundle, and verified that they satisfy cocycle identities analogous to those encountered in the Čech cohomology of a topological space. This allows us to define the [*Čech cohomology*]{} of a poset, showing it to be equivalent to the net cohomology of the poset. Then, we specialize our discussion to the poset of open, contractible subsets of a manifold. In this case, the above constructions yield the locally constant cohomology of the manifold, which, as is well known, describes the category of flat bundles (see [@Kob I.2]).
A *Čech cocycle* of $K$ with values in $G$, is a family $\xi :=$ $\left\{ \xi_{aa'} \right\}$ of locally constant maps $\xi_{aa'} : V_{aa'} \to G$ satisfying the cocycle relations $$\xi_{\hat a\tilde a} (o) \xi_{\tilde aa} (o) =
\xi_{\hat aa} (o), \qquad o\in V_{a\tilde a\hat a}.$$ A cocycle $\xi'$ is said to be *equivalent* to $\xi$ if there is a family $u :=$ $\left\{ u_a \right\}$ of locally constant maps $u_a : V_a \to G$ such that $\xi'_{a\tilde a} (o) u_{\tilde a} (o) =$ $u_a (o)\xi_{a\tilde a} (o)$, $o\in V_{a\tilde a}$. We denote the set of Čech cocycles and their equivalence classes by ${\mathrm{Z}}_c^1 ( K , G )$ and ${\mathrm{H}}_c^1 ( K , G)$, respectively. In the sequel, by a slight abuse of notation, we use the same symbols to denote cocycles and the corresponding equivalence classes.
Let us now consider the dual poset $K^\circ$ and its fundamental covering ${\mathcal{V}}^\circ_0$. Note that $o\in V^\circ_a$ if and only if $a\leq^\circ o$, or equivalently if $o\leq a$. The aim is to establish a correspondence between ${\mathrm{H}}^1(K,G)$, ${\mathrm{H}}^1_{\bf c}(K^\circ,G)$ and ${\mathrm{H}}^1(K^\circ,G)$. Given $z\in {\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$, define $$ z^{\bf c}_{a\tilde a}(o) := z(a;a,o) \, z(\tilde a;\tilde a, o)^{-1},
\qquad o\in V^\circ_{a\tilde a}.$$ The definition is well posed since $a,\tilde a\leq^\circ o$ implies that $(a;a,o)$ and $(\tilde a;\tilde a, o)$ are 1–simplices of the nerve of $K$. Following the reasoning of [@RR06 Lemma 4.10], $z^{\bf c}$ turns out to be the unique Čech cocycle of ${\mathrm{Z}}^1_{\bf c}(K^\circ,G)$ satisfying the equation $z^{\bf c}_{\partial_1b,\partial_0b}(\partial_0b)=
z(\partial_1b;\partial_1b, \partial_0b)$ for any 1–simplex of the nerve of $K^\circ$. Thus we have an injective map $$\label{eq_c}
{\mathrm{H}}^1 (K,G) \to {\mathrm{H}}_c^1(K^\circ,G), \ \ \
z \mapsto z^{\bf c},$$ since any $1$–cocycle is uniquely determined by its values on $\Sigma_1(K)$. By applying [@RR06 Theorem 4.12], we also construct a bijective map $$\label{eq_n}
{\mathrm{H}}_c^1 (K^\circ,G) \to {\mathrm{H}}^1(K^\circ,G), \ \ \
\xi \mapsto \xi^{\bf n},$$ where $\xi^{\bf n} (b) :=$ $\xi_{\partial_0b , \partial_1b} (|b|)$, $b \in \tilde{\Sigma}_1(K^\circ)$ and $\xi \in {\mathrm{Z}}_c^1(K^\circ,G)$. If we compose (\[eq\_c\]) and (\[eq\_n\]), then we obtain a injective map $$\label{eq_circ}
{\mathrm{H}}^1 ( K,G ) \to {\mathrm{H}}^1 (K^\circ,G), \ \ \
z \mapsto z^\circ := (z^{\bf c})^{\bf n}\ .$$ We now observe that $z^{\circ \circ} = z$, $z \in {\mathrm{H}}^1 ( K,G )$, implying that (\[eq\_circ\]) and hence (\[eq\_c\]) are bijective. First note that $$z^\circ (b) = z(\partial_0b;\partial_0b, |b|)\,
z(\partial_1b;\partial_1b,|b|)^{-1},
\qquad b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K^\circ).$$ So, given $b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
z^{\circ\circ} (b) & = z^{\circ }(\partial_0b;\partial_0b, |b|)\,
z^{\circ}(\partial_1b;\partial_1b,|b|)^{-1}\\
& = z(\partial_0b; \partial_0b, \partial_0b)
\, z(|b|;|b|,\partial_0b)^{-1}\,
(z(\partial_1b; \partial_1b, \partial_1b)
\, z(|b|;|b|,\partial_1b)^{-1})^{-1}\\
& = z(\si_0\partial_0b)
\, z(|b|;|b|,\partial_0b)^{-1}\,
(z(\si_0\partial_1b)
\, z(|b|;|b|,\partial_1b)^{-1})^{-1}\\
& = z(|b|;\partial_0b, |b|) \, z(|b|;|b|,\partial_1b)\\
& = z(b),\end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the 1–cocycle identity to the last equality. The following result summarizes the previous considerations and incorporates an immediate consequence of Theorem \[Cb:2\].
\[E:4.0\] The maps $z \mapsto z^{\bf c}$, $\xi \mapsto \xi^{\bf n}$ induce one-to-one correspondences $${\mathrm{H}}^1 (K,G) \to {\mathrm{H}}_c^1 (K^\circ,G)
\ \ , \ \
{\mathrm{H}}_c^1 (K^\circ,G) \to {\mathrm{H}}^1 (K^\circ,G)
\ ,$$ defined so that, exchanging the role of $K$ and $K^\circ$, the diagram $$\label{eq_cdd}
\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{H}}^1 ( K,G )
\ar[r]
& {\mathrm{H}}_c^1 ( K^\circ,G )
\ar[d]
\\ {\mathrm{H}}_c^1 ( K,G )
\ar[u]
& {\mathrm{H}}^1 ( K^\circ,G )
\ar[l]
}$$ commutes. Moreover, the map (\[eq\_circ\]) induces an isomorphism of categories from ${\mathscr{P}}(K,G)$ to ${\mathscr{P}}(K^\circ,G)$.
We now specialize taking our poset $K$ to be a base for the topology of a manifold ordered under inclusion. Thus we can relate (principal) net bundles to well-known geometrical constructions, involving locally constant cohomology and flat bundles.
Let $M$ be a paracompact, arcwise connected and locally contractible space. We denote by $K$ the poset whose elements are the open, contractible subsets of $M$. A *locally constant cocycle* is given by a pair $( A , f )$, where $A \subseteq K$ is a locally finite open cover of $M$, and $$f := \left\{ f_{a'a} : a \cap a' \to G \ , \ a,a' \in A \right\}$$ is a family of locally constant maps satisfying the cocycle relations $$f_{a''a'} (x) f_{a'a} (x) = f_{a''a} (x)
\ ,$$ $x \in a \cap a' \cap a''$. A locally constant cocycle $( \tilde{A} , \tilde{f} )$ is said to be *equivalent* to $( A , f )$ if there are locally constant maps $v_{\tilde{a}a} : \tilde{a} \cap a \to G$, $a \in A$, $\tilde{a} \in \tilde{A}$, such that $$v_{a \tilde{a}} (x) \tilde{f}_{ \tilde{a} \tilde{a}'} (x) =
f_{aa'} (x) v_{a'\tilde{a}'} (x),$$ where $x \in a \cap a' \cap \tilde{a} \cap \tilde{a}'$, $a,a' \in A$, $\tilde{a} , \tilde{a}' \in \tilde{A}$. Note that in locally constant cohomology we work with elements of $A$ rather than with $V_a$, $a \in K$. This makes locally constant cocycles more manageable than cocycles defined over $\tilde\Sigma_0(K)$.
The set of locally constant cocycles is denoted by ${\mathrm{Z}}_{lc}^1 (M,G)$ and their equivalence classes by ${\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 ( M , G )$ and called the (first) [*locally constant cohomology*]{} of $M$.
Now, if we endow $G$ with the discrete topology, then ${\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1(M,G)$ coincides with the usual cohomology set classifying principal $G$-bundles over $M$ (see Remark \[rem\_h1lc\] below). In this way we obtain the following
\[thm\_hmor\] Let $M$ be a paracompact, arcwise connected, locally contractible space, and $G$ a group. Then, there are isomorphisms $${\mathrm{H}}^1(K,G)
\ \simeq \
\dot{{\mathrm{H}}}{\mathrm{om}} (\pi_1(K),G)
\ \simeq \
\dot{{\mathrm{H}}}{\mathrm{om}} (\pi_1(M),G)
\ \simeq \
{\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1(M,G)
\ ,$$ where $\dot{{\mathrm{H}}}{\mathrm{om}} (-,G)$ denotes the set of $G$-valued morphisms modulo inner automorphisms of $G$.
The first three isomorphisms have been already established [@Ruz05] (see also [@RR06]). The last isomorphism, instead, follows using the classical machinery developed in [@Ste I.13] for totally disconnected groups. In fact, locally constant cocycles $(A,f) \in{\mathrm{Z}}_{lc}^1(M,G)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with morphisms $\chi_{(A,f)}$ from $\pi_1(M)$ into $G$. A locally constant cocycle $(\tilde{A},\tilde{f})$ is equivalent to $(A,f)$ if and only if there is $g \in G$ such that $g \ \chi_{(A,f)}=\chi_{(\tilde{A},\tilde{f})}\ g$.
\[rem\_h1lc\] Let $G$ be a [*topological*]{} group. We consider the set ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(M,G)$ of [*cocycles*]{} in the sense of [@Kar Chp.I], and the associated cohomology ${\mathrm{H}}^1 ( M,G )$. We recall that elements of ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(M,G)$ are pairs of the type $(A,f)$, where $A$ is an open, locally finite cover of $M$, and $f$ is a family of [*continuous*]{} maps $f_{aa'} : a \cap a' \to$ $G$, $a,a' \in A$, satisfying the cocycle relations. It is well-known that such cocycles are in one-to-one correspondence with transition maps of principal bundles over $M$. The natural map $$\label{def_lc_c}
{\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 (M,G) \to {\mathrm{H}}^1(M,G)$$ [*is generally not injective*]{}: in fact, inequivalent cocycles in ${\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 (M,G)$ may become equivalent in ${\mathrm{H}}^1(M,G)$.
To make the isomorphisms of the previous theorem explicit, we provide an explicit map from ${\mathrm{H}}_c^1 (K^\circ,G) \simeq {\mathrm{H}}^1 (K,G)$ to ${\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 (M,G)$:
\[prop\_c\_lcc\] There is an isomorphism ${\mathrm{H}}_c^1 (K^\circ,G) \to {\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 (M,G)$.
Let $A \subseteq K$ be a fixed locally finite, open cover, and $\xi$ a Čech cocycle. Then, we have a family of locally constant maps $$\xi_{aa'} : V^\circ_{aa'} \to G
\ \ , \ \
a,a' \in \tilde\Sigma_0(K^\circ)
\ .$$ Now, since each $a \cap a'$ is an open set, we find $a \cap a' =$ $\cup_{o \in V^\circ_{aa'}} o$. Since $\xi_{aa'}$ is locally constant on $V^\circ_{a'a}$, we can define the following locally constant function on $a' \cap a$: $$\label{eq_wau}
\xi^{\bf lc}_{aa'} (x)
:=
\xi_{aa'} (o)
\ \ , \ \
o \in V^\circ_{aa'} , x \in o
\ \ .$$ The family $\xi^{\bf lc} :=$ $\left\{ \xi^{\bf lc}_{aa'} \right\}$ clearly satisfies the cocycle relations, so $( A , \xi^{\bf lc} )$ is a locally constant cocycle. If $\tilde{A} \subseteq K$ is another locally finite, open cover, then we obtain a locally constant cocycle $( \tilde{A} , \tilde{\xi}^{\bf lc} )$, with $\tilde{\xi}^{\bf lc}_{\tilde{a} {\tilde{a}'}} (x)$, $x \in \tilde{a} \cap \tilde{a}'$, $\tilde{a} , \tilde{a}' \in \tilde{A}$, defined as in (\[eq\_wau\]). By defining $v_{a \tilde{a}} (x) :=$ $\xi_{a \tilde{a}} (o)$, $o \in V^\circ_{a\tilde{a}}$, $x \in o$, we find $v_{a \tilde{a}} (x)
\tilde{\xi}^{\bf lc}_{\tilde{a} {\tilde{a}'}} (x)
v_{a' \tilde{a}'} (x)^{-1} =$ $\xi^{\bf lc}_{aa'} (x)$, thus $(\tilde{A},\tilde{\xi}^{\bf lc})$ is equivalent to $(A,\xi^{\bf lc})$. This implies that the equivalence class of $(A,\xi^{\bf lc})$ in ${\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 ( M,G )$ does not depend on the choice of $A$. If $\xi'$ is equivalent to $\xi$, then $( A ,\xi^{\bf lc} )$ is equivalent to $( A , {\xi'}^{\bf lc} )$ for every open, locally finite, cover $A$; thus, the map $$\label{eq_c_lc}
\xi \mapsto (A,\xi^{\bf lc})
\in {\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 (M,G)
\ \ , \ \
\xi \in {\mathrm{H}}_c^1 (K^\circ,G)
\ ,$$ is well defined at the level of cohomology classes. We prove the injectivity of (\[eq\_c\_lc\]). To this end, note that if $(A,\xi^{\bf lc})$ $(A,{\xi'}^{\bf lc})$ are equivalent, then the above argument shows that $( \tilde{A},\xi^{\bf lc} )$ and $( \tilde{A},{\xi'}^{\bf lc})$ are equivalent for every locally finite open cover $\tilde{A} \subseteq K$. Hence $\xi$ and $\xi'$ are equivalent. Finally, we prove the surjectivity of (\[eq\_c\_lc\]). If $( A,f )$ is a locally constant cocycle, consider the associated representation $\chi : \pi_1(K) \to G$, and the corresponding Čech cocycle $\xi \in {\mathrm{H}}_c^1(K,G)$, see Proposition \[E:4.0\], Theorem \[thm\_hmor\]. In particular, the set $\xi_{aa'}$, $a,a' \in A$, is a locally constant cocycle $( A,\xi
)$, equivalent to $(A,f)$ by construction.
The above constructions can be summarized in the diagram $${\mathrm{H}}_c^1(K^\circ,G) \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
{\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 (M,G) \longrightarrow
{\mathrm{H}}^1 (M,G)$$ The first map (that emphasized by the symbol “$\simeq$”) is a isomorphism. The other is, in general, neither injective nor surjective. For example, when $M$ is the $1$-sphere $S^1$ and $G$ the torus $\mathbb{T}$, we find $\mathbb{T} \simeq$ ${\mathrm{Hom}}( \mathbb{Z} , \mathbb{T}) \simeq$ ${\mathrm{H}}^1(K,\mathbb{T}) \simeq$ ${\mathrm{H}}_{lc}^1 ( S^1 , \mathbb{T})$, whilst ${\mathrm{H}}^1 ( S^1 , \mathbb{T})$ is trivial.
Conclusions
===========
The results of this paper demonstrate how the basic concepts and results of the theory of fibre bundles admit an analogue for net bundles over posets. In a sequel to this paper, we will show that this continues to be true for the K-theory of an Hermitian net bundle over a poset, even if the results diverge more in this case. In particular, we shall define the Chern classes for such bundles.
Our current research aims to develop a far-reaching but very natural generalization of the notion of net bundle. This involves replacing the poset, the base category of our net bundle, and the fibre category, here usually a group, by two arbitrary categories, a generalization leading us in the direction of fibred categories [@Gro].
Connection 1–cochains over posets {#Z}
=================================
This appendix is intended to provide the reader with the notation and a very brief outline of the results of the cohomological description of connections over posets developed in [@RR06].
The present paper treats principal bundles over posets having an arbitrary structure group. The lack of a differential structure forces us to use a cohomology taking values in the structure group $G$. Hence, in general, we will deal with a non-Abelian cohomology of posets. In [@RR06] the coefficients for the non-Abelian $n^{th}$-degree cohomology of a poset $K$ are an $n$-category associated with the group $G$. In the cited paper the set of $n$–cochains ${\mathrm{C}}^n(K,G)$ is defined only for $n=0,1,2,3$. With this restriction, there is a coboundary operator $\mathrm{d}:{\mathrm{C}}^n(K,G)\to{\mathrm{C}}^{n+1}(K,G)$ satisfying the equation $\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}=\imath$ where $\imath$ denotes the *trivial* cochain. So the sets of *$n$–cocycles* and *$n$–coboundaries* are defined, respectively, by $${\mathrm{Z}}^n(K,G):= {\mathrm{C}}^n(K,G)\cap Ker(\mathrm{d}), \ \ \
{\mathrm{B}}^n(K,G):= {\mathrm{C}}^n(K,G)\cap Im(\mathrm{d}).$$ Here we describe the category of 1–cochains in some detail, this being all we need.
For $n=0,1$, an *$n$–cochain* is just a mapping $v:\tilde{\Sigma}_n(K)\to G$. Given a $1$–cochain $v\in{\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$, we can and will extend $v$ from $1$–simplices to paths by defining for $p=b_n*\cdots*b_1$ $$v(p) := v(b_n)\, \cdots\, v(b_2)\, v(b_1).$$ Given $v,\tilde v\in{\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$, a *morphism* $\mathrm{f}$ from $\tilde v$ to $v$ is a function $\mathrm{f}:\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K)\rightarrow G$ satisfying the equation $$\mathrm{f}_{\partial_0p} \, \tilde v(p) = v(p) \,
\mathrm{f}_{\partial_1p},$$ for all paths $p$. We denote the set of morphisms from $v_1$ to $v$ by $(\tilde v,v)$. There is an obvious composition law between morphisms given by pointwise multiplication making ${\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$ into a category. The identity arrow $1_v\in(v,v)$ takes the constant value $e$, the identity of the group. Given a group homomorphism $\gamma:H\to G$ and a morphism $\mathrm{f}\in(\tilde v,v)$ of $1$–cochains with values in $H$ then $\gamma\circ v$, defined by $$\label{Z:1}
(\gamma\circ v) (b) := {\gamma}(v(b)), \qquad b\in\tilde{\Sigma}_1(K),$$ is a $1$–cochain with values in $G$, and $\gamma\circ\mathrm{f}$ defined by $$\label{Z:2}
(\gamma\circ\mathrm{f})_a := {\gamma}(\mathrm{f}_a), \qquad a\in\tilde{\Sigma}_0(K),$$ is a morphism of $(\gamma\circ \tilde v,\gamma\circ v)$. One checks at once that $\gamma\circ$ is a functor from ${\mathrm{C}}^1(K,H)$ to ${\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$, and that if ${\gamma}$ is a group isomorphism, then ${\gamma}\circ$ is an isomorphism of categories.
Note that $\mathrm{f}\in(v_1,v)$ implies $\mathrm{f}^{-1}\in(v,v_1)$, where $\mathrm{f}^{-1}$ here denotes the composition of $\mathrm{f}$ with the inverse of $G$. We say that $v_1$ and $v$ are *equivalent*, written $v_1\cong v$, whenever $(v_1,v)$ is nonempty. Observe that a $1$–cochain $v$ is equivalent to the trivial $1$–cochain $\imath$ if, and only if, it is a $1$–coboundary. We will say that $v\in {\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$ is *reducible* if there exists a proper subgroup $H\subset G$ and a $1$–cochain $\tilde v\in{\mathrm{C}}^1(K,H)$ with $\iota_{{\scriptscriptstyle{G,H}}}\circ \tilde v$ equivalent to $v$, where $\iota_{{\scriptscriptstyle{G,H}}}$ denotes the inclusion $H\subset G$. If $v$ is not reducible it will be said to be *irreducible*.
A *$1$–cocycle* of $K$ with values in $G$ is a 1–cochain $z$ satisfying the equation $$\label{Z:3}
z(\partial_0c)\, z(\partial_2c) = z(\partial_1c), \qquad
c\in\tilde{\Sigma}_2(K).$$ The *category of $1$–cocycles* with values in $G$, is the full subcategory of ${\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$ whose set of objects is ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$. We denote this category by the same symbol ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ as used to denote the corresponding set of objects. Clearly, 1–cohomology is strictly related to the first homotopy group. One first observes that any 1–cocycle $z$ is *homotopic invariant*, i.e., $z(p)=z(q)$ whenever $p$ and $q$ are homotopic paths. Using this property, $$\label{Z:4}
{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)\cong H(\pi_1(K,a),G),$$ that is, the category ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ *is equivalent* to the category $H(\pi_1(K,a),G)$ of group homomorphisms from $\pi_1(K,a)$ into $G$. Hence, if $K$ is simply connected, then any 1–cocycle is a 1–coboundary. The set of *connections* with values in $G$ is the subset ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ of those 1–cochains $u$ of ${\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$ satisfying the properties $$\label{Z:5}
\begin{array}{lcl}
(i) & u(\overline{b})= u(b)^{-1}, & b\in\tilde\Sigma_1(K), \\[3pt]
(ii) & u(\partial_0c)\, u(\partial_2c) = u(\partial_1c), &
c\in {\Sigma}_2(K).
\end{array}$$ The *category of connection $1$–cochains* with values in $G$, is the full subcategory of ${\mathrm{C}}^1(K,G)$ whose set of objects is ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$. It is denoted by ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ just as the corresponding set of objects.
The interpretation of 1–cocycles of ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ as principal bundles over $K$ with structure group $G$ derives from the following facts. Any connection $u$ of ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ induces a unique $1$–cocycle $z\in{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ satisfying the equation $$\label{Z:6}
u(b) = z(b), \qquad b\in {\Sigma}_1(K).$$ $z$ is called the cocycle *induced* by $u$. Denoting the set of connections of inducing the $1$–cocycle $z$ by ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$, we have that $$\label{Z:7}
{\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G) = \dot{\cup}\big\{ {\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z) \ | \
z\in{\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)\big\},$$ where the symbol $\dot{\cup}$ means disjoint union. So, the set ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$ can be seen as the set of connections of the principal bundle associated with $z$. We call the category of *connections inducing* $z$, the full subcategory of ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ whose objects belong to ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$, and denote this category by ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,z)$ just as the corresponding set of objects.
The relation between cocycles (connections) taking values in different groups is easily established. Given a group homomorphism ${\gamma}:H\to G$, then the restriction of the functor ${\gamma}\circ$ to ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,H)$ ( ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,H)$ ) defines a functor from ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,H)$ into ${\mathrm{Z}}^1(K,G)$ and ( ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,H)$ into ${\mathrm{U}}^1(K,G)$ ). This functor is an isomorphism when ${\gamma}$ is a group isomorphism.
[Enquat 23]{}
R. Bott, L.W. Tu. [*Differential forms in Algebraic Topology.*]{} 1982 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
P. Gabriel, M. Zisman. [*Calculus of fractions and homotopy theory*]{} Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 1967.
A. Grothendieck. [*Catégories fibrées et descente"*]{}, Schémas en groupes (Sém. Géométrie Algébrique, Inst. Hautes Études Sci., 1960/61), Fasc. 2, Exposé 6, Inst. Hautes Études Sci., Paris, 1961.
M. Karoubi. [*K-theory*]{} Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1978.
S. Kobayashi, K. Nomizu. [*Foundations of differential geometry.*]{} Vol.I Wiley, New York 1963.
S. Kobayashi. [*Differential geometry of complex vector bundles*]{} Publications of the Mathematical Society of Japan, Vol. 15, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1987.
J.P. May. [*Simplicial objects in algebraic topology.*]{} D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N.J (1967).
J.E. Roberts. [*Mathematical aspects of local cohomology.*]{} In: [*Algèbres d’opérateurs et leurs applications en physique mathématique.*]{}(Proc. Colloq. Marseille, 1977) 321–332. Colloq. Internat. CNRS, [**274**]{}, CNRS, Paris (1979).
J.E. Roberts.: More lectures in algebraic quantum field theory. In: S. Doplicher, R. Longo (eds.) [*Noncommutative geometry*]{} C.I.M.E. Lectures, Martina Franca, Italy, 2000. Spinger 2003.
J.E. Roberts, G. Ruzzi. [*A cohomological description of connections and curvature over posets.*]{}, Theory and Applications of Categories, **16**, no.30, 855–895, (2006).
J.E. Roberts, G. Ruzzi, E. Vasselli. In preparation.
G. Ruzzi. [*Homotopy of posets, net-cohomology and superselection sectors in globally hyperbolic spacetimes.*]{}, Rev. Math. Phys. **17**, no. 9, 1021–1070, (2005).
N. Steenrod. [*The topology of fibre bundles.*]{} Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1951.
[^1]: In [@RR06] ${\Sigma}_*(K)$ was called the inflationary structure of $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ and denoted by ${\Sigma}^{\inf}(K)$. This part of $\tilde {\Sigma}_*(K)$ encodes the order relation of $K$, explaining the terminology.
[^2]: Knowing that the space in question is Hausdorff could yield more information.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we calculate the branching ratios of semi-leptonic and non-leptonic decays of $\Lambda_b$ into light baryons ($p$ and $\Lambda$), as well as the measurable asymmetries which appear in the processes, in the light front quark model (LFQM). In the calculation, we adopt the diquark picture and discuss the justifiability of applying the picture in our case. Our result on the branching ratio of $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda+J/\psi$ is in good agreement with data. More predictions are made in the same model and the results will be tested in the future experiments which will be conducted at LHCb and even ILC.'
address: |
1. School of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, P.R. China,\
2. School of Sciences, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, P.R. China
author:
- 'Zheng-Tao Wei$^1$, Hong-Wei Ke$^2$[^1] and Xue-Qian Li$^1$'
title: '**Evaluating decay Rates and Asymmetries of $\Lambda_b$ into Light Baryons in LFQM**'
---
introduction
============
As well known, the $\Lambda_b$ weak decay may give us abundant information about CKM elements, so that it stands as a complementary field to the meson decays. These processes are also good probes for the factorization hypothesis which has been extensively explored for dealing with hadronic transitions [@mix; @Factorization]. Recently many semi-leptonic and non-leptonic decays of $\Lambda_b$ are observed and measured [@DELPHI; @PDG06], moreover the LHCb is expected to accumulate a large data-sample of b-hadrons to offer a unique opportunity for studying $\Lambda_b$, thus we would like to investigate the $\Lambda_b$ weak decay more systematically. As for the $\Lambda_b$ decays the key is how to evaluate the form factors which parameterize the hadronic matrix elements. There are many approaches advocated to this aspect [@AHN]. In our previous paper [@befor] we studied $\Lambda_b$ to $\Lambda_c$ weak decay in the light-front quark model [@light] and the results seem to be quite reasonable.
The light-front quark model is a relativistic quark model based on the light-front QCD [@light]. The basic ingredient is the hadron light-front wave function which is explicitly Lorentz-invariant. The hadron spin is constructed using the Melosh rotation. The light-front approach has been widely applied to calculate various decay constants and form factors for the meson cases [@meson1; @meson2; @CCH1; @CCH2; @HW].
In our earlier work, we adopted the diquark picture for baryons [@befor] which especially is well explored and proved to be a good approximation for such processes where the diquarks are not broken during the transition. Indeed, it has been known for a long time that two quarks in a color-antitriplet state attract each other and may form a correlated diquark [@DJS]. The diquark picture of baryons is considered to be appropriate for low momentum-transfer processes [@kroll; @wilczek; @yu; @MQS]. Concretely, under the diquark approximation, $\Lambda_b$ and $\Lambda_c$ are of the one-heavy-quark-one-light-diquark(ud) structure which is analogous to the meson case.
In this paper we will apply these method to $\Lambda_b$ decaying into light hadrons such as proton or $\Lambda$ which is made of three light quarks. These hadrons may also be regarded to possess quark-diquark structure [@kroll].
Some authors [@lamdab1; @Huang:1998rq; @lamdab2; @lamdab3] calculated the form factors of $\Lambda_b$ decaying into light baryons and the corresponding decay rates. The Ref. [@lamdab2] explored $\Lambda_b \to p l \bar{\nu}$ by using the method of PQCD and they concluded the perturbative analysis is reliable only for $\rho(\equiv\frac{2p\cdot p'}{M^2_{\Lambda_b}})>0.8$. In Ref. [@lamdab3] the branching ratio of $\Lambda_b \to J/\Psi
\Lambda$ in PQCD was evaluated ($(1.7\sim5.3)\times
10^{-4}$)[@lamdab1], instead, Cheng used the nonrelativistic quark model to obtain this branching ratio as $1.1\times 10^{-4}$ which is lower than the experimental value ($(4.7\pm2.8)\times
10^{-4}$). In a recent study, the authors of [@Wang:2009hr] used the light-cone sum rules to calculate the $\Lambda_b \to p(\Lambda)$ transition form factors.
In this work, we study the form factors of $\Lambda_b \to p$ and $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda $ in the light-front model with the diquark picture, and then we calculate the rates of $\Lambda_b \to p \pi$, $\Lambda_b \to J/\Psi \Lambda$, as well as several other non-leptonic decays of $\Lambda_b$.
When $\Lambda_b $ decays into light baryons, the energy of the light baryon in the $\Lambda_b$ rest frame is $E=(M^2_{\Lambda_b}+m^2-q^2)/(2M_{\Lambda_b})$ which is much larger than its mass $m$ and the hadronic scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$. One important feature of this region is that the light hadrons move nearly along the light cone. It is argued in [@LEET] that the active quark created from b quark by weak interaction carries most of the energy of the final light baryon. Under the large energy limit( LEET [@leet1]) and heavy quark limit( HQET [@Isgur]) we can obtain the relations between$f_3,g_3$ and $f_2,g_2$, which may help to achieve the orders of $f_3,g_3$. We write up these relations in section II, and then derive the form factors ($f_1,f_2,g_1$ and $g_2$) of $\Lambda_b\to p$ and $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda$ in section III. We carry out the numerical computations in section IV. Finally, section V is devoted to discussions by which we will draw our conclusion.
Formulation
===========
The form factors in the large energy limit {#sec}
------------------------------------------
The form factors for the weak transition $\Lambda_b\rightarrow H$ where $H$ represents a light baryon (refers to $p,~ \Lambda$ in this study), are defined in the standard way as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s1}
\mathcal{M}_{\mu}&=& \la H(P',S',S_z') \mid \bar q\gamma_{\mu}
(1-\gamma_{5})b \mid \Lambda_{b}(P,S,S_z) \ra \nonumber \\
&=& \bar{u}_{H}(P',S'_z) \left[ \gamma_{\mu} f_{1}(q^{2})
+i\sigma_{\mu \nu} \frac{ q^{\nu}}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}f_{2}(q^{2})
+\frac{q_{\mu}}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}} f_{3}(q^{2})
\right] u_{\Lambda_{b}}(P,S_z) \nonumber \\
&&-\bar u_{H}(P',S'_z)\left[\gamma_{\mu} g_{1}(q^{2})
+i\sigma_{\mu \nu} \frac{ q^{\nu}}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}g_{2}(q^{2})+
\frac{q_{\mu}}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}g_{3}(q^{2})
\right]\gamma_{5} u_{\Lambda_{b}}(P,S_z),\end{aligned}$$ where $q \equiv P-P'$, $Q$ and $Q'$ denote heavy quark and light quark, $H$ stands as the light baryon, respectively. The above formulation is the most general expression with only constraints of enforcing the Lorentz invariance and parity conservation for strong interaction. There are six form factors $f_i,~g_i$ (i=1,2,3) in total for the vector and axial vector current $\bar
q\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_5)b$ where the light-quark $q$ denotes $u$ for $p$ and $s$ for $\Lambda$. All the information about the strong interaction is involved in those form factors. Since $S=S'=1/2$, we will be able to write $\mid\Lambda_{b}(P,S,S_z)\ra$ as $\mid\Lambda_{b}(P,S_z)\ra$ and similarly for $\bar u_{H}(P',S'_z)$ in the following formulations.
Another parametrization in terms of the four-velocities is widely used and is found to be convenient for the heavy-to-heavy transitions, such as $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c$. But for the heavy-to-light transitions at the large recoil region where the energy of final light baryon $H$ is much larger than its mass, it is more convenient to use following formulation. Analogous to heavy quark symmetry in heavy-to-heavy case, there is a large energy symmetry relations for the heavy-to-light at large energy recoil [@LEET]. For the heavy-to-light baryon transition, the symmetry has not been searched up until present. In this subsection, we explore the large-energy symmetry and show that they lead to a simplification of the form factors: the six form factors are reduced to three independent ones.
Let us introduce the velocity $v$ of initial $\Lambda_b$ and a light front unit vector $n$ by v=, n=, where $E$ is the energy of $H$. Using these vectors, the amplitude of the weak transition $\Lambda_b\rightarrow H$ is parameterized by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ss2}
\mathcal{M}_{\mu}&=&\la H(n,S_z') \mid \bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}
(1-\gamma_{5})b \mid \Lambda_{Q}(v,S_z) \ra \non \\
&=& \bar{u}_{H}(n,S'_z)\left[F_1(E)\gamma_{\mu}
+F_2(E)v_{\mu}+F_3(E)n_{\mu}\right]
u_{\Lambda_{b}}(v,S_z)- \nonumber \\
&&\bar u_{H}(n,S'_z)\left[G_1(E)\gamma_{\mu}
+G_2(E)v_{\mu}+G_3(E)n_{\mu}\right]
\gamma_{5} u_{\Lambda_{b}}(v,S_z).
\end{aligned}$$ Up to leading order in $1/M_{\Lambda_b}$ the relation between the two parametrization schemes is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gx}
&&f_1=F_1+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{F_2}{M_{\Lambda_b}}+\frac{F_3}{E})
M_{\Lambda_{b}},\qquad g_1=G_1-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{G_2}
{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}+\frac{G_3}{E})M_{\Lambda_{b}},\nonumber\\
&&f_2=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{F_2}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}+\frac{F_3}{E})M_{\Lambda_b},
\qquad\qquad\;
g_2=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{G_2}{M_{\Lambda_b}}+\frac{G_3}{E})M_{\Lambda_b},\non\\
&&f_3=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{F_2}{M_{\Lambda_b}}-\frac{F_3}{E})M_{\Lambda_b},
\qquad \qquad \;
g_3=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{G_2}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}-\frac{G_3}{E})M_{\Lambda_{b}}.\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{\Lambda_b}$ is the mass of $\Lambda_b$. We have neglected the mass of final light baryon compared to $M_{\Lambda_b}$.
Under the large energy limit, the light energetic quark $q$ is described by the two-component spinor $\xi=\frac{\nslash\nbarslash}{4}q$ where $\bar n=2-n$ is another light front unit vector and the heavy quark is replaced by $h_v=e^{im_bv\cdot x}\frac{(1+\vslash)}{2}b$. The weak current $\bar
q\Gamma b$ in the full QCD is matched onto the current $\bar\xi
\Gamma h_v$ in the effective theory at tree level. For an arbitrary matrix $\Gamma$, $\bar\xi \Gamma h_v$ has only three independent Dirac structures. One convenient choice is discussed in [@SCETff1]: $\bar\xi h_v$, $\bar\xi \gamma_5 h_v$ and $\bar\xi
\gamma_{\bot}^{\mu}h_v$. Thus, we have |q\^b&=&|\_\^ h\_v+n\^| h\_v,\
|q\^\_5 b&=&i\_\^|\_\^ h\_v -n\^|\_5 h\_v. where $\epsilon_\bot^{\mu\nu}=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}v_\alpha
n_\beta$.
The three independent form factors are defined by H(P’,S\_z’)|h\_v\_b(P,S\_z) &=& |u\_H(n,S\_z)u\_[\_b]{}(v,S\_z)\_0(E),\
H(P’,S\_z’)|\_5 h\_v\_b(P,S\_z) &=& |u\_H(n,S\_z)\_5 u\_[\_b]{}(v,S\_z)\_5(E),\
H(P’,S\_z’)|\_ h\_v\_b(P,S\_z) &=& |u\_H(n,S\_z)\_u\_[\_b]{}(v,S\_z)\_(E).
Then, we find &&F\_1=G\_1=\_(E); F\_2=G\_2=0;\
&&F\_3=\_0(E)-\_(E); G\_3=\_(E)-\_5(E).
From the above equation, we obtain the relations among the form factors: f\_1+f\_2=g\_1-g\_2; f\_2=-f\_3; g\_2=-g\_3. This is one major result in this work. The $f_3$ and $g_3$ are not independent, but related to $f_2$ and $g_2$.
Vertex function in the light-front approach
-------------------------------------------
In the diquark picture, the heavy baryon $\Lambda_{b}$ is composed of one heavy quark $b$ and a light diquark \[ud\]. In order to form a color singlet hadron, the diquark \[ud\] is in a color anti-triplet. Because $\Lambda_{b}$ is at the ground state, the diqaurk is a $0^+$ scalar ($s=0$, $l=0$) and the orbital angular momentum between the diquark and the heavy quark is also zero, i.e. $L=l=0$. However the situation is complicated for light baryon even thought it is in the ground state. The diquark in light baryon may be a $0^+$ scalar or a $1^-$ vector. Fortunately the diquark is a spectator in the concerned transition and its spin is not affected so that only the scalar diquark can transit into the final baryon and one only needs to consider the scalar diquark structure of the light baryon.
In the light-front approach, the heavy baryon $\Lambda_Q$ composed of only scalar diquark with total momentum $P$ and spin $S=1/2$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lfbaryon}
|\Lambda_Q(P,S,S_z)\rangle&=&\int\{d^3p_1\}\{d^3p_2\} \,
2(2\pi)^3\delta^3(\tilde{P}-\tilde{p_1}-\tilde{p_2}) \nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_{\lambda_1}\Psi^{SS_z}(\tilde{p}_1,\tilde{p}_2,\lambda_1)
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma}F^{bc}\left|\right.
Q^{\alpha}(p_1,\lambda_1)[q_{b}^{\beta}q_{c}^{\gamma}](p_2)\ra,\end{aligned}$$ and the light baryon (total momentum $P$, spin $J=1/2$, composed of $0^+$ scalar diquark and orbital angular momentum $L=0$) has the similar form, $$\begin{aligned}
|H(P,S,S_z)\rangle&&=\int{d^3p_1}{d^3p_2} \,
2(2\pi)^3\delta^3(\tilde{P}-\tilde{p_1}-\tilde{p_2})
\nonumber\\&&\times
\sum_{\lambda_1}\Psi^{SS_z}(\tilde{p}_1,\tilde{p}_2,\lambda_1)
C_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}F_{L}^{a,b,c}
|q_a^{\alpha}(p_1,\lambda_1)[q_{b}^\beta
q_{c}^\gamma](p_2)\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$, $[q_bq_c]$ represent heavy quark and diquark respectively and $\lambda$ denotes the helicity, where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ and $a,b, c$ are the color and flavor indices, $p_1$, $p_2$ are the on-mass-shell light-front momenta defined by $$\tilde{p}=(p^+,p_{\perp}),\qquad p_\perp=(p^1,p^2),\qquad
p^-=\frac{m^2+p_{\perp}^2}{p^+},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\{d^3p\}\equiv\frac{dp^+d^2 p_{\perp}}{2(2\pi)^3},\qquad
\delta^3(\tilde{p})=\delta(p^+)\delta^2(p_{\perp}),
\nonumber\\
&&\mid Q(p_1,\lambda_1)[q_1 q_2](p_2)\rangle=
b^{\dagger}_{\lambda_1}(p_1)a^{\dagger}(p_2)| 0\ra,\non\\
&&[a(p'), a^{\dagger}(p)]=2(2\pi)^3\delta^3(\tilde{p}'-\tilde{p}),
\nonumber\\
&&\{d_{\lambda'}(p'),d_{\lambda}^{\dagger}(p)\}=
2(2\pi)^3\delta^3(\tilde{p}'-\tilde{p})\delta_{\lambda'\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ The coefficient $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is a normalized color factor and $F^{bc}(F^{abc})$ is a normalized flavor coefficient, && C\_F\^[bc]{}C\_[’’’]{}F\^[b’c’]{} Q\^[’]{}(p’\_1,’\_1)\[q\_[b’]{}\^[’]{}q\_[c’]{}\^[’]{}\](p’\_2)| Q\^(p\_1,\_1)\[q\_[b]{}\^q\_[c]{}\^\](p\_2)\
&&=2\^2(2)\^6\^3(\_1’-\_1)\^3 (\_2’-\_2)\_[’\_1\_1]{},\
&& C\_F\^[abc]{}C\_[’’’]{}F\^[a’b’c’]{} q\_[a’]{}\^[’]{}(p’\_1,’\_1)\[q\_[b’]{}\^[’]{}q\_[c’]{}\^[’]{}\](p’\_2)| q\_[a]{}\^(p\_1,\_1)\[q\_[b]{}\^q\_[c]{}\^\](p\_2)\
&&=2\^2(2)\^6\^3(\_1’-\_1)\^3 (\_2’-\_2)\_[’\_1\_1]{}.
In order to describe the motion of the constituents, one needs to introduce intrinsic variables $(x_i, k_{i\perp})$ with $i=1,2$ through $$\begin{aligned}
&&p^+_1=x_1 P^+, \qquad\qquad p^+_2=x_2 P^+,
\qquad\qquad x_1+x_2=1, \nonumber\\
&&p_{1\perp}=x_1 P_{\perp}+k_{1\perp},
~~~ p_{2\perp}=x_2 P_{\perp}+k_{2\perp},
~~~ k_{\perp}=-k_{1\perp}=k_{2\perp},\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i$’s are the light-front momentum fractions satisfying $0<x_1, x_2<1$. The variables $(x_i, k_{i\perp})$ are independent of the total momentum of the hadron and thus are Lorentz-invariant. The invariant mass square $M_0^2$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Mpz}
M_0^2=\frac{k_{1\perp}^2+m_1^2}{x_1}+
\frac{k_{2\perp}^2+m_2^2}{x_2}.
\end{aligned}$$ The invariant mass $M_0$ is in general different from the hadron mass $M$ which satisfies the physical mass-shell condition $M^2=P^2$. This is due to the fact that in the baryon, heavy quark and diquark cannot be on their mass shells simultaneously. We define the internal momenta as k\_i=(k\_i\^-,k\_i\^+,k\_[i]{})=(e\_i-k\_[iz]{},e\_i+k\_[iz]{},k\_[i]{})= (,x\_iM\_0,k\_[i]{}). It is easy to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
M_0&=&e_1+e_2, \non\\
e_i&=&\frac{x_iM_0}{2}+\frac{m_i^2+k_{i\perp}^2}{2x_iM_0}
=\sqrt{m_i^2+k_{i\bot}^2+k_{iz}^2},\non\\
k_{iz}&=&\frac{x_iM_0}{2}-\frac{m_i^2+k_{i\perp}^2}{2x_iM_0}.
\end{aligned}$$ where $e_i$ denotes the energy of the i-th constituent. The momenta $k_{i\bot}$ and $k_{iz}$ constitute a momentum vector $\vec k_i=(k_{i\bot}, k_{iz})$ and correspond to the components in the transverse and $z$ directions, respectively.
In the momentum space, the function $\Psi^{SS_z}$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq:lfbaryon\]) is expressed as $$\Psi^{SS_z}(\tilde{p}_1,\tilde{p}_2,\lambda_1)=
\left\la\lambda_1\left|\mathcal{R}^{\dagger}_M(x_1,k_{1\perp},m_1)
\right|s_1\right\ra
\left\la 00;\frac{1}{2} s_1\left|\frac{1}{2}S_z\right\ra
\phi(x,k_{\perp})\right.,$$ where $\phi(x,k_{\perp})$ is the light-front wave function which describes the momentum distribution of the constituents in the bound state with $x=x_2,~k_{\perp}=k_{2\perp}$; and $\left\la
00;\frac{1}{2} s_1\left|\frac{1}{2}S_z\right\ra\right.$ is the corresponding Clebsch-Gordan coefficient with total spin of the scalar diquark $s=s_z=0$; $\left\la\lambda_1\left|\mathcal{R}^{\dagger}_M(x_1,k_{1\perp},m_1)
\right|s_1\right\ra$ is the well-known Melosh transformation matrix element which transforms the the conventional spin states in the instant form into the light-front helicity eigenstates, \_1|\^\_M(x\_1,k\_[1]{},m\_1) |s\_1&=&\
&=&, where $u_{(D)}$ denotes a Dirac spinor in the light-front (instant) form and $\vec n=(0,0,1)$ is a unit vector in the $z$ direction. In practice, it is more convenient to use the covariant form for the Melosh transform matrix [@meson1; @CCH2] $$\begin{aligned}
\left\la\lambda_1\left|\mathcal{R}^{\dagger}_M(x_1,k_{1\perp},m_1)
\right|s_1\right\ra \left\la 00;\frac{1}{2}s_1\left|
\frac{1}{2}S_z\right\ra\right.=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(p_1\cdot
\bar P+m_1M_0)}}\bar{u}(p_1,\lambda_1)\Gamma u(\bar {P},S_z),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma=1, \qquad \qquad \bar {P}=p_1+p_2.\end{aligned}$$ for the scalar diquark. If the diquark is a vector which is usually supposed to be the case for the $\Sigma_{c(b)}$ baryon, the Melosh transform matrix should be modified (since it is irrelevant to our present work, we omit the corresponding expressions).
The baryon state is normalized as (P’,S’,S’\_z)|(P,S,S\_z)=2(2)\^3P\^+ \^3(’-)\_[S’S]{}\_[S’\_zS\_z]{}, the same for $H(P,S,S_z)$.
Thus, the light-front wave function obeys the constraint |(x,k\_)|\^2=1.
In principle, the wave functions can be obtained by solving the light-front bound state equations. However, it is too hard to calculate them based on the first principle, so that instead, we would like to adopt a phenomenological function, and obviously, a Gaussian form is most preferable, (x,k\_)=N( ). with N=4()\^[3/4]{}, =. where $\beta$ determines the confinement scale. The phenomenological parameters in the light-front quark model are quark masses and the hadron wave function parameter $\beta$ which should be prior determined before numerical computations can be carried out and we will do the job in the later subsections.
$\Lambda_{Q}\rightarrow H$ weak transitions
-------------------------------------------
Equipped with the light-front quark model description of $\mid
\Lambda_{Q}(P,S_z) >$ and $\mid H(P,S_z) >$, we can calculate the weak transition matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s2}
&& < \Lambda_{Q}(P',S_z') \mid \bar{q}
\gamma_{\mu} (1-\gamma_{5}) Q \mid H(P,S_z) > \nonumber \\
&=& N_{IF} \int\{d^3p_2\}\frac{\phi'^*_{H}(x',k'_{\perp})
\phi_{\Lambda_{Q}}(x,k_{\perp})}{2\sqrt{p^+_1p'^+_1(p_1\cdot \bar{P}
+m_1M_0)(p'_1\cdot \bar{P'}+m'_1M'_0)}}\nonumber \\&&
\times\bar{u}(\bar{P'},S'_z)\bar{\Gamma}'(p_1\!\!\!\!\!\slash'+m'_1)
\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})
(p_1\!\!\!\!\!\slash+m_1)\Gamma_{Lm}u(\bar{P},S_z),\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{IF}$ is a flavor-spin factor of I (initial particle) decaying into F (final particle). Following [@kroll], the flavor-spin functions of $\Lambda_b$, proton and $\Lambda$ take the forms in the diquark picture $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flavor}
&& \chi_S^{\Lambda_b}=bS_{[u,d]}, \nonumber\\
&& \chi_S^{p}=uS_{[u,d]},\,\,\,
\chi_V^{p}=[uV_{[u,d]}-\sqrt{2}dV_{[u,u]} ]/\sqrt{3} \nonumber\\
&&
\chi_S^{\Lambda}=[uS_{[d,s]}-dS_{[u,s]}-2sS_{[u,d]}]/\sqrt{6},\,\,\,\,\,
\chi_V^{\Lambda}=[uV_{[d,s]}-dV_{[u,s]}]/\sqrt{2}
\end{aligned}$$ where S and V denote scalar and axial vector diquark. We can get $N_{\Lambda_b p}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},N_{\Lambda_b
\Lambda}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$, which are consistent with [@lamdab1], and &&|’=\_0\_0==1,\
&&m\_1=m\_b, m’\_1=m\_q, m\_2=m\_[\[ud\]]{}. with $P$ and $P'$ denoting the momenta of initial and final baryons, $p_1,~p'_1$ are the momenta of $b$ and $c$ quarks, respectively. Because the diquark is a scalar, one does not need to deal with the spinors which make computations more complex. In this framework, at each effective vertex, only the three-momentum rather than the four-momentum is conserved, hence $\tilde{p}_1-\tilde{p}'_1=\tilde{q}$ and $\tilde{p}_2=\tilde{p}'_2$. From $\tilde{p}_2=\tilde{p}'_2$, we have x’=x, k’\_=k\_+x\_2q\_. with $x=x_2$, $x'=x'_2$. Thus, Eq. (\[s2\]) is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s23}
&&\la H(P',S_z') \mid \bar{q} \gamma^{\mu}
(1-\gamma_{5}) Q \mid \Lambda_{Q}(P,S_z) \ra \non\\
&=& N_{IF}\int\frac{dxd^2k_{\perp}}{2(2\pi)^3}\frac{
\phi_{H}(x',k'_{\perp})
\phi_{\Lambda_Q}(x,k_{\perp})}
{2\sqrt{x_1x'_1(p_1\cdot \bar{P}+m_1M_0)
(p'_1\cdot \bar{P'}+m'_1M'_0)}}\nonumber \\
&&\times \bar{u}(\bar{P'},S'_z)
(p_1\!\!\!\!\!\slash'+m'_1)\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})
(p_1\!\!\!\!\!\slash+m_1) u(\bar{P},S_z).\end{aligned}$$
Following [@befor; @pentaquark1], we get the the final expressions for the $\Lambda_Q\to H$ weak transition form factors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s9}
f_1(q^2)&=&N_{IF}\int{\frac{dxd^2k_{\perp}}{2(2\pi)^3}}
\frac{\phi_{H}(x',k'_{\perp})
\phi_{\Lambda_Q}(x,k_{\perp})\left[k_{2\perp}
\cdot k'_{2\perp}+\left(x_1M_0+m_1\right)
\left(x'_1M'_0+m'_1\right)\right]}
{\sqrt{\left[\left(m_1+x_1M_0\right)^2+k_{2\perp}^2\right]
\left[\left(m'_1+x_1M'_0\right)^2+k_{2\perp}^{'2}\right]}}, \non \\
g_1(q^2)&=&N_{IF}\int{\frac{dxd^2k_{\perp}}{2(2\pi)^3}}
\frac{\phi_{H}(x',k'_{\perp})
\phi_{\Lambda_Q}(x,k_{\perp})[-k_{2\perp}
\cdot k'_{2\perp}+(x_1M_0+m_1)(x'_1M'_0+m'_1)]}
{\sqrt{\left[\left(m_1+x_1M_0\right)^2+k_{2\perp}^2\right]
\left[\left(m'_1+x_1M'_0\right)^2+k_{2\perp}^{'2}\right]}}, \non \\
\frac{f_2(q^2)}{M_{\Lambda_Q}}&=&\frac{N_{IF}}{q^i_{\perp}}
\int{\frac{dxd^2k_{\perp}}{2(2\pi)^3}}
\frac{\phi_{H}(x',k'_{\perp})
\phi_{\Lambda_Q}(x,k_{\perp})
[(m_1+x_1M_0)k_{1\perp}^{\prime i}-(m'_1+x'_1M'_0)k_{1\perp}^i]}
{\sqrt{\left[\left(m_1+x_1M_0\right)^2+k_{2\perp}^2\right]
\left[\left(m'_1+x_1M'_0\right)^2+k_{2\perp}^{'2}\right]}}, \non \\
\frac{g_2(q^2)}{M_{\Lambda_Q}}&=&\frac{N_{IF}}{q^i_{\perp}}
\int{\frac{dxd^2k_{\perp}}{2(2\pi)^3}}
\frac{\phi_{H}(x',k'_{\perp})
\phi_{\Lambda_Q}(x,k_{\perp})
[(m_1+x_1M_0)k_{1\perp}^{\prime i}+ (m'_1+x'_1M'_0)
{k}_{1\perp}^i]}{\sqrt{\left[\left(m_1+x_1M_0\right)^2+
k_{2\perp}^2\right]\left[\left(m'_1+x_1M'_0\right)^2+
k_{2\perp}^{'2}\right]}}.\non\\\end{aligned}$$ It is noted that the form factors $f_3$ and $g_3$ cannot be extracted in our method because we have imposed the condition $q^+=0$. The fact that the calculated $f_2$ and $g_2$ at $q^2=0$ are small compared to $f_1$ and $g_1$ and the large energy limit relations $f_3=-f_2$ and $g_3=-g_2$ show that using the large energy limit relations for $f_3$ and $g_3$ does not produce substantial theoretical errors.
Semi-leptonic and Non-leptonic decays of transition $\Lambda_b \to$ light hadrons
==================================================================================
In this section, we obtain formulations for the rates of semi-leptonic and non-leptonic processes. In this work, we concern only the exclusive decay modes.
Semi-leptonic decays of $\Lambda_b \to p l\bar\nu_l$
-----------------------------------------------------
Generally the polarization effects may be important for testifying different theoretical models, so that we would pay more attention to the physical consequences brought up by them. The transition amplitude of $\Lambda_b\to p$ contains several independent helicity components. According to the definitions of the form factors for $\Lambda_b \to p$ given in Eq. (\[s1\]), the helicity amplitudes $H_{i,j}^V$ are related to these form factors through the following expressions [@KKP] H\^V\_[,0]{}&=&( (+)f\_1-f\_2),\
H\^V\_[,1]{}&=&(-f\_1+ f\_2),\
H\^A\_[,0]{}&=&( (-)g\_1+g\_2),\
H\^A\_[,1]{}&=&(-g\_1- g\_2), where $Q_{\pm}=2(P\cdot P'\pm \Mb M_p)=2\Mb M_p(\omega\pm 1)$.
The helicities of the $W$-boson $\lambda_W$ can be either $0$ or $1$, corresponding to the longitudinal and transverse polarizations. Following the definitions in literature, we decompose the decay width into a sum of the longitudinal and transverse parts according to the helicity states of the virtual W-boson. The differential decay rate of $\Lambda_b \to p l\bar\nu_l$ is =+ , and the longitudinally (L) and transversely (T) polarized rates are respectively [@KKP] &=& ,\
&=& . where $p_c=M_p\sqrt{\omega^2-1}$ is the momentum of the proton in the rest frame of $\Lambda_b$. The relations between $H_{i,j}$ and $H^V_{i,j}$ can be found in [@KKP]. Integrating over the solid angle, we obtain the decay rate as =\_1\^[\_[max]{}]{}d, where the upper bound of the integration $\omega_{\rm
max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}
{M_{p}}+\frac{M_{p}}{M_{\Lambda_{b}}}\right)$ corresponds to the maximal recoil. In order to compare our results with those in the literatures, we use the variable $\omega$ in the expression for the differential decay rate.
The polarization of the cascade decay $\Lambda_b\to p+W(\to l\nu)$ is expressed by various asymmetry parameters [@EFG; @KKP]. Among them, the integrated longitudinal and transverse asymmetries are defined by a\_L&=&,\
a\_T&=&. The ratio of the longitudinal to transverse decay rates $R$ is defined by R==, and the longitudinal proton polarization asymmetry $P_L$ is given as P\_L&=&\
&=&.
Non-leptonic decay of $\Lambda_b \to p \,+M$
--------------------------------------------
From the theoretical aspects, the non-leptonic decays are much more complicated than the semi-leptonic ones because of the strong interaction. Generally, the present theoretical framework is based on the factorization assumption, where the hadronic matrix element is factorized into a product of two matrix elements of single currents. One can be written as a decay constant while the other is expressed in terms of a few form factors according to the lorentz structure of the current. For the weak decays of mesons, such factorization approach is verified to work very well for the color-allowed processes and the non-factorizable contributions are negligible.
For the non-leptonic decays $\Lambda_b^0 \to p+ M$, the effective interaction at the quark level is $b\to u\bar{q_1}q_2$. The relevant Hamiltonian is &&[H]{}\_W=V\_[ub]{}V\_[q\_1q\_2]{}\^\*(c\_1O\_1+c\_2O\_2),\
&&O\_1=(|u b)\_[V-A]{} (|q\_2q\_1)\_[V-A]{}, O\_2=(|q\_2b)\_[V-A]{} (|u q\_1)\_[V-A]{}. where $c_i$ denotes the short-distance Wilson coefficient, $V_{ub}(V_{q_1q_2})$ is the CKM matrix elements, $q_1$ stands for $u$ and $q_2$ for $d$ in the context. Then one needs to evaluate the hadronic matrix elements pM | [H]{}\_W | \_b= V\_[ub]{}V\_[q\_1q\_2]{}\^\*\_[i=1,2]{}c\_i pM | O\_i | \_b. Under the factorization approximation, the hadronic matrix element is reduced to pM | O\_i | \_b =p | J\_|\_b M | J\^ | 0. where $J(J')$ is the $V-A$ weak current. The first factor $\la p |
J_\mu |\Lambda_b\ra$ is parameterized by six form factors as done in Eq. (\[s1\]). The second factor defines the decay constants as follows \[p1\] P(P)|A\_|0&=&f\_PP\_,\
S(P)|V\_|0&=&f\_SP\_,\
V(P,)|V\_|0&=&f\_VM\_V\^\*\_,\
A(P,)|A\_|0&=&f\_VM\_A\^\*\_, where $P(V)$ denotes a pseudoscalar (vector) meson, and $S(A)$ denotes a scalar (axial-vector) meson. In the definitions, we omit a factor $(-i)$ for the pseudoscalar meson decay constant.
In general, the transition amplitude of $\Lambda_b\to p \pi^-$ can be written as \[p2\] [M]{}(\_bp P)&=&| u\_[p]{}(A+B\_5)u\_[\_b]{},\
[M]{}(\_bp V)&=&| u\_[p]{}\^[\*]{}u\_[\_b]{}, where $\epsilon^{\mu}$ is the polarization vector of the final vector or axial-vector mesons. Including the effective Wilson coefficient $a_1=c_1+c_2/N_c$, the decay amplitudes under the factorization approximation are [@KK; @Cheng] \[p3\] A&=&f\_P(-)f\_1(M\^2),\
B&=&f\_P(+)g\_1(M\^2),\
A\_1&=&-f\_VM,\
A\_2&=&-2f\_VM,\
B\_1&=&f\_VM,\
B\_2&=&2f\_VM, where $\lambda=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2}V_{ub}V_{q_1q_2}^*a_1$ and $M$ is the $\pi$ mass. Replacing $P$, $V$ by $S$ and $A$ in the above expressions, one can easily obtain similar expressions for scalar and axial-vector mesons.
The decay rates of $\Lambda_b\rightarrow p\pi^-$ and up-down asymmetries are [@Cheng] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p4}
\Gamma&=&\frac{p_c}{8\pi}\left[\frac{(\Mb+M_p)^2-M^2}{\Mb^2}|A|^2+
\frac{(\Mb-M_p)^2-M^2}{\Mb^2}|B|^2\right], \non\\
\alpha&=&-\frac{2\kappa{\rm Re}(A^*B)}{|A|^2+\kappa^2|B|^2},
\end{aligned}$$ where $p_c$ is the proton momentum in the rest frame of $\Lambda_b$ and $\kappa=\frac{p_c}{E_{p}+M_p}$. For $\Lambda_b\rightarrow\Lambda_c V(A)$ decays, the decay rates and up-down asymmetries are \[p5\] &=&,\
&=&, where $E$ is the energy of the vector (axial vector) meson, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6}
S&=&-A_1, \non\\
P_1&=&-\frac{p_c}{E}\left(\frac{\Mb+M_p}
{E_{p}+M_p}B_1+B_2\right), \non \\
P_2&=&\frac{p_c}{E_{p}+M_p}B_1,\non\\
D&=&-\frac{p^2_c}{E(E_{p}+M_p)}(A_1- A_2).
\end{aligned}$$
Non-leptonic decay $\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda+M $
-----------------------------------------------------
Theses decays proceed only via the internal W-emission. With the factorization assumption, the amplitude is A( \_bM)= V\_[qb]{}V\_[q’s]{}\^\*a\_2 M| |[q’]{}\_(1-\_5)q |0||[s]{} \^(1-\_5)b| \_b.
In general, we can use the same formula (Eqs.(\[p1\])-(\[p6\])) to obtain the decay rates and up-down asymmetries of $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda+ M$. Note that: (1) at this time $\lambda$ is replaced by $\frac{G_F}{\sqrt
2}V_{ub}V_{q_1q_2}^*a_2$, (2) when q and $\bar{q'}$ are u and $\bar{u}$ respectively, the final meson may be $\pi^0$, $\eta$ or $\eta'$.
For the decay constants of $\pi^0$, $\eta$ and $\eta'$, we have \^0||[u]{}\_\_5u|0&=&f\^u\_[\^0]{}P\_,\
||[u]{}\_\_5u|0&=&f\^u\_P\_,\
’||[u]{}\_\_5u|0&=&f\^u\_[’]{}P\_, where$f^u_{\pi^0}=\frac{f_{\pi}}{\sqrt{2}}$, $f^u_{\eta}$ and $f^u_{\eta'}$ can be get form [@mix].
Numerical Results
=================
In this section we perform the numerical computations of the form factors for $\Lambda_b \rightarrow p$ and $\Lambda_b \rightarrow
\Lambda$, then using them we estimate the rates of $\Lambda_b\rightarrow p+l\,\nu$, $\Lambda_b\rightarrow p+ M$ and $\Lambda_b\rightarrow \Lambda+M$ where $M$ stands as various mesons.
In our calculation, the quark masses of $m_b$ and $m_s$ are taken from [@pentaquark1]; $m_u$ is set to be 0.3 GeV; the mass of diquark \[ud\], parameters $\beta_{b,[ud]}$, $\beta_{s,[ud]}$ and $\beta_{u,[ud]}$ are chosen from [@befor; @CCH2; @pentaquark1]. The baryon masses $M_{\Lambda_b}=5.624$ GeV, $M_p=0.938$ GeV, $
\Lambda=1.116$ GeV come from [@PDG06]. The input parameters are collected in Table \[t3\].
\[t3\]
$m_b$ $m_s$ $m_u$ $m_{[ud]}$ $\beta_{u,[ud]}$ $\beta_{b,[ud]}$ $\beta_{s,[ud]}$
------- ------- ------- ------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
4.4 0.45 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3
: Input parameters in LFQM (in units of GeV).
Form factor
-----------
In LFQM, the calculation of form factors is performed in the frame $q^+=0$ with $q^2=-q^2_{\perp}\leq 0$, only the values of the form factors in the space-like region can be obtained. The advantage of this choice is that the so-called Z-graph contribution arising from the non-valence quarks vanishes. In order to obtain the physical form factors, an extrapolation from the space-like region to the time-like region is required. Following [@pentaquark1], the form factors in the space-like region can be parameterized in a three-parameter form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s14}
F(q^2)=\frac{F(0)}{\left(1-\frac{q^2}{M_{\Lambda_b}^2}\right)
\left[1-a\left(\frac{q^2}{M_{\Lambda_b}^2}\right)
+b\left(\frac{q^2}{M_{\Lambda_b}^2}\right)^2\right]},
\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ represents the form factor $f_{1,2}$ and $g_{1,2}$. The parameters $a,~b$ and $F(0)$ are fixed by performing a three-parameter fit to the form factors in the space-like region which were obtained in previous sections. We then use these parameters to determine the physical form factors in the time-like region. The fitted values of $a,~b$ and $F(0)$ for different form factors $f_{1,2}$ and $g_{1,2}$ are given in Table \[Tab:t2\] and \[Tab:t3\]. The $q^2$ dependence of the form factors is plotted in Fig. \[t1\].
------- --------- ------ ------
$F$ $F(0)$ $a$ $b$
$f_1$ 0.1131 1.70 1.60
$f_2$ -0.0356 2.50 2.57
$g_1$ 0.1112 1.65 1.60
$g_2$ -0.0097 2.80 2.70
------- --------- ------ ------
: The $\Lambda_b\to p$ form factors in the three-parameter form.[]{data-label="Tab:t2"}
------- --------- ------ ------
$F$ $F(0)$ $a$ $b$
$f_1$ 0.1081 1.70 1.60
$f_2$ -0.0311 2.50 2.50
$g_1$ 0.1065 1.70 1.40
$g_2$ -0.0064 2.70 2.70
------- --------- ------ ------
: The $\Lambda_b\to \Lambda$ form factors in the three-parameter form.[]{data-label="Tab:t3"}
From Fig. \[t1\], we can see that there is only a tiny difference between $f_1$ and $g_1$, i.e. they are close to each other. $g_2$ is small comparing to $f_1$ and $g_1$. This is the same as the conclusion of [@befor; @peng]. But the difference between $f_2$ and $g_2$ increases as $q^2$ increases. This will break the large energy limit relation $f_1+f_2=g_1-g_2$ proposed in the Section \[sec\].
Our method of smooth extrapolation of from factors from space- to time-like momentum regions is by no means an analytical continuation in the rigorously mathematical sense but an extension, although it is used in many phenomenological analysis. In [@Becirevic:1999kt], the authors suggest to write the form factor as a dispersion relation in $q^2$ with a lowest-lying pole plus a contribution from multiparticle states. We follow this scheme and use a parametrization method adopted in [@Ball:2004ye] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s14p}
F(q^2)=\frac{r_1}{\left(1-\frac{q^2}{M_{fit}^2}\right)}+
\frac{r_2}{\left(1-(\frac{q^2}{M_{fit}^2})^2\right)},
\end{aligned}$$ The parameters $r_1,~r_2$ and $M_{fit}$ are fixed in the space-like regions for the transition of $\Lambda_b \rightarrow p$. The results are presented in Table \[Tab:t2p\]. We also plot the form factors in the new parametrization method in Fig. \[t1\] for a comparison. From Fig. \[t1\], we can find there ia a little difference between the form factors fitted by the above two methods. In particular, the $f_1$ and $g_1$ in the two methods are nearly the same. The difference of $f_2$ and $g_2$ in the methods increases when $q^2$ increases, but due to smallness of their values, they will not produce substantial errors to our predictions.
------- -------- -------- -----------
$F$ $r_1$ $r_2$ $M_{fit}$
$f_1$ -0.183 0.295 6.8
$f_2$ -0.176 0.287 6.8
$g_1$ 0.080 -0.114 6.8
$g_2$ 0.023 -0.032 6.8
------- -------- -------- -----------
: The $\Lambda_b\to p$ form factors in the the form of Eq.(\[s14p\]).[]{data-label="Tab:t2p"}
Semi-leptonic decay of $\Lambda_b \to
p +l\bar{\nu}_l$
-------------------------------------
With the form factors given in the above subsection, we are able to calculate the branching ratio and various asymmetries of $\Lambda_b
\to p l\bar{\nu}_l$ decay. Table \[Tab:t4\] presents our numerical predictions. The ratio of longitudinal to transverse rates $R>1$ implies that the longitudinal polarization dominates.
$BR$ $a_L$ $a_T$ $R$ $P_L$
---------------------- ------- ------- ------ -------
$2.54\times 10^{-4}$ -0.99 -0.96 1.11 -0.97
: The branching ratios and polarization asymmetries of $\Lambda_b\to p l\bar{\nu}_l$ .[]{data-label="Tab:t4"}
Non-leptonic decays of $\Lambda_b\to p+M$ and $\Lambda_b\to \Lambda+M$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-leptonic decays $\Lambda_b\to p(\Lambda)+M$ in the factorization approach have been studied in the previous section. Now, we present our numerical predictions on the decay rates and relevant measurable quantities. The CKM matrix elements take the values [@PDG06] && V\_[ud]{}=0.97377, V\_[us]{}=0.2257, V\_[cd]{}=0.230,\
&& V\_[cs]{}=0.957, V\_[cb]{}=0.0416, V\_[ub]{}=0.00413, and the effective Wilson coefficient $a_1= 1$ [@pentaquark1], $a_2=0.23$ [@lamdab1]. The meson decay constants are shown in Table \[Tab:t5\].
meson $\pi$ $\rho$ $K$ $K^*$ $D$ $D^*$ $D_s$ $D_s^*$ $a_1$ $J/\psi$
------- ------- -------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ------- --------- ------- ----------
$f$ 131 216 160 210 200 220 230 230 203 395
: Meson decay constants $f$ (in units of MeV) [@CCH2; @lamdab1].[]{data-label="Tab:t5"}
The predictions for $\Lambda_b^0\to p+M$ are provided in Table \[Tab:t7\]. The Table \[Tab:t8\] demonstrates a comparison of our result with other approaches and experimental data for $\Lambda_b^0\to\Lambda J/\psi$. In the Table \[Tab:t9\] we give predictions on the rates of $\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+$meson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branching ratios Up-down asymmetries Exp
---------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ \pi^-$ $3.15\times 10^{-6}$ -1 $(3.5\pm 0.6(stat)\pm 0.9(syst))\times 10^{-6}$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ \rho$ $6.12\times 10^{-6}$ -0.873 $-$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ a_1$ $4.08\times 10^{-6}$ -0.741 $-$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ D^-$ $5.75\times -0.998 $-$
10^{-7}$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ D^{*-}$ $6.05\times 10^{-7}$ -0.546
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ D_s$ $1.36\times 10^{-5}$ -0.997 $-$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ $6.70\times 10^{-6}$ -0.514 $-$
D_s^*$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ K$ $2.58\times 10^{-7}$ -1 $(5.8\pm 0.8(stat)\pm 1.5(syst))\times 10^{-6}$
$\Lambda_b^0\to p+ K^*$ $3.21\times 10^{-7}$ -0.850 $-$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Branching ratio and up-down asymmetry for non-leptonic decay $\Lambda_b^0\to p+M$.[]{data-label="Tab:t7"}
This work [@lamdab3] [@Cheng] [@MGKIIO] [@FR] Exp.[@PDG06]
---------------------- ----------- ------------------- ---------- ----------- --------- -------------- --
Br($\times 10^{-4}$) $3.94$ $1.65\sim 5.27$ $1.6$ $2.55$ $6.037$ $4.7\pm2.8$
$\alpha$ -0.204 $-0.17\sim -0.14$ -0.1 -0.208 -0.18 -
: Branching ratio and up-down asymmetry for non-leptonic decay $\Lambda_b^0\to\Lambda J/\psi$ within different theoretical approaches and data from experiment .[]{data-label="Tab:t8"}
Branching ratios Up-down asymmetries
--------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- -- -- -- --
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+\pi^0$ $7.49\times 10^{-8}$ -1
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+\eta$ $5.46\times 10^{-8}$ -1
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+\eta'$ $2.29\times 10^{-8}$ -1
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+D^0$ $4.54\times 10^{-5}$ -0.998
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+D^{0*}$ $4.78\times 10^{-5}$ -0.551
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+\bar{D}^0$ $8.76\times 10^{-6}$ -0.998
$\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+\bar{D}^{0*}$ $5.08\times 10^{-6}$ -0.551
: Branching ratio and up-down asymmetry for non-leptonic decay $\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda+M$ with different theoretical approaches .[]{data-label="Tab:t9"}
From Table \[Tab:t8\] we can find that there are some differences among the predictions by various theoretical approaches. In our calculation, the $f_1(m^2_{J/\psi}),g_1(m^2_{J/\psi})$ is nearly equal, however $g_1(m^2_{J/\psi})$ is bigger than $f_1(m^2_{J/\psi})$ in [@lamdab1; @Cheng].
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we carefully investigate the processes where a heavy baryon decays into a light baryon plus a lepton pair (semi-leptonic decay) or a meson (non-leptonic decay) in terms of the light-front-quark model(LFQM). Besides the regular input parameters such as the quark masses and well measured decay constants of various mesons, there is only one free parameter to be determined, that is $\beta$ in the light front wavefunction. In our earlier work [@befor], by fitting the data of the semi-leptonic decays $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c+l+\bar\nu$, we obtained the values of $\beta_{b[ud]}$. Similarly, we fix the values $\beta_{u,[ud]}$ for proton and $\beta_{s,[ud]}$ for $\Lambda$.
Our numerical results are shown in corresponding tables and some measurable quantities such as the up-down asymmetries are also evaluated. A clear comparison of our prediction on the decay rate of $\Lambda_b\rightarrow \Lambda+J/\psi$ with the results predicted by other models and as well as the experimental data is also explicitly presented. One can notice that our result for $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda+J/\psi$ is $3.94\times 10^{-4}$ which is in good agreement with the data. The success is not too surprising even though the model we adopt is much simplified. Definitely this value obtained in this work is closer to the cental value of measurement than the previous evaluations, but since there is a large uncertainty in the data, one still cannot justify which model is more preferable than others because within two standard deviations, all the numerical results achieved with all the approaches listed in the table are consistent with data. The asymmetry parameter which may be important for determining the applicability of the adopted model, is estimated as $-0.204$, which is generally consistent with that obtained in other models and approaches. Of course the details, especially the branching ratios will be further tested by the more accurate experiments in the future.
Besides the semi-leptonic decays, we also estimate the branching ratios of several non-leptonic decay modes which are listed in Table VIII. Recently the CDF collaboration[@CDF2009] has measured the branching ratios of $\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-$ and $\Lambda_b\to p+K^-$ as $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-)=(3.5\pm 0.6(stat)\pm 0.9(syst))\times
10^{-6}$ and $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+K^-)=(5.8\pm 0.8(stat)\pm
1.5(syst))\times 10^{-6}$. Our prediction on $BR(\Lambda_b\to
p+\pi^-)$=($3.15\times 10^{-6}$) is consistent with the measurement of the CDF within one standard deviation, but for $BR(\Lambda_b\to
p+K^-)$ our value is $2.58\times 10^{-7}$, one order smaller than the data of the CDF collaboration. Following the literature, in our calculation, we employ the factorization scheme where the emitted pseudoscalar meson ($\pi$ or K) is factorized out and described by the common-accepted form factor $<0|A_{\mu}|M>=if_M p_{\mu}$ where $A_{\mu},\ f_M$ and $p_{\mu}$ are the corresponding axial current, decay constant of meson M and its four-momentum respectively. It is noticed that in the case $\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-$, at the vertex $W^-\bar ud$ the Cabibbo-Kabayashi-Maskawa entry is approximately $\cos\theta_C\approx 1$ whereas for the case $\Lambda_b\to p+K^-$, the CKM entry is $\sin\theta_C\approx 0.22$, thus comparing with $\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-$, the amplitude of the process $\Lambda_b\to
p+K^-$ is suppressed by a factor ${f_K\over f_\pi}\sin\theta_C\sim
0.27$. Thus besides a small difference between the final phase spaces of the two reactions, one can roughly estimate that $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+K^-)/BR(\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-)\sim
0.07$, and this estimate is consistent with our numerical results. Therefore the smallness of $BR(\Lambda_b\to
p+K^-)$ seems reasonable. However the data of CDF show completely different results that $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+K^-)$ is anomalously larger than $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-)$.
In fact, in our calculations on the non-leptonic decays, we only consider the contributions from the tree diagrams and neglect the penguin-loop effects. For the mode of $\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-$, the penguin contribution can be safely neglected compared to the tree level. However, for the mode of $\Lambda_b\to p+K^-$, the tree level contribution is suppressed by the Cabibbo-Kabayashi-Maskawa entry $V_{ub}V_{us}^*$ while for the penguin diagram, the main contribution comes from the loop where top quark is the intermediate fermion. In the case, the CKM entry would be $V_{tb}V_{ts}^*$ which is almost two orders larger than $V_{ub}V_{us}^*$. Thus even though there is a loop suppression of order $\alpha_s/4\pi$, it is compensated by the much larger CKM entry. This situation was discussed in [@Wangym] where the authors used the pQCD method to carry out the calculations. In fact, we make a rough estimation of the contribution from the top-penguin, and the result is almost five times larger than the contribution from the tree diagram given above.
However, from another aspect, when the penguin diagram is taken into account, the factorization is dubious. That is why we do not include the loop contributions in this present work, but will make a detailed discussion in our coming paper.
Actually, even including the penguin contribution, the theoretically estimated branching ratio of $BR(\Lambda_b\to
p+K^-)$ is still below the data and obviously smaller than that of $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-)$. If this measurement is valid and approved by further experiments, it would be a new anomaly which may hint an unknown mechanism which dominates the transition or new physics beyond the standard model[^2] and it is also consistent with the result of [@Wangym].
The good agreement of our results on the semileptonic decays of $\Lambda_b$ to light baryon and several non-leptonic decay modes with data indicates the following points.
First, the diqaurk picture: as we know, two quarks in a color-anti-triplet attract each other and constitute a Cooper-pair-like subject of spin 0 or 1. However, until now, many theorists still doubt the justifiability of the diquark picture. It is true that even though the diquark structure was raised almost as early as the birth of the quark model, its validity or reasonability of application is still in sharp dispute. In fact, it should be rigorously testified by experiments. We have argued that for some processes, the diquark picture may be more applicable than in the others. Actually, in our case, we can convince ourselves that the picture should apply. As aforementioned, diquark is only a spectator in the transitions which we concern in this work, therefore its inner structure may not affect the numerical results much. Secondly, the produced baryon is very relativistic, i.e. very close to the light-cone, generally the details of the inner structure of the spectator diquark may not be important, this interpretation is somehow similar to the parton picture which was conceived out by Feynman and Bjorken long time ago. Namely at very high energy collisions, the interaction among partons can be ignored at the leading order, thus in our case the interaction between the quark which undergoes a transition, and the spectator diquark should be weak and negligible. Third is that the small effects caused by the inner structure of the diquark may be partly included in the parameter $\beta$ of the light-front wavefuction. The agreement with data indicates that the diquark picture and the light-front quark model indeed apply in the analysis of the heavy baryon transiting into a light one.
Moreover, since we employ the factorization scheme to deal with the non-leptonic decays, we find that to some modes, it works well, but to some modes where loop contributions may dominate or just are comparable to the tree contributions, the scenario encounters serious challenges[@Wei].
We further investigate the measurable polarization asymmetries. Because the information on the polarization asymmetries may be more sensitive to the model adopted in the theoretical calculations than the decay width, accurate measurements would discriminate various models and indicate how to improve the details of the models.
Moreover, we also predict the rates and asymmetries of several similar modes of $\Lambda_b$ non-leptonic decays in the same model, and the results are listed in Table IIIV of last section. The numbers will be tested in the future.
Fortunately, the high luminosity at LHCb can provide large database on $\Lambda_b$ and moreover, with great improvements of experimental facility and detection technique, we expect that more and more accurate measurements will be carried out in the near future and theorists will be able to further testify, improve, or even negate our present models. Indeed, the baryons are much more complicated than mesons, but careful studies on the processes where baryons are involved would be very beneficial for getting better insight into the hadron structure and underlying principles, especially the non-perturbative QCD effects including the factorization and plausibility of the diquark picture. The LHCb will be an ideal place to do the job.
Acknowledgements: {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
=================
The work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Special Grant for the PH.D program of the Chinese Education Ministry, one of us (Ke) would like to thank the Tianjin University for financial support.
[99]{}
A. Ali, G. Kramer and C. Lü, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 094009 (1998).
Y. Chen, H. Cheng, B. Tseng, K. Yang, , 094014 (1999); Z. Wei, arXiv:hep-ph/0310173; C. Chen, C. Geng, Z. Wei, Eur. Phys. J. C [**46**]{}, 367 (2006).
J. Abdallah $et$ $al$., DELPHI Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B [**585**]{}, 63-84 (2004).
W. Yao $et$ $al$., Partical Data Group, J. Phys. G [**33**]{}, 1 (2006).
C. Albertus, E. Hernandez and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 014012 (2005); H. Shih, S. Lee and H. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 114002 (2000); M. Huang, H. Jin, J. K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$rner and C. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [**629**]{}, 27 (2005); M. Pervin, W. Roberts and S. Capstick, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 035201 (2005); D. Ebert, R. Faustov and V. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 094002 (2006); F. Cardarelli and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 074018 (1999).
H. Ke, X. Li and Z. Wei, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 014020 (2008).
M. Terent’ev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. **24**, 106 (1976); V. Berestetsky and M. Terent’ev, $ibid$. **24**, 547 (1976); **25**, 347 (1977); P. Chung, F. Coester, and W. Polyzou, Phys. Lett. **B 205**, 545 (1988).
W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. **D 41**, 3394 (1990); W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. **D 44**, 2851 (1991);W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. **D 53**, 1349(1996); **D 54**, 5904(E)(1996); [**60**]{}, 054026 (1999).
C. Ji, P. Chung and S. Cotanch, Phys. Rev. D **45**, 4214 (1992).
H. Cheng, C. Cheung and C. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 1559 (1997).
H. Cheng, C. Chua and C. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 074025 (2004).
C. Hwang and Z. Wei, J. Phys. G [**34**]{}, 687 (2007); C. D. Lu, W. Wang and Z. T. Wei, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 014013 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701265\]; Z. T. Wei, H. W. Ke and X. F. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 015022 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.3069 \[hep-ph\]\]; H. W. Ke, X. Q. Li and Z. T. Wei, arXiv:0907.5465 \[hep-ph\]. H. Dosch, M. Jamin and B. Stech, Z. Phys. C [**42**]{}, 167 (1989).
P. Kroll, B. Quadder and W. Schweiger, Nucl. Phys. [**B 316**]{},373 (1989); P. Ball, H.G. Dosch, Z. Phys. [**C 51**]{}, 445 1991; J. K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$rner and P. Kroll, Phys. Lett. [**B 293**]{}, 201 1992; R. Jakob, P. Kroll, M. Schurmann and W. Schweiger, Z. Phys. [**A 347**]{}, 109 (1993); J. Bolz, P. Kroll and J. K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$rner, Z. Phys. [**A 350**]{}, 145 (1994); J. K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$rner and P. Kroll, Z. Phys. **C 57**, 383 (1993).
F. Wilczek, arXiv: hep-ph/0409168.
D. Ebert, R. Faustov and V. Galkin, Phys. Rev. **D 73**, 094002 (2006); X. Guo and T. Muta, Phys. Rev. [**D 54**]{}, 4629 (1996); X. Guo, A. Thomas and A. Williams, [*ibid*]{} [**D 59**]{}, 116007 (1999); Y. Yu, H. Ke, Y. Ding, X. Guo, H. Jin, X. Li, P. Shen and G. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. [**46**]{}, 1031 (2006); Y. Yu, H. Ke, Y. Ding, X. Guo, H. Jin, X. Li, P. Shen and G. Wang, arXiv: hep-ph/0611160.
B. Ma, D. Qing and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C [ **66**]{}, 048201 (2002).
H. Cheng, and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. **D 53**, 1457 (1996).
C. S. Huang, C. F. Qiao and H. G. Yan, Phys. Lett. B [**437**]{}, 403 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9805452\]. H. Shih, S. Lee and H. Li, Phys. Rev. **D 59**, 094014 (1999).
C. Chou, H. Shih, S. Lee and H. Li, Phys. Rev. **D 65**, 074030 (2002).
Y. M. Wang, Y. L. Shen and C. D. Lu, arXiv:0907.4008 \[hep-ph\]. J. Charles, A. Yaouance, L. Oliver, O. P$\grave{e}$ne and J. Raynal, Phys. Rev. **D 60**, 014001 (1999).
M. Dugan and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. **B255**, 583 (1991).
N. Isgur and M. Wise, Phys. Lett. **B232**, 113 (1989); N. Isgur and M. Wise, Nucl.Phys. [**B 348**]{}, 276 (1991); H. Georgi, [*ibid*]{} [**B348**]{}, 293 (1991) .
C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 114020.
H. Cheng, C. Chua and C. Hwang, Phys. Rev. **D 70**, 034007 (2004) .
J. K$\rm\ddot{o}$rner and M. Kr$\rm\ddot{a}$mer, Phys. Lett. B [**275**]{}, 495 (1992); P. Bialas, J. K$\rm\ddot{o}$rner, M. Kr$\rm\ddot{a}$mer, and K. Zalewski, Z. Phys. C [**57**]{}, [115]{} (1993); J. K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$rner, M. Kr$\rm\ddot{a}$mer and D. Pirjol, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 787 (1994).
D. Ebert, R. Faustov and V. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 094002 (2006).
J. K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$rner and M. Kr$\rm\ddot{a}$mer, Z. Phys. C [**55**]{}, 659 (1992).
H. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 2799 (1997).
P. Guo, H. Ke, X. Li, C. Lü and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [ **75**]{}, 054017 (2007).
D. Becirevic and A. B. Kaidalov, Phys. Lett. B [**478**]{}, 417 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9904490\]. P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 014015 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406232\]; [*ibid*]{} [**D71**]{}, 014029 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0412079\].
R. Mohanta, A. Giri, M. Khanna, M. Ishida, S. Ishida and M. Oda, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**101**]{}, 959 (1999).
Fayyazuddin and Riazuddin, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 014016 (1998).
T. Aaltonen, $et$ $al$., CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 031801 (2009).
C. Lü, Y. Wang, H. Zou, A. Alia and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 034001 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.1479\[hep-ph\]\].
Z. Wei, H. Ke and X. Li, in preparation.
[^1]: Corresponding author, email: [email protected]
[^2]: We thank Dr. D. Tonelli for bringing our attention to the new measurements of the CDF collaboration on $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+\pi^-)$ and $BR(\Lambda_b\to p+K^-)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We combine I. background independent [**Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)**]{} quantization techniques, II. the mathematically rigorous framework of [**Algebraic Quantum Field Theory (AQFT)**]{} and III. the theory of integrable systems resulting in the invariant [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} in order to set up the general representation theory (superselection theory) for the closed bosonic quantum string on flat target space.
While we do not solve the, expectedly, rich representation theory completely, we present a, to the best of our knowledge new, non – trivial solution to the representation problem. This solution exists 1. for any target space dimension, 2. for Minkowski signature of the target space, 3. without tachyons, 4. manifestly ghost – free (no negative norm states), 5. without fixing a worldsheet or target space gauge, 6. without (Virasoro) anomalies (zero central charge), 7. while preserving manifest target space Poincaré invariance and 8. without picking up UV divergences. The existence of this stable solution is, on the one hand, exciting because it raises the hope that among all the solutions to the representation problem (including fermionic degrees of freedom) we find stable, phenomenologically acceptable ones in lower dimensional target spaces, possibly without supersymmetry, that are much simpler than the solutions that arise via compactification of the standard Fock representation of the string. On the other hand, if such solutions are found, then this would prove that neither a critical dimension (D=10,11,26) nor supersymmetry is a prediction of string theory. Rather, these would be features of the particular Fock representation of current string theory and hence would not be generic.
The solution presented in this paper exploits the flatness of the target space in several important ways. In a companion paper we treat the more complicated case of curved target spaces.
author:
- |
T. Thiemann[^1]\
\
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics\
35 King St. N., Waterloo, ON N2J 2W9, Canada\
\
and\
\
University of Waterloo
date: '[ PI-2004-001]{}'
title: |
The LQG – String:\
Loop Quantum Gravity Quantization\
of\
String Theory\
\
I. Flat Target Space
---
Introduction {#s1}
============
String Theory (ST) [@1] and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) [@2] (see [@2a] for recent reviews) are currently the two major approaches towards a quantum theory of gravity. They are complementary in many senses. For example, in ST a central idea is the [*Unification of all Forces (UF)*]{} while in LQG the unification of the [*Background Independence (BI) Principle*]{} with the principles of Quantum Theory is considered as the most important guideline. Hence, in ST the BI is currently not implemented and vice versa LQG presently does not put any constraints on the matter content of the world. It is not clear if any of these principles or both should be realized in quantum gravity at all, however, historically there is evidence for the success of both. On the one hand, the non-renormalizable Fermi model of the weak interaction was replaced by the renormalizable electroweak theory which unifies the weak and electromagnetic interaction. On the other hand the puzzles of non-relativistic quantum mechanics (e.g. negative energy particles) were resolved by unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics in QFT (“second quantization”).
In the absence of experimental input (so far) it is therefore worthwhile to keep our minds open and push complementary ideas to their frontiers and to learn from the advantages and disadvantages of competing programmes. It is the purpose of this paper to make a small contribution to that extent. Namely, we ask the question:
\
[**Can the BI methods of LQG be employed in order to provide an alternative quantization of ST? If yes, what are the differences?**]{}\
\
By ST we mean here old-fashioned perturbative string theory and not its (yet to be defined) M – Theory generalization.
In this paper we precisely define the general quantization problem for the closed, bosonic string on flat (Minkowski) target space. Namely, we set up the representation theory for the closed, bosonic string. We can fruitfully combine three different frameworks:
- [I.]{} [*Background Independent LQG*]{}\
The string can be viewed as a worldsheet diffeomorphism invariant, two – dimensional QFT. Hence it precisely falls into class of theories that can be quantized by LQG methods. Moreover, LQG provides a general framework for how to implement quantum constraints without gauge fixing.
- [II.]{} [*Algebraic Quantum Field Theory (AQFT)*]{}\
The Haag – Kastler approach to QFT [@3] provides a clean distinction between the physical object to be quantized, namely the algebra of physical observables, and the corresponding set of representations (Hilbert spaces) thereof. The latter can be viewed as different phases of the the theory which may be or may be not realized in nature. AQFT provides very powerful tools in order to solve the classification problem of the corresponding representations, see e.g. [@4] for a recent review. For infinite dimensional systems such as the string there is no Stone – von Neumann uniqueness theorem [@5] and the corresponding representation theory is usually very complex.
- [III.]{} [*Integrable Systems (Pohlmeyer Charges)*]{}\
In constrained dynamical systems it is highly non – trivial to identify the gauge invariant observables of the theory. It is even harder to find faithful representations of the corresponding, usually highly non – linear, commutation relations. Fortunately, for the closed bosonic string on flat target space the complete set of gauge invariant observables, the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{}, has been found [@6] and their classical Poisson algebra is under complete control [@16; @7; @17]. This will come to the surprise of most string theorists who are used to work in the so – called conformal worldsheet and/or lightcone target space gauge. In contrast, these observables are manifestly gauge invariant and manifestly Lorentz covariant.
Hence, what we are looking for is a background independent, that is, gauge invariant (in the sense of [**LQG**]{}) and Lorentz invariant, representation (in the sense of [**AQFT**]{}) of the [**Pohlmeyer Algebra**]{}. Notice that by definition these representations do not allow us to pick either a worldsheet gauge (such as the conformal gauge) nor a target space gauge (such as the lightcone gauge). Consequently, the problem can be set up directly for the Nambu – Goto String rather than the Polyakov – String. Therefore, Conformal Field Theory Methods never play even the slightest role because there is never any need to introduce and eventually fix any worldsheet metric. Notice also that by definition we only consider representations without Virasoro and Lorentz anomalies, the central charge is zero by definition. Finally, in the modern framework of QFT [@3] there is no need for mathematically ill – defined objects such as negative norm states (ghosts) in the Gupta – Bleuler quantization procedure so that all our representations will be ghost – free by definition.
The above mentioned three frameworks can now be combined as follows: The [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} provide the algebra to be quantized, [**AQFT**]{} provides us with techniques to construct representations and finally [**LQG**]{} equips us with methods to obtain representations of the algebra of invariants from diffeomorphism invariant representations of kinematical (not gauge invariant) observables.
In this paper we set up the general framework for the representation theory of the closed bosonic string on flat target space and present a non – trivial solution thereof. This solution exists in any target space dimension and has no tachyons. While fermionic worldsheet degrees of freedom are certainly needed for phenomenological reasons, our solution shows that supersymmetry is not required in all representations of quantum string theory (the degrees of freedom do not necessarily form a supersymmetry multiplett).
One may ask how these celebrated predictions of string theory, 1. a critical dimension of $D=26$ for the bosonic string and $D=10$ for the superstring are circumvented. The answer is very simple: In the sense of our defintion, the representation used in ordinary string theory is rather unnatural both from the point of view of AQFT and and LQG: From the point of view of AQFT, the usual Fock representation of string theory does not manifestly define a positive linear functional on the corresponding $^\ast-$algebra. It is therefore not surprising that the “no – ghost theorem” only holds in critical dimensions and that our solution to a manifestly ghost – free problem works in any dimension. From the LQG point of view on the other hand the implementation of the constraints in ordinary string theory is rather unnatural because a) one works in a particular worldsheet gauge thus breaking worldsheet diffeomorphism invarinance down to the conformal symmtries of the flat worldsheet metric and b) the contraints are implemented only weakly rather than strongly so that one does not perform an honest Dirac quantization. It is therefore not surprising that one usually finds a central charge and that in contrast in our framework CFT methods never play any role as we never have to fix a worldsheet metric. Finally the tachyon in ordinary bosonic string theory is a direct consequence of an ultraviolet divergence in one of the Virasoro generators which is explicitly avoided in LQG. It is therefore not too surprising that we do not find a tachyon.
One can read the results of the present paper partly positively and partly negatively. On the negative side one should notice that, from the purely mathematical point of view, our solution demonstrates that neither a critical dimension nor supersymmetry is a prediction of string theory. Rather, these notions are features of the particular Fock representation of current string theory which is just one solution among possibly zillions of others of the representation problem. Of course, one must show that there are solutions which are physically acceptable from the pheomenological point of view. On the positive side one should notice that the existence of our solution is very encouraging in view of of the fact that solutions with tachyons are unstable and supersymmetric ones without tachyons have yet to be shown to be consistent with phenomenology. There are possibly an infinite number of other stable solutions, including fermionic degrees of freedom, some of which might be closer to the usual Fock representation of string theory than the one we will give in this paper but also much simpler, especially in lower dimensions, which has obious advantages for model building. Indeed, we encourge string theorists and algebraic quantum field theorists to look at the string more abstractly from the algebraic point of view and to systematically develop its representation theory.\
\
The present paper is organized as follows:\
Sections two through five merely summarize background material on the classical Nambu – Goto string, its theory of invariants, AQFT and LQG respectively. We have included this material for the benefit of readers from various backgrounds in order to make the paper accessible to a wide audience. These sections can be safely skipped by the experts. The main results of this paper are contained in section six which we summarize once more in section seven. More in detail, here is what we will do:\
\
In section two we recall the canonical formulation of the Nambu – Goto string, the actual geometrical object under consideration. The Polyakov string usually employed in string theory introduces an auxiliary worldsheet metric which is locally pure gauge due to the worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance and an additional Weyl invariance which is absent in the Nambu – Goto formulation. We thus emphasize that there is never any worldsheet metric to be discussed and that Weyl invariance never appears in our formulation. The only local symmetry group is the diffeomorphism (or reparameterization) group Diff$(M)$ of the two – dimensional worldsheet $M$. We never gauge fix that symmetry in contrast to usual string theory in the Polyakov formulation where one usually uses the conformal gauge which allows to fix the worldsheet metric $g$ to be locally flat $\eta$. This gauge fixes the Weyl invariance of the Polyakov string, however, it only partially fixes worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance since conformal symmetries $\varphi\in$Conf$_\eta(M)\subset Diff(M)$ (with respect to the flat worldsheet metric $\eta$) are still allowed. This residual symmetry is the reason for the importance of conformal QFT techniques in usual string theory, however, in our manifestly Diff$(M)$ – invariant formulation such techniques never play any role.
After having analyzed the Nambu – Goto string as a constrained dynamical system á la Dirac, in section three we recall the theory of the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{}. The string on flat target spaces turns out to be a completely integrable two – dimensional system and the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} are nothing else than the invariants constructed from the corresponding monodromies via Lax pair methods. It is these charges that we want to study interesting representations of.
In section four we recall elements from Algebraic Quantum Field Theory (AQFT). In particular, we describe how cyclic representations of a given $^\ast-$algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ arise via the Gel’fand – Naimark – Segal (GNS) construction once a positive linear functional (a state) $\omega$ is given. This is the same construction that underlies the Wightman reconstruction theorem [@8] (reconstructing a Hilbert space from a set of $n-$point functions subject to the positivity requirement). Moreover, if a symmetry group acts on $\mathfrak{A}$ as a group of automorphisms and if $\omega$ is invariant then the symmetry group can be implemented as a group of unitary operators on the GNS Hilbert space [*without anomalies*]{}.
In section five we recall basics from Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). In particular, we review the background independent canonical quantization programme which aims at constructing the physical Hilbert space, on which the quantum constraints are identically satisfied, from a given kinematical representation of an algebra of non – gauge invariant operators. The reason for not considering the algebra of invariants right away is that the complete set of invariants is rarely known explicitly for a sufficiently complicated theory (e.g. General Relativity). However, if the kinematical algebra separates the points of the full phase space then the invariant algebra is contained (possibly as a limit) in the kinematical algebra and hence the kinematical representation is a representation of the invariants as well, generically with quantum corrections. The kinematical representation is admissable, however, only if the physical representation induced from it still carries a representation of the invariants. It is in this step that non – trivial regularization techniques come into play.
In section six we collect the results of sections three, four and five to formulate the general representation problem of the closed bosonic string on flat target space. We then present a non – trivial solution to it. Basically, we found a worldsheet diffeomorphism invariant and target space Poincaré invariant state for a kinematical Weyl algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ which contains the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} as a limit. We see here how LQG, AQFT and the theory of integrable systems click together: LQG provides a suitable Weyl algebra on which the worldsheet symmetries act as automorphisms, AQFT provides tools to construct representations thereof and finally the theory of integrable systems provides us with the invariant [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} which can be defined in our representation as well – defined operators and whose vacuum expectation values play the role of [*gauge invariant Wightman functions*]{}. In this representation Weyl invariance never arises, worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance and target space Poincaré invariance are exact symmetries without anomalies (central charges), ghosts (negative norm states) never arise and all physical states turn out to be of non – negative mass so that there is no tachyon.
In section seven we conclude, compare our results with ordinary string theory and repeat their consequences. It should be emphasized that in this paper we heavily exploited that the target space is flat and hence we only need a minimal amount of the techniques of LQG. The full power of LQG techniques however comes into play when we discuss curved target spaces and higher p – brane theories such as the (super –)membrane [@10] which, in contrast to string theory, is an interacting theory even on flat target spaces. These issues will be discussed in our companion paper [@11] which overlaps in part with the pioneering work [@11a] but, as the present paper, departs from it in most aspects. See also [@11b] for a different new approach to string theory using a modification of the Lorentz group.
The Nambu – Goto String {#s2}
=======================
In introductory texts to string theory [@1] the Nambu – Goto string is barely mentioned, one almost immediately switches to the Polyakov string whose corresponding action has the same set of classical solutions as the Nambu – Goto action. The advantage of the Polyakov action is that it is bilinear in the string degrees of freedom on flat target space, however, this comes at the price of introducing an additional Weyl invariance and an auxiliary worldsheet metric. From the point of a geometer this classical reformulation of the geometerical object, the string, as a theory of scalars interacting with topological gravity is rather unnatural. We thus review below the canonical formulation of the Nambu – Goto action, especially for the benefit of readers without much knowledge of string theory. Experts can safely skip this section. See [@12; @13] for more details.\
\
Let us in fact consider the bosonic $p-$brane with $p\ge 2$. Its action is defined in terms of an embedding $X:\;M\to T;\;y\mapsto X^\mu(y)$ from a $p-$dimensional worldsheet $M$ to a $D-$dimensional target space $T$ and a target space metric tensor field $X\mapsto \eta_{\mu\nu}(X)$ of Minkowskian signature $(-1,1,..,1)$ (the case of Euclidean signature is treated in the companion paper [@11]). Here we take the worldsheet coordinates $y^\alpha,\;\alpha=0,..,p-1$ to be dimension – free while the target space coordinates $X^\mu,\mu=0,..,D-1$ have dimension of length. The bosonic $p-$brane action is nothing else than the volume of $M$ as measured by $\eta$, that is, \[2.1\] S\[X\]:=-\_M d\^py Here $\alpha'$ is called the $p-$brane tension and its has dimensions such that $\hbar\alpha'=:\ell_s^p$ has dimensions of cm$^p$. In order that $X$ be an embedding, the vector fields $\partial/\partial
y^\alpha$ must be everywhere linearly independent on $M$. Furthermore, the pull-back metric on $M$ given by $X^\ast \eta$ is supposed to have everywhere Minkowskian signature.
We proceed to the canonical analysis. We assume that $M=\Rl\times \sigma$ where $\sigma$ is a $(p-1)-$dimensional manifold of fixed but arbitrary topology. The momentum canoniclly conjugate to $X^\mu$ is given by \[2.2\] \_(y):=’=- (\[(X\^)(y)\]\^[-1]{})\^[t]{}\_(X(y)) X\^\_[,]{}(y) Introducing temporal and spatial coordinates $y=(t,x)$ we have the elementary Poisson brackets \[2.2a\] {X\^(t,x),X\^(t,x’)}={\_(t,x),\_(t,x’)}=0, {\_(t,x),X\^(t,x’)}=’ \_\^(x,x’) In the sense of Dirac’s analysis of constrained systems the Legendre transform (\[2.2\]) is not onto, the Langrangean in (\[2.1\]) is singular and we arrive at the $p$ primary constraints \[2.3\] D\_a &:=& \_X\^\_[,a]{}=0\
C &:=& \[\^ \_\_+ (q)\]=0 where \[2.4\] q\_[ab]{}(y)=\[X\^\]\_[ab]{}(y) and $a,b,..=1,..,p-1$. Notice that $\eta$ maybe an arbitrary curved metric. The constraint $D_a$ is often called spatial diffeomorphism constraint in the LQG literature because its Hamiltonian vector field generates spatial diffeomorphisms of $\sigma$. Likewise, the constraint $C$ is called the Hamiltonian constraint because, on the solutions to the equations of motion, it generates canonically temporal reparameterizations. See our companion paper [@11] for a more detailed elaboration on this point.
These $p$ constraints are in fact first class so that there are no secondary constraints. Indeed we find the [**Hypersurface Deformation Algebra $\mathfrak{H}$**]{} \[2.5\] {D(),D(’)} &=& ’ D([L]{}\_’)\
{D(),C(N’)} &=& ’ C([L]{}\_N’)\
{C(N),C(N’)} &=& ’\_ d\^[p-1]{}x (N\_[,a]{} N’-N N\_[,a]{}) \[(q) q\^[ab]{}\] D\_b where $\cal L$ denotes the Lie derivative and where we have smeared the constraints with smooth test functions of rapid decrease, that is, $C(N)=\int_\sigma d^{p-1}x N C$ and $D(\vec{N})=\int_M d^{p-1}x N^a D_a$.
Notice that precisely when $p=2$ we have that $\det(q) q^{ab}=1$ is a constant. Thus, among all $p-$brane actions the string is singled out by the fact that its constraints form an honest Lie Poisson algebra. For $p>2$ we get nontrivial structure functions just like for General Relativity. We will strongly exploit this fact for the rest of the paper for which we restrict our attention to the case $p=2$ and $\eta$ is the target space Minkowski metric $\eta=$diag$(-1,1,..,1)$. See our companion paper [@11] for the more general case.
Notice that throughout our analysis we have not introduced a worldsheet metric and there is no Weyl symmetry at all. The only local worldsheet symmetry is Diff$(M)$. Also we work manifestly gauge free, that is, we never (partially) fix Diff$(M)$, there is no conformal gauge or anything like that. Finally we want to construct a true Dirac quantization of the system, hence we do not introduce any gauge such as the lightcone gauge in order to solve the constraints classically. This will have the advantage to preserve manifest Lorentz invariance in all steps of our construction.
[**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} {#s3}
=========================
In the rest of the paper we focus on the closed bosonic string, i.e. $p=2$ and $\sigma=S^1$ on flat Minkowski space. We take our spatial coordinate $x$ to be in the range $[0,2\pi)$. All functions in what follows are periodic with period $2\pi$ unless specified otherwise.\
\
From the classical point of view we must find the (strong) Dirac observables of the system, that is, functions on the phase space coordinatized by $X,\pi$ which have (strongly) vanishing Poisson brackets with the constraints. While the string is a parameterized system so that the Hamiltonian defined by the Legendre transform vanishes identically, the initial value constraints do generate arbitrary time reparameterizations and in this sense the problem of finding the Dirac observables is closely related to finding the integrals of motion of a dynamical system [@14]. This leads us to the theory of integrable systems [@14a] and the very powerful techniques that have been developed for those, especially in two dimensions. Pohlmeyer et. al. have shown in an impressive series of papers [@6; @16; @7; @17] that the string is completely integrable. Since to the best of our knowledge these important works are basically unknown even among string theorists, in what follows we will summarize the basics of these developments, following the beautiful thesis [@15].
Automorphisms of Gauge – and Symmetry Transformations {#s3.1}
-----------------------------------------------------
The first step is to introduce an equivalent set of constraints called the two Virasoro constraints \[3.1\] V\_(u):=\_[S\^1]{}dx u (CD)\_[S\^1]{}dx \_ Y\^\_ Y\^\_where $u$ is a smearing function and \[3.2\] Y\^\_:=\^\_X\^ Here and in what follows a prime denotes derivation with respect to $x$ while a dot denotes derivation with respect to $t$. The advantage of (\[3.1\]) over (\[2.3\]) is that the constraint algebra simplifies to \[3.3\] {V\_(u),V\_(v)}=0, {V\_(u),V\_(v)}=V\_(s(u,v)) where $s(u,v)=u' v- u v'$. Thus the constraint algebra can be displayed as the direct sum of two algebras each of which is isomorphic to the Lie algebra of the diffeomorphism group Diff$(S^1)$ of the circle. These two algebras are, however, not the same as yet a third copy of diff$(S^1)$ generated by $D=V_+ + V_-$ which generates diffeomorphisms of the circle for all phase space functions while $V_\pm$ do that only for functions of $Y_\pm$. Hence, there are three different diffeomorphism groups of the circle at play which have to be cleanly distinguished.
The important functions $Y_\pm(f):=\int_{S^1}\;dx\; f_\mu\; Y^\mu_\pm$ themselves obey the following algebra \[3.4\] {Y\_(f),Y\_(g)}=0, {Y\_(f),Y\_(g)}=’ \^\_[S\^1]{}dx (f\_’ g\_- f\_g\_’) From the geometrical point of view the $Y_\pm$ are one forms on $S^1$ and the $f$ are scalars while the $u,v$ are vector fields. In one dimension, $p-$times covariant and $q-$times contravariant tensors are the same thing as scalar densities of weight $p-q$, hence all integrals are over scalar densities of weight one which are spatially diffeomorphism invariant. However, the Hamiltonian vector fields corresponding to the $V_\pm(\xi)$ only act on the $Y_\pm$ not on the $u,v,f,f'$. Specifically we have \[3.5\] {V\_(u),Y\_(f)}=0, {V\_(u),Y\_(f)}=Y\_(u f’) Hence the Virasoro generators $V_\pm(u)$ act on $Y_\pm$ by infinitesimal diffeomorphisms while they leave $Y_\mp$ invariant. Consider the Hamiltonian flow of $V_\pm(u)$ defined by \[3.6\] \[\^\_u(t)\](F):=\_[n=0]{}\^ {V\_(u),F}\_[(n)]{} where $F$ is any smooth function on phase space and the repeated Poisson bracket is inductively defined by $\{G,F\}_{(0)}=F,\;
\{G,F\}_{(n+1)}=\{G,\{G,F\}_{(n)}\}$. It is easy to check that \[3.7\] \[\^\_u(t)\](Y\_(x))=Y\_(x), \[\^\_u(t)\](Y\_(x))=(\[\^u\_t\]\^Y\_)(x) where $t\mapsto \varphi^u_t$ is the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms of $S^1$ defined by the integral curves $t\mapsto c^u_x(t)$ through $x$ of the vector field $u$ on $S^1$, that is, $\varphi^u_t(x)=c^u_x(t)$. Here $\varphi^\ast$ denotes the pull – back of $p-$forms.
Since the Hamiltonian flow of a smooth phase space function defines an automorphism of the Poisson algebra of smooth functions on phase space, we obtain for any smooth function of the functional form $F=F[Y_+,Y_-]$ that \[3.8\] \[\^+\_u(t)\](F)=F\[(\^u\_t)\^Y\_+,Y\_-\], \[\^-\_u(t)\](F)=F\[Y\_+,(\^u\_t)\^Y\_-\] Writing $\alpha^\pm_{\varphi^u_t}:=\alpha^\pm_u(t)$ we may extend (\[3.8\]) to all elements $\varphi$ of Diff$(S^1)$ \[3.9\] \[\^+\_\](F)=F\[\^Y\_+,Y\_-\], \[\^-\_\](F)=F\[Y\_+,\^Y\_-\] Besides this local gauge freedom of the string we also have global Poincaré symmetry. The generators of infinitesimal translations and Lorentz transformations respectively are given by \[3.10\] p\_&=& \_[S\^1]{} dx \_\
J\^ &=& \_[S\^1]{} dx \[X\^\^ \_-X\^\^ \_\] It is straightforward to check that $p_\mu,J^{\mu\nu}$ have vanishing Poisson brackets with the $V_\pm(u)$ and thus are strong Dirac observables. Moreover, we have \[3.11\] {p\_,Y\^\_(x)}=0, {J\^,Y\^\_(x)}=( \^ Y\^\_-\^ Y\^\_)(x) Hence for the corresponding Hamiltonian flows we obtain \[3.12\] \_a(Y\_)&:=&\_[n=0]{}\^ {a\^p\_,Y\_}\_[(n)]{}=Y\_\
\_(Y\_)&:=&\_[n=0]{}\^ {\_ J\^,Y\_}\_[(n)]{}= (\_ \^) Y\_ where $\Lambda$ is an antisymmetric matrix and $\tau^{\mu\nu}$ are appropriate basis elements of $so(1,D-1)$. Denoting $L=\exp(\Lambda_{\mu\nu} \tau^{\mu\nu})$ the automorphisms extend to smooth functions of $Y_\pm$ as \[3.13\] \_a(F)=F,\_L(F)=F\[LY\_+,LY\_-\]
Algebra of Invariants {#s3.2}
---------------------
This finishes our analysis of the actions of the constraints and symmetry generators on the $Y_\pm$. We will now construct Dirac observables $F[Y_+,Y_-]$ by using the theory of integrable systems. The idea is to use the method of Lax pairs, that is, one reformulates the equations of motion for $Y_\pm$ as a matrix equation of the form $M_{,\alpha}=[A_\alpha,M]$ where $M(t,x)$ is an $N\times N$ matrix and $A_\alpha$ is a “connection”, that is, a one form on $\Rl\times S^1$ with values in $GL(N,\Cl)$. The integrability condition for the Lax pair $L,A$ is the zero curvature equation $F_{\alpha\beta}=
\partial_\alpha A_\beta
-\partial_\beta A_\alpha+[A_\alpha,A_\beta]=0$ and one looks for $L,A$ in such a way that $F_{\alpha\beta}=0$ is equivalent to the equations of motion. Given such a setup, it follows that the functions Tr$(L^n),\;
n=1,..,N$ are constants of the motion ($n>N$ leads to algebraically dependent invariants due to the theorem of Hamilton – Caley).
We proceed to the details. The “Hamiltonian” of the string is given by \[3.14\] H(u,v)=(C(u)+D(v))= V\_+(v+u)+V\_-(v-u) where $u,v$ are arbitrary test functions. “Time” evolution is defined by \[3.15\] \_:={H(u,v),Y\_}=\[(vu) Y\_\]’ Notice that the “time” evolution depends on $u,v$ and it will be our task to show that our final invariants constructed by the Lax pair method do not depend on $u,v$.
Let $\tau_I$ be a basis of $GL(n,\Rl)$ and $T_\mu^I$ some complex valued matrices. We define the following connection \[3.16\] A\^\_x:=Y\^\_T\_\^I \_I=:Y\^\_T\_, A\^\_t:=(vu) A\^\_x The zero curvature condition reproduces the equations of motion \[3.17\] F\^\_[tx]{}=\_t A\^\_x-\_x A\^\_t+\[A\^\_t,A\^\_x\]= \_t A\^\_x-\_x A\^\_t= \_t A\^\_x-{H(u,v),A\^\_x}=0 Given a curve $c$ on $M=\Rl\times S^1$ we define its holonomy as the usual path ordered product \[3.18\] h\_c(A\^)=[P]{}(\_c dx A\^) where $\cal P$ denotes path ordering with the lowest parameter value to the outmost left. Given a parameterization of the path $[0,b]\to c;\;s\mapsto c(s)$ the holonomy is the unique solution to the ordinary differential equation \[3.18a\] h\_[c\_s]{}(A\^)=h\_[c\_s]{}(A\^) A\^\_(c(s)) \^(s), h\_[c\_0]{}(A\^):=1\_N,h\_[c\_b]{}(A\^) h\_c(A\^) where $c_s=c([0,s])$.
Supposing that the curvature of $A$ vanishes, that is, that $A$ is flat, it is clear that for loops $c$ on $\Rl\times S^1$ only those which are not contractible lead to a non – trivial value of $h_c(A)$. Among the non contractible loops of winding number one all are homotopic to the loop $c_{t,x}=\{t\}\times [x,x+2\pi)$ in the worldsheet time slice $t=$const. winding once around the cylinder with starting point $x$. In the theory of integrable systems, the holonomy of that loop is called the monodromy matrix \[3.19\] h\_[t,x]{}(A\^):=h\_[c\_[t,x]{}]{}(A\^) Notice that (\[3.19\]) is not a periodic function of $x$ even if the connection $A$ is flat.
Consider an arbitrary interior point $x_0$ of $c_{t,x}$. This point subdivides the loop into two edges $e_{t,x}=\{t\}\times [x_0,x]$ and $e'_{t,x}=\{t\}\times [x_0,x+2\pi]$, that is, $c_{t,x}=e_{t,x}^{-1}\circ e'_{t,x}$. Hence we have by basic properties of the holonomy \[3.20\] h\_[t,x]{}(A\^):=(h\_[e\_[t,x]{}]{}(A\^))\^[-1]{} h\_[e’\_[t,x]{}]{}(A\^) By the very definition of the holonomy of a connection along a path (\[3.18a\]) we find with the parameterization $c_{t,x}(s)=x+s,\;s\in
[0,2\pi)$ \[3.21\] \_x h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)=\[h\_[t,x]{}(A\^),A\_x(t,x)\] On the other hand we have \[3.22\] \_t h\_[t,x]{}(A\^) &=& \_[0]{} (h\_[t+,x]{}(A\^)-h\_[t,x]{}(A\^))\
&=& \_[0]{} (h\_[e\_[,t,x]{}]{}(A\^)\^[-1]{}\[h\_[e\_[,t,x]{}]{}(A\^) h\_[t+,x]{}(A\^)\]-h\_[t,x]{}(A\^))\
&=& \_[0]{} (h\_[e\_[,t,x]{}]{}(A\^)\^[-1]{}\[h\_[t,x]{}(A\^) h\_[e\_[,t,x]{}]{}(A\^)\] -h\_[t,x]{}(A\^))\
&=& \[h\_[t,x]{},A\^\_t(t,x)\] where $e_{\epsilon,t,x}(s)=(t+s,x),\;s\in[0,\epsilon]$. Here we have used that the loop $c_{t,x}\circ e_{\epsilon,t,x} \circ c_{t+\epsilon,x}^{-1}
\circ e_{\epsilon,t,x}^{-1}$ is contractible and the zero curvature condition in the third step.
Conversely, postulating equations (\[3.21\]) and (\[3.22\]) we discover, using the Jacobi identity \[3.23\] 2\_[\[]{} \_[\]]{} h\_[t,x]{}(A\^) =\[h\_[t,x]{}(A\^),F\^\_[,]{}\] where $F^\pm$ is the curvature of $A^\pm$. Hence the zero curvature condition is the integrability condition for the equations $\partial_\alpha h_{t,x}(A^\pm)=[h_{t,x}(A^\pm),A^\pm_\alpha(t,x)]$.
We now claim that for any $n\le N$ the functions \[3.24\] T\^n\_[t,x]{}(A\^):=\_N(\[h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)\]\^n) are independent of both $x,t$. This follows immediately from (\[3.21\]) and (\[3.22\]) as well as the cyclicity of the trace. What is, however, even more remarkable is that (\[3.24\]) has vanishing Poisson brackets with $H(u,v)$ [*for all $u,v$*]{} even though $A^\pm_t=(v\pm u) A^\pm_x$ depends explicitly on $u,v$. The reason for this is that $A_x^\pm$ is actually independent of $u,v$ and that the dependence of the time evolution of $h_{t,x}(A^\pm)$ consists just in a prefactor \[3.25\] \_t h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)=(vu)\_x h\_[t,x]{}(A\^) and the second factor in (\[3.25\]) is independent of $u,v$. More precisely we have \[3.26\] {H(u,v),h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)} &=& \_[S\^1]{} dy{H(u,v),Y\^\_(t,y)}\
&=:& \_[S\^1]{} dy\
&=& \_t h\_[t,x]{}(A\^) One can of course verify by direct computation from the expression (\[3.18\]) that the $T^n(A^\pm)$ are Dirac observables for the string.
Since we can trade the power $n\le N$ for considering increasing rank $N$ of the matrices $\tau_I$ the only interesting invariant is the generating functional \[3.27\] Z\^T\_:=T\^1(A\^)=N+\_[n=1]{}\^ Z\_\^[\_1..\_N]{} where $T^\mu=T^\mu_I \tau^I$ and we have used the expansion (\[3.18\]). It is understood that $N$ can be arbitrarily large and that the complex matrices $T^\mu\in GL(N,\Cl)$ are freely specificable while $Z^T_\pm$ is an invariant. Thus we conclude that the expansion coefficients are themselves invariants. These are the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} \[3.28\] Z\_\^[\_1..\_N]{} &=& \[R\^[\_1..\_N]{}(x)+R\^[\_2..\_N \_1]{}(x)+.. +R\^[\_N \_1..\_[N-1]{}]{}(x)\]\
R\_\^[\_1..\_N]{}(x) &=& \_x\^[x+2]{} dx\_1\_[x\_1]{}\^[x+2]{} dx\_2..\_[x\_[N-1]{}]{}\^[2+2]{} dx\_N Y\^[\_1]{}\_(x\_1).. Y\^[\_N]{}\_(x\_N)\
&=:& \_[xx\_1 ..x\_N x+2]{} d\^Nx Y\^[\_1]{}\_(x\_1)..Y\^[\_N]{}\_(x\_N) The functionals $R^{(N)}_\pm(x)$ depend explicitly on $x$, they are not invariants. It is only after cyclic summation $C_N\cdot R^{(N)}_\pm=
Z^{(N)}_\pm$ that they become invariants.
The [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} exepectedly form a complicated, closed subalgebra of the full Poisson algebra of the string. We just quote the result and refer the reader to the literature [@6; @16; @7; @17; @15]. One finds after a lot of algebra \[3.29\] && {Z\_\^[\_1..\_M]{},Z\_\^[\_1..\_N]{}}=0\
&& {Z\_\^[\_1..\_M]{},Z\_\^[\_1..\_N]{}}= 2’\_[m=1]{}\^M \_[n=1]{}\^N\^[\_m\_n]{}\
&& \[S\_[\_[m+2]{}..\_[m-1]{};\_[n+1]{}..\_[n-2]{}]{} Z\_\^[\_[m+1]{}..\_[m-1]{} \_[n+1]{}..\_[n-1]{}]{} - S\_[\_[m+1]{}..\_[m-2]{};\_[n+2]{}..\_[n-1]{}]{} Z\_\^[\_[n+1]{}..\_[n-1]{} \_[m+1]{}..\_[m-1]{}]{} \] Here the symbol $S_{a_1.. a_m;b_1..b_n}$ denotes the shuffle operator on multi – indexes, that is, it imposes summation over all permutations of the $a_1,..,a_m,b_1,..,b_n$ such that $a_k$ is always to the left of $a_l$ for $1\le k\le l \le m$ and such that $b_k$ is always to the left of $b_l$ for $1\le k\le l \le n$, ie. the sequence of the indices $a_1,..,a_m$ and $b_1,..,b_n$ remains unaltered. They even form a $^\ast-$algebra, namely \[3.30\] && (Z\_\^[\_1..\_M]{})\^:== Z\_\^[\_1..\_M]{}\
&& Z\_\^[\_1..\_M]{} Z\_\^[\_[M+1]{}..\_[M+N]{}]{} = C\_Nwhere the cyclic summation acts on the $\mu_1,..,\mu_N$ only. Notice the relations $p^\mu=Z^\mu_\pm$ and \[3.31\] {p\^,Z\_\^[\_1..\_N]{}}={Z\^\_,Z\_\^[\_1..\_N]{}}=0
As one can show, together with $J^{\mu\nu}$ the invariants $Z_\pm$ provide a [**complete**]{} system of invariants for the string in the sense that one can reconstruct $X^\mu(t,x)$ up to gauge transformations (parameterizations) and up to translations in the direction of $p^\mu$. Unfortunately, the invariants $Z_\pm$ are not algebraically independent, that is, they are overcomplete because there are polynomial relations between them. However, it is possible to construct so – called [*standard invariants*]{} [@6; @16] of which all the $Z_\pm$ are polynomials. Although we do not need them for what follows we will briefly sketch their definition in order to summarize the state of the art of Pohlmeyer’s algebraic approach to string theory.
The first step is to consider the logarithm of the monodromy matrix by means of the identity \[3.32\] h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)=((h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)))=\_[k=0]{}\^ \[(h\_[t,x]{}(A\^))\]\^k Close to $T_\mu=0$ or $h_{t,x}(A^\pm)=1_N$ we can expand the logarithm as for $|x-1|<1$ \[3.33\] (x)=(1-(1-x))=-\_[n=1]{}\^ (1-x)\^n =\_[n=1]{}\^ (x-1)\^n so that \[3.34\] \[(x)\]\^k=\_[n=k]{}\^c\_[kn]{} (x-1)\^n for certain coefficients $c_{kn}$ satisfying $c_{kn}=0$ for $k>n$. Noting that \[3.35\] h\_[t,x]{}(A\^)-1\_N=\_[M=1]{}\^R\_\^[\_1..\_M]{} T\_[\_1]{}..T\_[\_M]{} we see that the coefficients $R_{\pm,k}$ of \[3.36\] \[(h\_[t,x]{}(A\^))\]\^k=\_[n=k]{}\^ R\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{} T\_[\_1]{}..T\_[\_n]{} are given by polynomomials of the tensors $R_\pm$ of tensor rank $1\le
M\le n$ whose tensor ranks add up to $n$. Specifically they are given by the multi – shuffle – sums \[3.36a\] R\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{}=\_[m=k]{}\^n c\_[km]{} \_[0<a\_1<..<a\_[m-1]{}<n]{} R\^[\_1..\_[a\_1]{}]{}\_ R\^[\_[a\_1+1]{}..\_[a\_2]{}]{}\_.. R\^[\_[a\_[m-1]{}+1]{}..\_n]{}\_ They are therefore called the [*homogeneous*]{} tensors. The [*truncated*]{} tensors are simply \[3.37\] R\_[,t]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{}:=R\_[,k=1]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{} Their importance lies in the fact that one can write the $R_\pm$ in terms of the $R_{\pm,t}$ namely \[3.38\] R\_\^[\_1..\_n]{} &=& \_[k=1]{}\^n R\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{}\
R\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{} &=& \_[0<a\_1<..<a\_[k-1]{}<n]{} R\_[,t]{}\^[\_1..\_[a\_1]{}]{} R\_[,t]{}\^[\_[a\_1+1]{}..\_[a\_2]{}]{}.. R\_[,t]{}\^[\_[a\_[k-1]{}+1]{}..\_n]{} The first relation in (\[3.38\]) has a direct analog for the invariants themselves \[3.39\] Z\_\^[\_1..\_n]{} = \_[k=1]{}\^n Z\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{} Z\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{}=C\_n R\_[,k]{}\^[\_1..\_n]{} so that all invariants are polynomials in the truncated tensors.
We notice that the the homogeneous invariants $Z^{(n)}_{\pm,k}$ carry two gradings, the tensor rank $n\ge 0$ and the homogeneity degree $k\ge 0$. Under Poisson brackets these two gradings behave as follows \[3.40\] {Z\^[(n)]{}\_[,k]{},Z\^[(n’)]{}\_[,k’]{}}=Z\^[(n+n’-2)]{}\_[,k+k’-1]{} We can define a new grading degree $L:=n-k-1,\;n\ge k$, called the [*layer*]{}, which behaves additively under Poisson brackets \[3.41\] {Z\_(L),Z\_(L’)}=Z\_(L+L’) where $Z_\pm(L)$ is any linear combination of homogeneous invariants $Z^{(n)}_{\pm,k}$ such that $n-k-1=L$. Notice that the vector space $V_L$ of the $Z_\pm(L)$ is infinite dimensional for each finite $L$.
Consider now the layer $V_L$. It contains the following [*standard invariants*]{} \[3.42\] Z\^[0,..,0,a,\_2,..,\_[l+1]{},b]{}\_[,L+1]{} where $a,b=1,..D-1$ are spacelike tensor components and the first $L$ tensor components are zero (timelike). One can show [@15] that these standard invariants, together with $p_\mu$, define an [ *algebraic basis*]{} for the string, that is, they are polynomially independent and all other invariants are polynomials of those.
Remarkably, almost all standard invariants of the layers $L\ge 2$ can be obtained by multiple Poisson brackets of the layers $L=0,1$ (the layer $L=-1$ are the momentum components $p_\mu$ which are the central elements of the invariant algebra). In each layer with $L$ odd one finds so – called [*exceptional elements*]{} \[3.43\] Z\^[00..0 ]{}\_[,2]{} with $L$ zeroes in between $\mu,\nu$ which cannot be generated via Poisson brackets from the $L=0,1$ standard invariants. In an incredible computational effort it has been verified that up to layer $L=7$ in $D=3$ that the exceptional elements are the only such invariants which cannot be generated. It is assumed, but has not been proved yet, that the [*quadratic generation hypothesis*]{} holds, namely that the standard invariants of the first two layers $L=0,1$ together with the infinite number of exceptional elements from the odd layers generate the full algebra of invariants via multiple Poisson brackets (the name “quadratic” is due to the fact that the exceptional elements (\[3.43\]) have homogeneity degree $k=2$).
Let us assume that the quadratic generation hypothesis holds and denote by $\mathfrak{G}$ the vector space of generators of the full algebra $\mathfrak{Z}$ of invariants. A given invariant in $\mathfrak{Z}$ can, however, be written in many ways as a linear combination of multiple Poisson brackets between elements from $\mathfrak{G}$, for instance, due to the Jacobi identity for the Poisson bracket, but there are even more relations as one can see by computing the number of standard invariants in each layer $L$ and the number of possible Poisson brackets between generators with range in that layer. In other words, the vector space $\mathfrak{G}$ does not generate $\mathfrak{Z}$ freely. Denote by $S(\mathfrak{G})$ the symmetric (i.e. commuting under the tensor product) envelopping Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{G}$ and by $\mathfrak{J}\subset S(\mathfrak{G})$ the ideal generated by these polynomial relations between multiple Poisson brackets. Then $\mathfrak{Z}=S(\mathfrak{G})/\mathfrak{J}$.
Pohlmeyer’s programme to quantize the string algebraically now consists in the construction of the universal (i.e. non – commutating under the tensor product) envelopping algebra $\hat{U}(\mathfrak{G})$ of $\mathfrak{G}$ quotiented by a quantum ideal $\widehat{\mathfrak{J}}$. The quantum ideal roughly arises from the classical one by replacing Poisson brackets by commutators divided by $i\hbar$ with symmetric ordering, whereby higher order (in $\hbar$) quantum corrections are allowed. These corrections have to be chosen [*self – consistently*]{} in such a way that the number of quantum relations is the same as the number of classical relations in order that both classical and quantum theory have the same number of degrees of freedom. Due to the non – commutativity of quantum theory it might happen that commutators between quantum relations and quantum generators produce [*anomalies*]{}, that is, new relations without classical counterpart. Again, in an enormous compuational effort it has been shown in $D=4$ that there are suitable non – anomalous choices for the quantum relations up to layer five.
It appears hopelessly difficult to complete this programme to all layers. However, recently [@16] there has been made important progress in this respect: It is possible to identify $\mathfrak{Z}$ as the kernel of a larger algebra $S(\mathfrak{R})$ without relations under a suitable derivation $\partial_x:\;S(\mathfrak{R})\to \Rl^D\times S(\mathfrak{R})$ where $\mathfrak{R}$ stands for a set of generators (constructed from the truncated tensors) larger than $\mathfrak{G}$. One then quantizes, like in BRST quantization, a quantum derivation $\delta$ on the universal envelopping algebra $\hat{U}(\mathfrak{R})$ of $\mathfrak{R}$ and defines the quantum algebra as the kernel of $\delta$. This takes, self-consistently, care of all quantum relations in all layers in [*a single stroke*]{}.\
\
\
We hope to have given a useful and fair introduction to the [**Pohlmeyer String**]{}. The outstanding problems in this programme are 1. the proof of the quadratic generation hypothesis and 2. the proof that the final quantum algebra $\widehat{\mathfrak{Z}}$ of invariants has interesting representations. Notice that the approach is completely intrinsic, it is a [*quantization after solving the constraints*]{} because one works on the reduced phase space of the unsconstrained phase space and seeks a quantization of the corresponding Dirac observables.
For the LQG string we proceed differently, namely we adopt Dirac’s programme of [*solving the constraints after quantizing*]{}. This means, in particular, that we have to introduce a kinematical, that is, unphysical algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ of observables which contains the [ **Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} as certain limits. We define the representation theory of $\mathfrak{A}$, taking care of the quantum constraints by methods of LQG and AQFT and then define physically interesting representations as those which support the [**Quantum Pohlmeyer Charges**]{}. This presents an alternative route to quantizing $\mathfrak{Z}$.\
\
Let us clarify this difference between the two programmes: In Pohlmeyer’s programme one starts directly from the classical Poisson algebra of invariant charges. One then seeks for representations of the corresponding quantum algebra which may involve $\hbar$ corrections. In this intrinsic approach it is important that the quantum corrections are again polynomials of the charge operators because it is only those that one quantizes. Moreover, one must make sure that there are no anomalies in the corresponding quantum ideal. This is a very difficult programme because the charge algebra is very complicated and it is not a priori clear that the infinitely many consistency conditions among the quantum corrections are satisfied. However, modulo establishing the quadratic generation hypothesis, appropriate quantum corrections can be found and one is left with the problem of finding irreducible rpresentations. This is even more difficult given the expectedly difficult structure of the quantum corrections. In this paper we will take a much less ambitious approach which bears a lot of similarity with the proposal of [@16]: Namely, we start with a fundamental algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ which is much simpler but also much larger than the extended algebra considered in [@16] and seek representations of that. The quantum algebra $\widehat{\mathfrak{Z}}$ is then a derived object. The advantage is that the quantum corrections for $\mathfrak{Z}$ that we necessarily get are not supposed to be generated by elements of $\mathfrak{Z}$ again, rather they may be generated from elements of $\mathfrak{A}$ which is clearly the case. Moreover, the quantum ideal corresponding to $\mathfrak{A}$ is much simpler, in fact it is rather standard in AQFT. This not only simplifies the algebraic problem tremendously but also the representation theory. The only thing that one has to make sure is that the quantum corrections really vanish in the classical limit.
Operator Algebras and Algebraic Quantum Field Theory {#s4}
====================================================
We include this section only as background material for the unfamiliar reader, see e.g. [@18] for further information. Everything that we summarize here is standard knowledge in mathematical physics and can be safely skipped by the experts.
- [*Operator Algebras*]{}\
An algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ is simply a vector space over $\Cl$ in which there is defined an associative and distributive multiplication. It is unital if there is a unit [**1**]{} which satisfies $a\mbox{{\bf 1}}=\mbox{{\bf 1}}a=a$ for all $a\in \mathfrak{A}$. It is a $^\ast-$algebra if there is defined an involution satisfying $(ab)^\ast=b^\ast a^\ast,\;(a^\ast)^\ast=a$ which reduces to complex conjugation on the scalars $z\in \Cl$.
A Banach algebra is an algebra with norm $a\mapsto ||a||\in \Rl^+$ which satisfies the usual axioms $||a+b||\le ||a||+||b||,\;||ab||\le ||a||\;||b||,\;||za||=|z|\;||a||,\;
||a||=0\;\; \Leftrightarrow \;\;a=0$ and with respect to which it is complete.
A $C^\ast-$algebra is a Banach $^\ast-$algebra whose norm satisfies the $C^\ast-$property $||a^\ast a||=||a||^2$ for all $a\in \mathfrak{A}$. Physicists are most familiar with the $C^\ast-$algebra ${\cal B}({\cal H})$ of bounded operators on a Hilbert space $\cal H$.
- [*Representations*]{}\
A representation of a $^\ast-$algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ is a pair $({\cal
H},\pi)$ consisting of a Hilbert space $\cal H$ and a morphism $\pi:\;\mathfrak{A}\to {\cal L}({\cal H})$ into the algebra of linear (not necessarily bounded) operators on $\cal H$ with common and invariant dense domain. This means that $\pi(za+z'a')=z\pi(a)+z'\pi(a'),\; \pi(ab)=\pi(a)\pi(b),\;
\pi(a^\ast)=[\pi(a)]^\dagger$ where $^\dagger$ denotes the adjoint in $\cal H$.
The representation is said to be faithful if Ker$\pi=\{0\}$ and non – degenerate if $\pi(a)\psi=0$ for all $a\in \mathfrak{A}$ implies $\psi=0$.
A representation is said to be cyclic if there exists a normed vector $\Omega\in {\cal H}$ in the common domain of all the $a\in \mathfrak{A}$ such that $\pi(\mathfrak{A})\Omega$ is dense in $\cal H$. Notice that the existence of a cyclic vector implies that the states $\pi(b)\Omega,\;b\in
\mathfrak{A}$ lie in the common dense and invariant domain for all $\pi(a),\; a\in
\mathfrak{A}$. A representation is said to be irreducible if every vector in a common dense and invariant (for $\mathfrak{A}$) domain is cyclic.
- [*States*]{}\
A state on a $^\ast-$algebra is a linear functional $\omega:\;\mathfrak{A}\to \Cl$ which is positive, that is, $\omega(a^\ast a)\ge 0$ for all $a\in \mathfrak{A}$. If $\mathfrak{A}$ is unital we require that $\omega(\mbox{{\bf 1}})=1$. The states that physicists are most familiar with are vector states, that is, if we are given a representation $({\cal H},\pi)$ and an element $\psi$ in the common domain of all the $a\in \mathfrak{A}$ then $a\mapsto
<\psi,\pi(a)\psi>_{{\cal H}}$ evidently defines a state. These are examples of pure states, i.e. those which cannot be written as convex linear combinations of other states. However, the concept of states is much more general and includes what physicists would call mixed (or temperature) states.
- [*Automorphisms*]{}\
An automorphism of a $^\ast-$algebra is an isomorphism of $\mathfrak{A}$ which is compatible with the algebraic structure. If $G$ is a group then $G$ is said to be represented on $\mathfrak{A}$ by a group of automorphisms $\alpha:\;G\to \mbox{Aut}(\mathfrak{A});\;g\mapsto \alpha_g$ provided that $\alpha_g\circ \alpha_{g'}=\alpha_{gg'}$ for all $g,g'\in G$. A state $\omega$ on $\mathfrak{A}$ is said to be invariant for an automorphism $\alpha$ provided that $\omega\circ \alpha=\omega$. It is said to be invariant for $G$ if it is invariant for all $\alpha_g,\;g\in G$.
The following two structural theorems combine the notions introduced above and are of fundamental importance for the construction and analysis of representations.
\[th4.1\] \
Let $\omega$ be a state on a unital $^\ast-$algebra $\mathfrak{A}$. Then there are GNS data $({\cal H}_\omega,\pi_\omega,\Omega_\omega)$ consisting of a Hilbert space ${\cal H}_\omega$, a cyclic representation $\pi_\omega$ of $\mathfrak{A}$ on ${\cal H}_\omega$ and a normed, cyclic vector $\Omega_\omega\in {\cal H}_\omega$ such that \[4.1\] (a)=<\_,\_(a)\_>\_[[H]{}\_]{} Moreover, the GNS data are determined by (\[4.1\]) uniquely up to unitary equivalence.
The name GNS stands for Gel’fand – Naimark – Segal. The idea is very simple. The algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ is in particular a vector space and we can equip it with a sesqui – linear form $<a,b>:=\omega(a^\ast b)$. This form is not necessarily positive definite. However, by exploiting the Cauchy – Schwarz inequality $|\omega(a^\ast b)|^2\le
\omega(a^\ast a)\omega(b^\ast b)$ one convinces oneself that the set $\mathfrak{I}_\omega$ consisting of the elements of $\mathfrak{A}$ satisfying $\omega(a^\ast a)=0$ defines a left ideal. We can thus pass to the equivalence classes $[a]=\{a+b;\;b\in \mathfrak{I}_\omega\}$ and define a positive definite scalar product by $<[a],[b]>:=\omega(a^\ast b)$ for which one checks independence of the representative. Since $\mathfrak{I}_\omega$ is a left ideal one checks that $[a]+[b]:=[a+b],\;z[a]:=[za],\;[a][b]:=[ab]$ are well defined operations. Then ${\cal H}_\omega$ is simply the Cauchy completion of the vectors $[a]$, the representation is simply $\pi_\omega(a)[b]:=[ab]$ and the cyclic vector is just given by $\Omega_\omega:=[\mbox{{\bf 1}}]$. Finally, if $({\cal H}'_\omega,\pi'_\omega,\Omega'_\omega)$ are other GNS data then the operator $U:\;{\cal H}_\omega\to {\cal H}'_\omega$ defined densely by $U\pi_\omega(a)\Omega_\omega:=\pi'_\omega(a)\Omega'_\omega$ is unitary.
\[th4.2\] \
Let $\omega$ be a state over a unital $^\ast-$algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ which is invariant for an element $\alpha\in\mbox{Aut}(\mathfrak{A})$. Then there exists a uniquely determined unitary operator $U_\omega$ on the GNS Hilbert space ${\cal H}_\omega$ such that \[4.2\] U\_\_(a)\_=\_((a))\_
The proof follows from the uniqueness part of theorem \[th4.1\] applied to the alternative data $({\cal H}_\omega,\pi_\omega\circ \alpha,\Omega_\omega)$.
\[col4.1\] \
Let $\omega$ be a $G-$invariant state on a unital $^\ast-$algebra. Then there is a unitary representation $g\mapsto U_\omega(g)$ of $G$ on the GNS Hilbert space ${\cal H}_\omega$ defined by \[4.3\] U\_(g)\_(a)\_:= \_(\_g(a))\_where $g\mapsto\alpha_g$ is the corresponding automorphism group.
Notice that this means that the group $G$ is represented [*without anomalies*]{}, that is, there are e.g. no central extensions with non – vanishing obstruction cocycle.
An important concept in connection with a state $\omega$ is its [*folium*]{}. This is defined as the set of states $\omega_\rho$ on $\mathfrak{A}$ defined by \[4.4\] \_(a):= where $\rho$ is a positive trace class operator on the GNS Hilbert space ${\cal H}_\omega$.
If $\mathfrak{A}$ is not only a unital $^\ast-$algebra but in fact a $C^\ast-$algebra then there are many more structural theorems available. For instance one can show, using the Hahn – Banach theorem that representations always exist, that every non – degenerate representation is a direct sum of cyclic representations and that every state is continuous so that the GNS representations are always by bounded operators. While the $C^\ast-$norm implies this huge amount of extra structure, a reasonable $C^\ast-$norm on a $^\ast-$algebra is usually very hard to guess unless one actually constructs a representation by bounded operators. We have thus chosen to keep with the more general concept of $^\ast-$algebras.\
\
\
In AQFT [@3] one uses the mathematical framework of operator algebras, the basics of which we just sketched and combines it with the physical concept of locality of nets of local algebras ${\cal O}\mapsto\mathfrak{A}({\cal O})$. That is, given a background spacetime $(M,\eta)$ consisting of a differentiable $D-$manifold and a background metric $\eta$, for each open region $\cal O$ one assigns a $C^\ast-$algebra $\mathfrak{A}({\cal O})$. These are mutually (anti)commuting for spacelike separated (with respect to $\eta$) regions. This is the statement of the most important one of the famous Haag – Kastler axioms. The framework is ideally suited to formulate and prove all of the structural theorems of QFT on Minkowski space and even to a large extent on curved spaces [@19]. In AQFT one cleanly separates two steps of quantizing a field theory, namely first to define a suitable algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ and then to study its representations in a second step.
In what follows we apply this framework to the bosonic string. However, since the string is a worldsheet background independent theory, we must use a background independent quantization scheme similar to the programme sketched in section \[s3\]. In particular, we must extend the framework just presented as to deal with constraints.
Elements from Loop Quantum Gravity {#s5}
==================================
LQG is a canonical approach towards quantum gravity based on Dirac’s quantization programme for field theories’s with constraints. The canonical approach is ideally suited to constructing background metric independent representations of the canonical commutation relations as is needed e.g. in quantum gravity. We will describe this programme in some detail below, again experts can safely skip this section. As we will see, in its modern form Dirac’s programme uses some elements of the theory of operator algebras and AQFT but what is different from AQFT is that the canonical approach is, by definition, a quantum theory of the initial data, that is, operator valued distributions are smeared with test functions supported in $(D-1)-$dimensional slices rather than $D-$dimensional regions. This is usually believed to be a bad starting point in AQFT because of the singular behaviour of the $n-$point Wightman distributions of interacting scalar fields in perturbation theory when smeared with “test functions” supported in lower dimensional submanifolds. The way out of this “no-go theorem” is twofold: 1. In usual perturbation theory one uses very specific (Weyl) algebras and corresponding Fock representations to formulate the canonical commutation relations but the singular behaviour might be different for different algebras and their associated representations. 2. In a reparameterization invariant theory such as General Relativity or string theory all observables are by definition time independent, see e.g. the [ **Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} constructed above, so that smearing in the additional time direction just multiplies the observables with a constant and thus does not change their singularity structure.
As a pay – off, in contrast to AQFT the framework of LQG does not need a background spacetime as we will see below.\
\
\
We assume to be given a (possibly infinite dimensional) phase space $\cal M$ with a Poisson bracket $\{.,.\}$ (technically a strong symplectic structure). Furthermore, we assume to be given a set of first class constraints $C_I$ on $\cal M$ which we take to be real valued w.l.g. (pass to real and imaginary part if necessary). Here the index set ${\cal I}$ in which the indices $I$ take values can be taken to be discrete. This seems not to be the most general situation because e.g. in the case of the string we have the continuous label $x\in S^1$, e.g. for the constraints $C(x)$, however, the constraints always must be smeared with test functions. In fact, let $b_I$ be an orthonormal basis of smooth functions of $L_2(S^1,dx/(2\pi))$ (e.g. $b_I(x)=\exp(iIx),\;I\in\Zl$) and define $C_I:=<b_I,C>$. Then $C_I=0\;\forall I$ is equivalent with $C(x)=0$ for a.a. $x\in S^1$ and since $C(x)$ is classically a continuous function it follows that $C(x)=0$ for all $x\in S^1$. That the constraints be first class means that there are structure functions $f_{IJ}\;^K$ on $\cal M$ (not necessarily independent of $\cal M$) such that $\{C_I,C_J\}=f_{IJ}\;^K C_K$. We may also have a Hamiltonian $H$ (not a linear combination of the $C_I$) which is supposed to be gauge invariant, that is, $\{C_I,H\}=0$ for all $I$.
Given this set – up, the Canonical Quantization Programme consists, roughly, of the following steps:
- [*Kinematical Poisson Algebra $\mathfrak{P}$ and Kinematical Algebra $\mathfrak{A}$*]{}\
The first choice to be made is the selection of a suitable Poisson$^\ast$ subalgebra of $C^\infty({\cal M})$. This means that we must identify a subset of functions $f\in C^\infty({\cal M})$ which is closed under complex conjugation and Poisson brackets and which separates the points of $\cal M$. This choice is guided by gauge invariance, that is, the functions $f$ should have a simple behaviour under the gauge transformations generated by the Hamiltonian vector fields of the $C_I$ on $\cal M$. At this point it is not important that $\mathfrak{P}$ consists of bounded functions. However, when promoting $\mathfrak{P}$ to an operator algebra, it will be convenient to choose bounded functions of the elements $p$ of $\mathfrak{P}$, say the usual Weyl elements $W=\exp(itp),\; t\in \Rl$, and to define the algebra of the $W$ to be given by formally imposing the canonical commutation relations among the $p$, namely that commutators are given by $i\hbar$ times the Poisson bracket and that the operators corresponding to real valued $p$ are self-adjoint. This has the advantage of resulting in bounded operators $W$ which avoids domain questions later on. We will denote the resulting $^\ast-$algebra generated by the operators $W$ by $\mathfrak{A}$.
- [*Representation Theory of $\mathfrak{A}$*]{}\
We study the representation theory of $\mathfrak{A}$, that is, all $^\ast-$algebra morphisms $\pi:\;\mathfrak{A}\to {\cal B}({\cal H}_{Kin})$ where ${\cal B}({\cal H}_{Kin})$ denotes the $C^\ast-$algebra of bounded operators on a kinematical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{Kin}$. In particular, \[5.1\] (|[f]{})=\[(f)\]\^,=i({f,f’}) and the corresponding (Weyl) relations for the exponentiated elements. Guiding principles here are again gauge invariance and (weak) continuity. Moreover, the representation should be irreducible on physical grounds (otherwise we have superselection sectors implying that the physically relevant information is already captured in a closed subspace). Operator algebra theoretic methods such as the GNS construction are of great importance here.
- [*Selection of a suitable kinematical representation*]{}\
Among all possible representations $\pi$ we are, of course, only interested in those which support the constraints $C_I$ as operators. Since, by assumption, $\mathfrak{A}$ separates the points of $\cal M$ it is possible to write every $C_I$ as a function of the $f\in \mathfrak{A}$, however, that function is far from unique due to operator ordering ambiguities and in field theory usually involves a limiting procedure (regularization and renormalization). We must make sure that the resulting limiting operators $\pi(C_I)$ are densely defined and closable (i.e. their adjoints are also densely defined) on a suitable domain of ${\cal H}_{Kin}$. This step usually severely restricts the abundance of representations. Alternatively, in rare cases it is possible to quantize the finite gauge transformations generated by the classical constraints provided they exponentiate to a group. This is actually what we will do in this paper.
- [*Solving the Quantum Constraints*]{}\
There are essentially two different strategies for solving the constraints, the first one is called “Group Averaging” and the second one is called “Direct Integral Decomposition”. The first method makes additional assumtions about the structure of the quantum constraint algebra while the second does not and is therefore of wider applicability.
For “Group Averaging” [@19a] the first assumption is that the $\pi(C_I)$ are actually self-adjoint operators on ${\cal H}_{Kin}$ and that the structure functions $f_{IJ}\;^K$ are actually constants on $\cal M$. In this case, under suitable functional analytic assumptions we can define the unitary operators \[5.2\] U(t):=(i\_I t\^I (C\_I)) where the parameters take range in a subset of $\Rl$ depending on the $\pi(C_I)$ in such a way that the $U(t)$ define a unitary representation of the Lie group $G$ determined by the Lie algebra generators $C_I$. In particular, this means that there is no anomaly, i.e. $[\pi(C_I),\pi(C_J)]=i\hbar f_{IJ}\;^K \pi(C_K)$. The second assumption is that $G$ has an invariant (not necessarily finite) bi – invariant Haar measure $\mu_H$. In this case we may define an anti-linear rigging map \[5.3\] :\_[Kin]{}\_[Phys]{}; \_G d\_H(t) <U(t),.>\_[[H]{}\_[Kin]{}]{} with physical inner product \[5.4\] <(),(’)>\_[[H]{}\_[Phys]{}]{}:=\[(’)\]() Notice that $\rho(\psi)$ defines a distribution on (a dense subset of) ${\cal H}_{Kin}$ and solves the constraints in the sense that $[\rho(\psi)](U(t)\psi')=[\rho(\psi)](\psi')$ for all $t\in G$. Moreover, given any kinematical algebra element $O\in \mathfrak{A}$ we may define a corresponding Dirac observable by \[5.5\] \[O\]:=\_G d\_H(t)U(t) O U(t)\^[-1]{}
Let us now come to the “Direct Integral Method” [@9a; @13a]. Here we do not need to assume that the $\pi(C_I)$ are self-adjoint. Also the structure functions $f_{IJ}\;^K$ may have non-trivial dependence on $\cal M$. In contrast to the string, this is actually the case in 4D General Relativity and for higher p – brane theories which is why only this method is available there. Let us now consider an operator valued positive definite matrix $\hat{Q}^{IJ}$ such that the $\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Master\;\;Constraint\;\;
Operator}}}$ \[5.6\] :=\_[I,J]{} \[(C\_I)\]\^\_[IJ]{} \[(C\_J)\] is densely defined. Obvious candidates for $\hat{Q}_{IJ}$ are quantizations $\pi(Q^{IJ})$ of postive definite ${\cal M}-$valued matrices with suitable decay behaviour in ${\cal I}-$space. Then, since $\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\widehat{\mathsf{M}}}}$ is positive by construction it has self-adjoint extensions (e.g. its Friedrichs extension [@12]) and its spectrum is supported on the positive real line. Let $\lambda^{\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}}_0=\inf \sigma(\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\widehat{\mathsf{M}}}})$ be the minimum of the spectrum of $\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\widehat{\mathsf{M}}}}$ and redefine $\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\widehat{\mathsf{M}}}}$ by $\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\widehat{\mathsf{M}}}}-\lambda^{\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}}_0\mbox{id}_{{\cal H}_{Kin}}$. Notice that $\lambda^{\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}}_0<\infty$ by assumption and proportional to $\hbar$ by construction. We now use the well-known fact that ${\cal H}_{Kin}$, if separable, can be represented as a direct integral of Hilbert spaces \[5.7\] [H]{}\_[Kin]{}\_[\^+]{}\^d() [ H]{}\^\_[Kin]{}() where $\operatorname{\boldsymbol{\widehat{\mathsf{M}}}}$ acts on ${\cal H}^\oplus_{Kin}(\lambda)$ by multiplication by $\lambda$. The measure $\mu$ and the scalar product on ${\cal H}^\oplus_{Kin}(\lambda)$ are induced by the scalar product on ${\cal H}_{Kin}$. The physical Hilbert space is then simply ${\cal H}_{Phys}:={\cal H}^\oplus_{Kin}(0)$ and Dirac observables are now constructed from bounded self-adjoint operators $O$ on ${\cal H}_{Kin}$ by the [*ergodic mean*]{} \[5.8\] \[O\]=\_[T]{} \_[-T]{}\^Tdt e\^[it]{} O e\^[-it]{} and they induce bounded self-adjoint operators on ${\cal H}_{Phys}$.
Notice that both methods can be combined. Indeed, it may happen that a subset of the constraints can be solved by group averaging methods while the remainder can only be solved by direct integral decomposition methods. In this case, one will construct an intermdediate Hilbert space which the first set of constraints annihilates and which carries a representation of the second set of constraints. This is actually the procedure followed in LQG and it will be convenient to do adopt this “solution in two steps” for the string as well in our companion paper [@11] for curved target spaces. For the purposes of this paper, group averaging will be sufficient.
- [*Classical Limit*]{}\
Notice that our construction is entirely non-perturbative, there are no (at least not necessarily) Fock spaces and there is no perturbative expansion (Feynman diagrammes) even if the theory is interacting. While this is attractive, the prize to pay is that the representation ${\cal H}_{Kin}$ to begin with and also the final physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{Phys}$ will in general be far removed from any physical intuition. Hence, we must make sure that what we have constructed is not just some mathematical object but has, at the very least, the classical theory as its classical limit. In particular, if classical Dirac observables are known, then the quantum Dirac observables (\[5.8\]) and (\[5.8\]) should reduce to them in the classical limit. To address such questions one must develop suitable semiclassical tools.
We see that the construction of the quantum field theory in AQFT as well as in LQG is nicely separated: First one constructs the algebra and then its representations. What is new in LQG is that it also provides a framework for dealing with constraints. Now LQG is more than just offering a framework, this framework has been carried out systematically with quite some success, so far until step IV, see e.g. [@2] for exhaustive reports. That is, not only did one pick a suitable kinematical algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ but also constructed a non-trivial representation thereof by use of the GNS construction which moreover supports the quantum constraints. In what follows we will apply this programme systematically to the closed, bosonic string on flat backgrounds. Due to the flatness of the backgorund and the fact that the constraints close with structure constants rather than structure functions we can carry out our programme rather effortlessly in a novel representation that is not available in LQG. In our companion paper [@11] we will stick closer to the kind of representations used in LQG.
The Closed, Bosonic LQG – String on Flat Target Spaces {#s6}
======================================================
We can now finally pick up the fruits of our efforts and combine sections three through five to construct the LQG – String. We will do this by systematically following the canonical quantization programme.
General Representation Problem {#s6.1}
------------------------------
Before we go into details, let us state the general representation problem:\
\
In view of the the theory of invariants of section \[s3\] we take as our classical Poisson $^\ast-$subalgebra $\mathfrak{P}$ the algebra of the $Y_\pm(f)$ of section \[s3\]. By varying the smooth smearing functions $f_\mu$ we can extract $\pi_\mu(x)$ as well as $X^{\mu\prime}(x)$ for all $x\in S^1$. Only a global constant $X^\mu_0$ remains undetermined. Furthermore, we include into $\mathfrak{P}$ the Lorentz generators $J_{\mu\nu}$ which allows us to extract $X^\mu_0$ up to the the translation freedom $X^\mu_0\to t\ell_s^2 p^\mu,\; t\in
\Rl$. This is the only information which we cannot extract from $\mathfrak{P}$ which is admissable in view of the fact that the physical invariants of the string do not depend on it. In this sense, $\mathfrak{P}$ seperates the points of the unconstrained phase space $\cal M$.
Next we construct from $\mathfrak{P}$ bounded functions on $\cal M$ which still separate the points and promote them to operators by asking that Poisson brackets and complex conjugation on $\mathfrak{P}$ be promoted to commutators divided by $i\hbar$ and the adjoint respectively. Denote the resulting $^\ast-$algebra by $\mathfrak{A}$.
The automorphism groups $\alpha^\pm_\varphi,\;\varphi\in \mbox{Diff}(S^1)$ generated by the Virasoro constraints as well as the Poincaré automorphism group $\alpha_{a,L}$ extend naturally from $\mathfrak{P}$ to $\mathfrak{A}$ simply by $\alpha_.(W(Y_\pm))=W(\alpha_.(Y_\pm))$. A general representation of $\mathfrak{A}$ should now be such that the automorphism groups $\alpha_.$ are represented by inner automorphisms, that is, by conjugation by unitary operators representating the corresponding group elements. Physically the representation property amounts to an anomaly – free implementation of both the local gauge group and the global symmetry group while unitarity implies that expectation values of gauge invariant or Poincaré invariant observables does not depend on the gauge or frame of the measuring state. Finally, the representation should be irreducible or at least cyclic.
As we have sketched in section \[s4\], a powerful tool to arrive at such representations is via the GNS construction. Hence we will be looking at representations that arise from a positive linear functional $\omega$ on $\mathfrak{A}$ which is invariant under all the automorphisms $\alpha_.$. Since $\mathfrak{A}$ is not (naturally) a $C^\ast-$algebra, this is not the most general representation but it is important subclass thereof.
These representations are still kinematical, that is, the corresponding GNS Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{Kin}:={\cal H}_\omega$ still represents $\mathfrak{A}$ and not only physical observables. To arrive at the physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{Phys}$ we make use of the group averaging method outlined in section \[s5\]:\
Let $\Phi_{Kin}:=\Phi_\omega$ be the dense subspace of ${\cal H}_\omega$ defined by the $\pi_\omega(a)\Omega_\omega,\;a\in \mathfrak{A}$. Let $\Phi^\ast_\omega$ be the algebraic dual of $\Phi_\omega$ (linear functionals without continuity requirements). Suppose that $\mu$ is a translation bi – invariant measure on Diff$(S^1)$ such that the following anti – linear map exists \[6.1\] \_:\_\_\^; \_(a)\_ \_[\[(S\^1)\]\^2]{} d(\^+) d(\^-) <U\_\^+(\^+)U\_\^-(\^-) \_(a)\_,.>\_[[H]{}\_]{} where we have used that the $U^+_\omega$ commute with the $U^-_\omega$. Consider the sesqui – linear form \[6.2\] &&<\_(\_(a)\_), \_(\_(b)\_)>\_[Phys]{}\
&:=& \[\_(\_(b)\_)\](\_(a)\_)\
&=& \_[\[(S\^1)\]\^2]{} d(\^+) d(\^-) <U\_\^+(\^+)U\_\^-(\^-) \_(b)\_,\_(a)\_>\_[[H]{}\_]{} Fortunately, the steps to rigorously define the rigging map (\[6.1\]) and the physical inner product (\[6.2\]) have been completed for a general theory already in [@24] so that we can simply copy those results. This concludes the definition of our general representation problem. We now pass to a specific choice for the kinematical algebra.
Concrete Implementation {#s6.2}
-----------------------
We now propose a particular choice of $\mathfrak{A}$ based on our experiences with background independent representations that proved useful in LQG [@2]. Then, rather than studying its general representation theory, we confine ourselves in this paper to constructing a specific positive linear functional and show that the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} can be defined on the corresponding physical Hilbert space in the sense of (\[6.2\]). This then proves that the programme outlined in section \[s6.1\] has non – trivial solutions.\
\
Let $I$ denote Borel subsets of $S^1$, that is, sets generated by countable intersections and unions from closed subsets of $[0,2\pi)$ (with periodic identifications). We consider instead of general smearing functions $f_\mu(x)$ the more specific ones \[6.5\] f\^[I,k]{}\_(x)=k\_\_I(x) where $k_\mu$ are real valued numbers with dimension cm$^{-1}$ and $\chi_I$ denotes the characteristic function of $I$. The corresponding smeared $Y^k_\epsilon(I):=Y_\epsilon(f^{I,k}),\;\epsilon=\pm 1$ satisfy the Poisson algebra \[6.6\] {Y\^k\_(I),Y\^[k’]{}\_[’]{}(I’)}= ’\_[,’]{}\^ k\_k’\_{\[\_I\]\_[I’]{}-\[\_[I’]{}\]\_[I]{}} =:’(,k,I;,k’,I’) where the boundary points in $\partial I$ of $I$ are signed according to whether they are right or left boundaries of closed intervals. The functionals $Y^k_\epsilon(I)$, together with the $J_{\mu\nu}$, evidently still separate the points of $\cal M$ and form a closed Poisson $^\ast-$subalgebra.
The kinematical quantum algebra will be generated from the [*Weyl elements*]{} \[6.7\] \^k\_(I):=e\^[i\^k\_(I)]{} for which we require canonical commutation relations induced from \[6.8\] [\[]{}\^k\_(I),\^[k’]{}\_[’]{}(I’)\]= i It follows from the Baker – Campbell – Hausdorff formula that \[6.9\] W\^k\_(I)W\^[k’]{}\_[’]{}(I’)= (-i\_s\^2(,k,I;,k’,I’)/2) (i\[Y\^k\_(I)+Y\^[k’]{}\_[’]{}(I’)\]) in particular, Weyl elements with $\epsilon\not=\epsilon'$ are commuting. Since \[6.10\] Y\^k\_(I)+Y\^[k’]{}\_(I’)= Y\^[k+k’]{}\_(II’)+Y\^[k]{}\_(I-I’)+Y\^[k’]{}\_(I’- I) we see that a general element of $\mathfrak{A}$ can be written as a finite, complex linear combinations of elements of the form \[6.11\] W\_+\^[k\_1..k\_M]{}(I\_1,..,I\_M) W\_-\^[l\_1..l\_N]{}(J\_1,..,J\_N) where \[6.12\] W\_\^[k\_1,..,k\_M]{}(I\_1,..,I\_M)=(i\[\_[m=1]{}\^M Y\^[k\_[m]{}]{}\_(I\_m)\]) where all the $I_m$ are non – empty and mutually non – overlapping (they intersect at most in boundary points). These considerations motivate the following definition.
\[def6.1\] \
i)\
A momentum network $s=(\gamma(s),k(s))$ is a pair consisting of a finite collection $\gamma(s)$ of non – empty and non – overlapping (up to boundary points) closed, oriented intervals $I$ of $S^1$, together with an assignment $k(s)$ of momenta $k_\mu^I(s)$ for each interval. We will use the notation $I\in \gamma$ if $I$ is an element of the collection of intervals $\gamma$ to which we also refer as edges.\
ii)\
A momentum network operator with parity $\epsilon$ is given by \[6.13\] W\_(s)=(i\[\_[I(s)]{} Y\^[k\^I(s)]{}\_(I)\])
This definition has a precise counterpart in LQG in terms of spin networks and spin network (multiplication) operators where the intervals are replaced by oriented edges of a graph which is the counterpart of the collection of intervals here. The spin quantum numbers of LQG are replaced by the momentum labels of the string.
The general [*Weyl Relations*]{} are then given by \[6.14\] W\_+(s\_1) W\_-(s’\_1) W\_+(s\_2) W\_-(s\_2’) &=& e\^[-\_s\^2\[(s\_1,s\_2)-(s’\_1,s\_2’)\]]{} W\_+(s\_1+s\_2) W\_-(s\_1’+s\_2’)\
[\[]{}W\_+(s\_1) W\_-(s\_2)\]\^&=& W\_+(-s\_1) W\_-(-s\_2) where \[6.15\] (s\_1,s\_2)= \_[I\_1(s\_1)]{}\_[I\_2(s\_2)]{}\^ k\^[I\_1]{}\_(s\_1) k\^[I\_1]{}\_(s\_1)\](I\_1,I\_2) with $\alpha(I,J)=[\chi_I]_{|\partial J}-[\chi_J]_{|\partial J}$. The notation $s_1+s_2$ means that we decompose all the $I_1\in \gamma(s_1)$ and $I_2\in \gamma(s_2)$ into their unique, maximal, mutually non – overlapping segments and assign the momentum $k^{I_1}(s_1)+K^{I_2}(s_2)$ to the segment $I_1\cap I_2$ and $k^{I_1}(s_1),\;k^{I_2}(s_2)$ respectively to the segments $I_1-\gamma(s_2)$ and $I_2-\gamma(s_1)$ respectively. Likewise $-s$ is the same as $s$ just that $I\in \gamma(s)$ is assigned $-k^I(s)$. See (\[6.10\]) for an example. The relations (\[6.14\]) are the direct analog of the holonomy – flux Weyl algebra underlying LQG [@21]. Notice that the “holonomies” along intervals $I$ \[6.15a\] h\^k\_I(X):=(2ik\_\_I dx X\^)=W\^k\_+(I) W\^[-k]{}\_-(I) are mutually commuting due to the difference in the sign of the phase factor in (\[6.14\]). The holonomies define a maximal Abelean subalgebra in $\mathfrak{A}$. The same is true for the exponentiated “fluxes” \[6.15b\] F\^k\_I():=(2ik\^\_I dx \_)=W\^k\_+(I) W\^[k]{}\_-(I)
We can combine the local gauge group generated by the Virasoro constraints and the global Poincaré group to the total group \[6.16\] G:=(S\^1)(S\^1) given by the direct product of two copies of the diffeomorphism group of the circle and the Poincaré group which itself is the semi – direct product of the Lorentz group with the translation group. It has the following action on our Weyl algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ by the automorphisms derived in section \[s3\] \[6.17\] \_[\_+,\_-,(L,a)]{}(W\_+(s\_1) W\_-(s\_2)) =\_[\_+,[id]{},(L,0)]{}(W\_+(s\_1)) \_[[id]{},\_-,(L,0)]{}(W\_-(s\_2)) =W\_+(\[\_+,L\]s\_1)W\_-(\[\_-,L\]s\_2)) where \[6.18\] (,L)s &=& (((,L)s),{k\^I((,L)s)}\_[I ((,L)s)]{})\
((,L)s) &:=& ((s))\
k\^[(I)]{}((,L)s) &:=& Lk\^I(s),I(s) In other words, the diffeomorphism maps the intervals to their diffeomorphic image but leaves the momenta unchanged while the Lorentz transformation acts only on the momenta. The translations have no effect on the Weyl elements because they only depend on $X^\mu$ through the derivatives $X^\prime$.
In order to find representations of $\mathfrak{A}$ via the GNS construction we notice that \[6.19\] =\_+\_- is the tensor product of two Weyl algebras which are isomorphic up to the sign difference in the phase in (\[6.14\]). Now we can use the lemma that if $\omega_\pm$ is a positive linear functional on the $^\ast-$algebra $\mathfrak{A}_\pm$ then $\omega:=\omega_+ \otimes
\omega_-$ defined by $\omega(a_+\otimes a_-):=\omega_+(a_+)\omega_-(a_-)$ is a positive linear functional on $\mathfrak{A}_+\otimes \mathfrak{A}_-$, see e.g. [@20] for a simple proof. Hence it suffices to specify $\omega_\pm$ separately.
A Specific Example {#s6.3}
------------------
We should now enter the general representation theory of $\mathfrak{A}_\pm$ or at least the subclass of cyclic and $G-$invariant representations that arise via the GNS construction. Since we have not made any continuity assumptions about the representation of the one parameter unitary groups $t\mapsto
W_\pm(ts)$ (where $ts$ is the same as $s$ just that the momenta are rescaled by $t$) whithout which even the famous Stone – von Neumann uniqueness theorem for the representation theory of the Weyl algebra underlying simple quantum mechanics fails [@5; @23], we expect this problem to be rather complex and we leave it as an important project for further research. In this paper we will content ourselves with giving just one non – trivial example. Here it is: \[6.20\] \_(W\_(s)):=\_[s,0]{} where $s=0$ denotes the trivial momentum network consisting of no intervals and zero momenta. This functional is tailored after the positive linear functional underlying the Ashtekar – Lewandowski representation for LQG [@24aa] which only recently [@21] has been shown to be the unique (cyclic, spatially diffeomorphism invariant and in part weakly continuous) representation of the LQG Weyl algebra. Expression (\[6.20\]) looks rather trivial at first sight but the rest of the paper is devoted to demonstrating that it contains some interesting structure.
Let us first check that it is indeed a $G-$invariant positive linear functional. First of all \[6.21\] \_(\_g(W\_(s)))=\_(W\_(gs)) =\_[gs,0]{}=\_[s,0]{}=\_(W\_(s)) since the $G-$action on the momentum networks preserves the cases $s=0$ and $s\not=0$. It follows that we obtain a unitary representation of $G$ defined by \[6.21bb\] U\_(g)\_(W\_+(s) W\_-(s))\_=\_(W\_+(gs) W\_-(gs))\_Next consider a generic element of $\mathfrak{A}_\pm$ given by \[6.22\] a\_=\_[n=1]{}\^N z\_n W\_(s\_n) where the $s_n$ are mutually different. Then \[6.23\] \_((a\_)\^a\_) &=& \_[m,n]{} |[z]{}\_mz\_n \_(\[W\_(s\_m)\]\^ W\_(s\_n))\
&=& \_[m,n]{} |[z]{}\_mz\_n \_(W\_(-s\_m) W\_(s\_n))\
&=& \_[m,n]{} |[z]{}\_mz\_n e\^[\_s\^2(s\_m,s\_n)]{} \_(W\_(s\_n-s\_m))\
&=& \_[m,n]{} |[z]{}\_mz\_n e\^[\_s\^2(s\_m,s\_n)]{} \_[s\_n-s\_m,0]{}\
&=& \_[n=1]{}\^N |z\_n|\^2 since $\alpha(s,s)=0$. Thus $\omega_\pm([a_\pm]^\ast \;a_\pm)\ge 0$ and equality occurs only for $a_\pm=0$. Hence the functional is definite and there is no null ideal to be divided out, see section \[s4\]. Thus the GNS Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\omega_\pm}$ is simply the Cauchy completion of the algebra $\mathfrak{A}_\pm$ considered as a vector space with cyclic vector $\Omega_{\omega_\pm}=\mbox{{\bf 1}}=W_\pm(0)$ and representation $\pi_{\omega_\pm}(a_\pm)=a_\pm$. The GNS Hilbert space for $\mathfrak{A}$ is of course the tensor product ${\cal H}_\omega={\cal H}_{\omega_+}\otimes {\cal H}_{\omega_-}$.
One might wonder whether this representation is unitarily equivalent to the Ashtekar – Isham – Lewandowski representation [@24aa] for the string, or rather its direct analog for scalar fields [@24ab; @11a; @24ac] which we are going to consider in great detail in the companion paper [@11]. If that were the case then we could identify $\Omega_\omega$ with the constant state [**1**]{}, the operators $A(s):=\pi_\omega(W_+(s/2))\pi_\omega(W_-(s/2))^{-1}$ would be multiplication “holonomy” operators on ${\cal H}_\omega=L_2(\ab,d\mu_0)$ where $\ab$ is a certain space of distributional “connections” $X^{\mu\prime}$ and the operators $\exp(i\pi(s)):=
\pi_\omega(W_+(s/2))\pi_\omega(W_-(s/2))$ would be exponentials of derivative operators with $\exp(i\pi(s))\Omega_\omega=\Omega_\omega$. But this is not the case since $\omega(\exp(i\pi(s))=\delta_{s,0}$ while clearly $\omega_{AIL}(\exp(i\pi(s)))=1$. In the Ashtekar – Isham – Lewandowski representation the derivative operators exist (the corresponding one parameter unitary Weyl groups are weakly continuous) while in our representation the derivative operators do not exist (the Weyl groups are discontinuous). Thus the corresponding GNS representations are unitarily inequivalent.
Mass Spectrum {#s6.4}
-------------
According to (\[6.21bb\]) all states are translation invariant if we define a unitary representation of $G$, as in section \[s4\], by \[6.21a\] U\_(g)\_(b)\_=\_(\_g(b))\_for all $b\in \mathfrak{A}$ and since, as we will see, all invariant charges are constructed from the $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))$ by taking certain limits, also states created by the charges will be translation invariant. Hence the total momentum and hence the mass of our states vanishes identically in drastic contrast with usual string theory. We now generalize our construction as to include [*arbitrary non – negative mass spectrum (tachyon – freeness)*]{}.
We introduce a D – parameter family of states $p\mapsto \omega_p$ on $\mathfrak{A}$ which as far as $\mathfrak{A}$ is concerned are just copies of our $\omega:=\omega_0$ constructed in the previous section. However, we generalize (\[6.21a\]) to \[6.21b\] V\_(g)\_[\_p]{}(b)\_[\_p]{}=e\^[i ap]{} \_[\_[L\^T p]{}]{}(\_g(b))\_[\_[L\^T p]{}]{} where $L^T$ is the transpose of the Lorentz transformation datum in $g:=(\varphi_+,\varphi_-,L,a)$ and $({\cal H}_{\omega_p},\pi_{\omega_p},
\Omega_{\omega_p})$ are the GNS data associated with $\omega_p$. Of course, all these GNS data are mutually unitarily equivalent. It is easy to check that (\[6.21b\]) satisfies the representation property.
Let $\overline{V}_+$ be the closure of the interior of the future lightcone and let $\mu$ be a quasi – $\mathfrak{L}^+_0$ – invariant probability measure on $\Rl^D$ with support in $\overline{V}_+$. Here $\mathfrak{L}^+_0$ denotes the connected component of $SO(1,D-1)$ which preserves the sign of $p^0$ (proper orthochronous Lorentz group). Recall that a measure $\mu$ on a measurable space $\mathfrak{X}$ is said to be quasi – invariant for a group $G$ acting on $\mathfrak{X}$ if $\mu$ and all its translates have the same measure zero sets. In other words, if $E$ is a measurable set of $\mathfrak{X}$ and $g\cdot E$ is the translation of $E$ by $g\in G$ then $\mu(E)=0$ implies $\mu_g(E):=\mu(g\cdot E)=0$ for all $g\in G$. This condition implies that the translated measures are mutually absolutely continuous and that the Radon – Nikodym derivative $d\mu_p/d\mu$ is a well – defined, positive $L_1(\mathfrak{X},d\mu)$ function. The choice of $\mu$ is not very important for the theory of induced representations as sketched below in the sense that mutally absolutely continuous measures lead to unitarily equivalent representations. See e.g. [@24a] for all the details.
We now construct the direct integral of the Hilbert spaces ${\cal H}_{\omega_p}$, that is, \[6.21c\] [H]{}\_:=\_[\^D]{}\^d(p)\_[\_p]{} The definition of (\[6.21c\]) is as follows: Let $\mathfrak{X}$ be a locally compact space, $\mu$ a measure on $\mathfrak{X}$ and $x\mapsto {\cal H}_x$ an assignment of Hilbert spaces such the function $x\mapsto n_x$, where $n_x$ is the dimension of of ${\cal H}_x$, is measurable. It follows that the sets $\mathfrak{X}_n=\{x\in \mathfrak{X};\;n_x=n\}$, where $n$ denotes any cardinality, are measurable. Since Hilbert spaces whose dimensions have the same cardinality are unitarily equivalent we may identify all the ${\cal H}_x,\;n_x=n$ with a single ${\cal H}_n$. We now consider maps \[6.21d\] : \_[x]{} [H]{}\_x; x((x))\_[x]{} subject to the following two constraints:\
1. The maps $x\mapsto <\xi,\xi(x)>_{{\cal H}_n}$ are measurable for all $x\in \mathfrak{X}_n$ and all $\xi \in {\cal H}_n$.\
2. If \[6.21e\] <\_1,\_2>:=\_n \_[\_n]{} d(x) <\_1(x),\_2(x)>\_[[H]{}\_n]{} then $<\xi,\xi> <\infty$.\
The completion of the space of maps (\[6.21d\]) in the inner product (\[6.21e\]) is called the direct integral of the ${\cal H}_x$ with respect to $\mu$ and one writes \[6.21f\] [H]{}\_=\_\^d(x)\_x, <\_1,\_2>= \_d(x) <\_1(x),\_2(x)>\_[[H]{}\_x]{} See [@18] for more details.
Since in our case the dimension of all the ${\cal H}_{\omega_p},
\; p\in \Rl^D=:\mathfrak{X}$ has the same cardinality, the measurability condition on the dimension function is trivially satisfied. In our case the $\xi(p), \; p\in \Rl^D$ are of the form \[6.21g\] (p)=\_[\_p]{}(b\_p)\_[\_p]{} and provided the assignment $\Rl^D\to \mathfrak{A};\;p\mapsto b_p$ satisfies the covariance condition $\alpha_g(b_p)=\alpha_{\varphi_+,\varphi_-}(b_{L^T p})$ we obtain a [*unitary*]{} representation of $G$ on ${\cal H}_\mu$ by \[6.21h\] \[U\_(g)\](p):= \[V\_(g)\](p) where $V_\mu$ was defined in (\[6.21b\]). The construction (\[6.21h\]) is, of course, standard in QFT and is related to the [*induced representation*]{} of $G$ by the little groups of the subgroup $H=$Diff$_+(S^1)\times$Diff$_-(S^1)\times \mathfrak{L}^+_0$. See [@24b] for more details.
A particularly nice set of states are the “diagonal states” which arise from the GNS data corresponding to the state \[6.21i\] \_:=\_[\^D]{} d(p)\_p which is just the convex linear combination of the $\omega_p$ so that \[6.21j\] \_[\_]{}=(\_[\_p]{})\_[p\^D]{}, \_[\_]{}(b)\_[\_]{}= (\_[\_p]{}(b)\_[\_p]{})\_[p\^D]{} hence $b_p=b$ does not depend on $p$ and the measurability condition is trivially satisfied. We clearly have $\omega_\mu(b)=\omega_0(b)$ so the diagonal states are normalizable if and only if $\omega_0(b^\ast
b)<\infty$. More generally we consider “almost diagonal” states of the form $(f(p)\pi_{\omega_p}(b)\Omega_{\omega_p})_{p\in \Rl^D})$ where $f$ is any $L_2(\Rl^D,d\mu)$ function. They obviously define a closed invariant subspace of ${\cal H}_\mu$. They do not satisfy the covariance condition because $\alpha_L$ does not act on $f$, however, since $\omega_p\circ\alpha_L=\omega_0$ for all $p$ this turns out to be sufficient to guarantee unitarity, see below.
We can now characterize an important subclass of quasi – $\mathfrak{L}^+_0$ – invariant probability measures with support in $\overline{V}_+$ a bit closer. Namely, let $\mu_0$ be an actually $\mathfrak{L}^+_0$ – invariant measure and consider a quasi – invariant measure of the form $\mu=|f|^2 \mu_0$ where $f$ is a normalized element of $L_2(\Rl^D,d\mu_0)$ which is $\mu_0$ a.e. non – vanishing. For instance, $f$ could be smooth and of rapid decrease. It follows from the proof of the [*Källen – Lehmann*]{} representation theorem for the two – point function of an interacting Wightman scalar field that a polynomially bounded $\mu_0$ is necessarily of the form \[6.21k\] d\_0(p)=c(p)+d(m)d\_m() where $c\ge 0$, $d\nu_m(\vec{p})=d^{D-1}p/\sqrt{m^2+\vec{p}^2}$ is the standard $\mathfrak{L}^+_0$ – invariant measure on the positive mass hyperboloid $H_m=\{p\in \Rl^D;\; p\cdot p=-m^2\le 0,\;p^0\ge 0\}$ and $d\rho(m)$ is a polynomially bounded measure on $[0,\infty)$, sometimes called the [*Källen – Lehmann*]{} spectral measure because it characterizes the mass spectrum of a Wightman field. See [@25] for an instructive proof. Hence the freedom in $\mu_0$ boils down to $c,\rho$.
The point of all these efforts is of course that the translation group of $G$, in contrast to the rest of $G$, is represented weakly continously on ${\cal H}_\mu$ because it acts trivially on $b\in
\mathfrak{A}$. The momentum (generalized) eigenstates are precisely the $\xi(p)$ in (\[6.21g\]), that is, we can define a self – adjoint operator $\pi_\mu(p_\nu)$ as the generator of the translation subgroupf of $G$ by $[\pi_\mu(p_\nu)\xi](p)=p_\nu \xi(p)$. Notice that all the states of ${\cal H}_{\omega_p}$ have the same mass $m^2=-p \cdot p\ge 0$, hence [*there is no tachyon*]{}.
There is a different way to look at the almost diagonal states: Define \[6.21l\] (p):=f(p) \_[\_p]{}(b)\_[\_p]{},fL\_2(\^D,d\_0) and $\mu:=\mu_0$ so that the Jacobean in (\[6.21h\]) equals unity. Then \[6.21m\] ||U\_[\_0]{}(g)||\^2 &=& \_[\^D]{} d\_0(p) \_[L\^T p]{}(\[f(p)\_g(b)\]\^)\
&=& \_[\^D]{} d\_0(p) |f(p)|\^2 \_[L\^T p]{}(\_g(b\^b))\
&=& ||f||\_2\^2 \_0(b\^b)= ||||\^2 reproving unitarity. In what follows we focus, for simplicity, on the closed subspace of ${\cal H}_\mu$ defined by the almost diagonal states (\[6.21l\]) which in turn is completely characterized by ${\cal H}_\omega$ as far as $\mathfrak{A}$ is concerned but includes the additional twist with respect to the representation of $G$ displayed in this section which enables us to add massive states to the theory. For instance we could have \[6.21n\] (m)=\_[n=0]{}\^(m,n/\_s) . Keeping this in mind, it will suffice to consider ${\cal H}_\omega$ in what follows (equivalent to setting $c=1,\rho=0$).
Implementation of the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} {#s6.5}
-----------------------------------------------
We saw at the end of section \[s6.3\] that the one – parameter unitary groups $t\mapsto \pi_\omega(W_\pm(ts))$ are not weakly weakly continuous on ${\cal H}_\omega$. Since the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} $Z_\pm$ involve polynomials of the $Y_\pm$ rather than polynomials of the $W_\pm$ it seems that our representation does not support the [**Quantum Pohlmeyer Charges**]{}. Indeed, one would need to use derivatives with respect to $t$ at $t=0$ to “bring down” the $Y^k_\pm(I)$ from the exponent. In fact, notice the classical identity for the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} \[6.23a\] R\^[\_1..\_n]{}\_(x)= \_[xx\_1..x\_nx+2]{} d\^nx \[\]\_[|k\_1=..=k\_n=0]{} W\_(f\_1)..W\_(f\_n) where $W_\pm(f)=\exp(iY_\pm(f))$. While it is indeed possible to extend $\omega$ to the $W_\pm(f)$ by $\omega(W_\pm(f)):=\delta_{f,0}$ (notice that this is a Kronecker $\delta$, not a functional $\delta-$distribution) the functional derivatives in (\[6.23\]) are clearly ill – defined when trying to extend $\omega$ to the invariants by \[6.24\] (R\^[\_1..\_n]{}\_(x)) &:=& \_[xx\_1..x\_n x+2]{} d\^nx \_[S\_n]{}\
&& \[\]\_[|k\_1=..=k\_n=0]{} (W\_(f\_[(1)]{})..W\_(f\_[(n)]{})) where we have introduced a symmetric ordering of the the non – commuting $W_\pm(f)$. Expression (\[6.24\]) is the direct analog for how to define $n-$point Schwinger functions in Euclidean field theory from the generating (positive) functional of a probability measure. This works there because the Osterwalder – Schrader axioms [@20] require the generating functional to be analytic in $f$. This is clearly not the case for our $\omega$.
In fact, it is quite hard to construct positive linear, $G-$invariant functionals $\omega$ which are weakly continuous or more regular than the one we have found above. The reason for this is the absence of any (worldsheet) background metric in our worldsheet background independent theory. The analytic positive linear functionals for free ordinary Quantum Field Theories all make strong use of a spatially Euclidean background metric which we do not have at our diposal here.\
Another difficulty is the Minkowski signature of the flat target space metric. The simplest more regular ansatz will try to invoke the positivity theorems of Gaussian measures from Euclidean QFT, however, these theorems are not applicble due to the Minkowski signature. If we would change to Euclidean target space signature then we could still construct [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{}, however, now they would be complex valued because they and the the Virasoro generators would be based on the complex objects $Y_\pm=\pi\pm i X'$. This would imply that the Weyl elements are no longer unitary, rather we would get something like $(W_\pm(f))^\ast=W_\mp(-f)$, and in particular the Weyl relations would pick up not only a phase but actually some unbounded positive factor which makes the construction of a positive linear functional even harder. In any case, it would be unclear how to relate this “Euclidean string” to the actual Minkowski string because our Weyl algebra is non – commutative so that the usual Wick rotation is not well-defined.
In conclusion, while we certainly have not yet analyzed the issue systematically enough, (\[6.20\]) is the only solution to our representation problem that we could find so far and we must now try to implement the quantum invariants by using a suitable regularization. This means that we write the regulated invariants as polynomials in the $W_\pm(s)$ and then remove the regulator and see whether the result is well – defined and meaningful.
The first step is to consider instead of the invariants $Z^{\mu_1..\mu_n}_\pm$ the functions \[6.25\] Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_:=k\_[\_1]{} .. k\_[\_n]{} Z\^[\_1..\_n]{}\_from which the original invariants are regained by specializing the $k_1,..,k_n$. Notice that the $Z^{k_1..k_n}$, in contrast to the $Z^{\mu_1..\mu_n}$, are dimensionless.
Using the fact that classically \[6.26\] =k\_ Y\^\_()+O((b-a)\^2) we can write $Z^{k_1..k_n}_\pm$ as the limit of a Riemann sum \[6.27\] &&\_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_) = \_[[P]{}S\^1]{} \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,[P]{}]{})\
&&\_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,[P]{}]{}) = \_(R\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,[P]{}]{}(0))+ \_(R\^[k\_2..k\_n k\_1]{}\_[,[P]{}]{}(0))+.. +\_(R\^[k\_n k\_1..k\_[n-1]{}]{}\_[,[P]{}]{}(0))\
&&\_(R\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,[P]{}]{}(0)) = \_[m\_1=1]{}\^M \_[m\_2=m\_1]{}\^M..\_[m\_n=m\_[n-1]{}]{}\^M \_[S\_n]{}\
&& \[\_(W\^[k\_[(1)]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[(1)]{}]{}))- \_(W\^[-k\_[(1)]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[(1)]{}]{}))\] .. \[\_(W\^[k\_[(n)]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[(n)]{}]{}))- (W\^[-k\_[(n)]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[(n)]{}]{}))\] where ${\cal P}=\{I_m;\;m=1,..,M:=|{\cal P}|\}$ is any partition of $[0,2\pi]$ into consecutive intervals, e.g. $I_m=[(m-1)2\pi/n,m\pi/n]$ in some coordinate system, and we have again introduced a symmetric ordering in order that the corresponding operator be at least symmetric. Notice that the expression for $R_{\pm,{\cal P}}(0)$ had to arbitrarily choose a “starting interval” $I_1$ of $\cal P$ but the cyclic symmetrization in $Z_{\pm,{\cal P}}$ removes this arbitrariness again in analogy to the continuum expressions of section \[s3\].
Expression (\[6.27\]) is an element of $\mathfrak{A}$ at finite $M$. It has the expected transformation behaviour under Lorentz transformations, namely $\alpha_L(Z^{k_1..k_n}_{\pm,{\cal P}})=
Z^{L\cdot k_1..L\cdot k_n}_{\pm,{\cal P}}$ and under Diff$(S^1)$ the partition is changed to its diffeomorphic image, i.e $\alpha^\pm_\varphi(Z^{k_1..k_n}_{\pm,{\cal P}})=
Z^{L\cdot k_1..L\cdot k_n}_{\pm,\varphi({\cal P})}$, leaving $M$ unchanged. The invariance property of the charges is hence only to be recovered in the limit $M\to\infty$, that is, ${\cal P}\to\sigma$. Hence one would like to define \[6.28\] \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_):=\_[|[P]{}|S\^1]{} \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,[P]{}]{}) in a suitable operator topology.
It is easy to see that with this definition we have $\pi_\omega(Z^{k_1..k_n}_\pm)=0$ in the weak operator topology on ${\cal
H}_\omega$ while $\pi_\omega(Z^{k_1..k_n}_\pm)=\infty$ in the strong operator topology on ${\cal
H}_\omega$, the divergence being of the order of $M^{n/2}$. One can prove that this happens in general for diffeomorphism invariant operators in LQG [@2; @24] which are “graph – changing”, as the $\pi_\omega(Z_{\pm,{\cal P}})$ do when defined as above, if one wants to define them on the kinematical Hilbert space, in this case ${\cal H}_\omega$. This point will be explained in more detail in our companion paper [@11]. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of the present paper, that there are two ways to get around this problem. The first one is to define the operators $Z_{\pm}$ on the physical Hilbert space (to be defined below), hence one uses the strong topology of the physical Hilbert space rather than the kinematical one which removes the above divergence which is due to the “infinite volume of the diffeomporphism group”. We will follow this approach in the companion paper [@11]. The second possibility is to define the operators $\pi_\omega(Z_{\pm})$ directly on the kinematical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_\omega$ such that they are diffeomorphism invariant but simultaneously [*non – graph changing*]{}. This is the possibility which we will explore below.
The idea for defining a non – graph changing operator comes from looking at expression (\[6.27\]):\
We would like to define $\pi_\omega(Z_\pm)$ densely on ${\cal H}_\omega$, hence it is sufficient to define it on the orthonormal basis given by the $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))\Omega_\omega$. Now given $s$ we may assign to it a “distributional” smearing function \[6.28a\] f\^s\_(x)=\_[I(s)]{}\_I(x)k\^I\_(s) such that $\exp(i Y_\pm(f^s))=W_\pm(s)$. The point is now that if we allow some of the momenta $k^I(s)$ to be zero then we can consider the graph $\gamma(s)$ as a [*partition*]{} of $S^1$. The only condition on the momenta $k^I(s)$ is that momenta assigned to neighbouring intervals $I$ are different from each other.
Now in the regularization $\pi_\omega(Z_{\pm,{\cal P}})$ of $\pi_\omega(Z_\pm)$ above we had to invoke a partition $\cal P$ as well, but any finite partition does not render $Z_{\pm,{\cal P}}$ into a diffeomorphism invariant object, it is only diffeomorphism covariant. We now we bring these two things together:\
We simply define for $n\ge 2$ \[6.29\] \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_) \_(W\_(s))\_:=\_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,(s)]{}) \_(W\_(s))\_with $\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_{\pm,0}):=0$, the vacuum is annihilated by all charges. Also, if the decomposition of (\[6.29\]) into states of the form $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s'))\Omega_\omega$ contains states with $\gamma(s')$ strictly smaller than $\gamma(s)$ then we simply remove that state from the decomposition which ensures that (\[6.29\]) becomes a symmetric operator as we will show in the next section.
Hence we have simply set ${\cal P}:=\gamma(s)$ in (\[6.27\]). There is no limit ${\cal P}\to\infty$ to be taken, the partition is kept finite. The idea is that the semiclassical limit of (\[6.29\]) is reached only on states which have $|\gamma(s)|$ significantly large. This we will confirm below. We identify $\pi_\omega(Z^\mu_\pm)$ with the self – adjoint generator of the translation subgroup of the Poincaré group which is represented weakly continuously on ${\cal H}_\omega$. In particular, it commutes with all charges $\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_\pm)$ since it commutes with all the $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))$.
Let us check that (\[6.29\]) defines a diffeomorphism invariant operator. We must verify that \[6.30\] && U\^\_() \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_) \_(W\_(s))\_=U\^\_() \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,(s)]{}) \_(W\_(s))\_\
&& \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_) U\^\_() \_(W\_(s))\_=\_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,((s))]{}) \_(\^\_(W\_(s)))\_Now by construction the right hand side in the first line of (\[6.30\]) is a finite linear combination of vectors of the form $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s'))\Omega_\omega$ with $\gamma(s')\subset \gamma(s)$ to which the unitary transformation $U^\pm_\omega(\varphi)$ is applied and hence these vectors are transformed into $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(\tilde{s}))\Omega_\omega$ with $\gamma(\tilde{s})\subset
\varphi(\gamma(s))$. But this reproduces exactly the action of the operator in the second line of (\[6.30\]) on the transformed states.
Properties of the [**Quantum Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} {#s6.6}
---------------------------------------------------
In this section we wish to check that the algebra implied by (\[6.29\]) defines a quantum deformation of the classical invariant algebra of section \[s3\].\
\
[**Adjointness Relations:**]{}\
\
Notice that the Hilbert space ${\cal H}^\pm_\omega$ can be written as an uncountable direct sum \[6.31\] [H]{}\^\_= where the overline denotes completion, the sum is over all partitions (graphs) of $S^1$ and ${\cal H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma}$ is the completion of the finite linear span of the vectors $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))$ with $\gamma(s)=\gamma$ with $s$ such that for neighbouring $I,J$ we have $k^I(s)\not=k^J(s)$. Let $P^\pm_\gamma$ be the orthogonal projection onto ${\cal
H}^\pm_{\omega\gamma}$. Then it is easy to see that \[6.32\] \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_)=\_ P\^\_ \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,]{}) P\^\_ where the expression for $\pi_\omega(Z^{k_1..k_n}_{\pm,\gamma})$ is given in (\[6.29\]). It is now manifest that (\[6.32\]) defines a symmetric operator because $\pi_\omega(Z^{k_1..k_n}_{\pm,\gamma})$ is symmetric on ${\cal H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma}$ provided it preserves $\gamma$ which, however, is ensured by the projections. Since the expression (\[6.29\]) is real valued (it maps basis elements into finite linear combinations of basis elements with real valued components) it follows from von Neumann’s involution theorem [@25] that it has self-adjoint extensions. We do not need to worry about these extensions for what follows.
In order to define the $\pi_\omega(Z^{\mu_1..\mu_n}_\pm)$ themselves we use the trivial observation that classically $Z^{k_1..k_n}_\pm L^n=Z^{\mu_1..\mu_n}_\pm$ if we set $k_{j\mu}=
\delta^{\mu_j}_\mu/L$ where $L$ is an arbitrary but fixed parameter of dimension cm$^1$. Hence we define \[6.32a\] \_(Z\^[\_1..\_n]{}\_):= L\^n \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_),k\_[j]{}:=\^[\_j]{}\_/L The parameter $L$ will enter the semiclassical analysis in section \[s6.7\]. We will see that (\[6.32a\]) approximates the classical expression the better the smaller the parameter $t:=(\ell_s/L)^2$ is.\
\
[**Algebraic Properties:**]{}\
\
We can now study the algebra of our $\pi_\omega(Z_\pm)$ and check that up to quantum corrections the classical algebra of invariants is reproduced on each of the invariant ${\cal H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma}$ separately. To simplify the notation, let us introduce the shorthand \[6.33\] \_(Y\^k\_(I)):=\[ \_(W\^[k]{}\_(I))-\_(W\^[-k]{}\_(I))\] corresponding to (\[6.26\]). In what follows we consider the algebra of the $\pi_\omega(Z_\pm)$ restricted to a fixed ${\cal
H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma}$ with $|\gamma|=M$ and $\gamma=\{I_m\}_{m=1}^M$ where we have chosen an arbitrary starting interval $I_1$ and the intervals $I_m,\;I_{m+1}$ with $m\equiv m+M$ are next neighbours. We will denote the corresponding restrictions by \[6.34\] \_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,M]{}) &=& \_(R\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,M]{})+ \_(R\^[k\_2..k\_n k\_1]{}\_[,M]{})+..+ \_(R\^[k\_n k\_1..k\_[n-1]{}]{}\_[,M]{})\
\_(R\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_[,M]{}) &=& \_[1m\_1..m\_nM]{} \_[S\_n]{} \_(Y\^[k\_[(1)]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[(1)]{}]{})).. \_(Y\^[k\_[(n)]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[(n)]{}]{})) We now notice that (\[6.34\]) is the quantization of a Riemann sum approximation for the classical continuum integrals of section \[s3\] (of course, the approximation is classically good only for large $M$). Since algebraic properties of iterated path ordered integrals have a precise analog for iterated path ordered Riemann sums, it is clear that all algebraic relations of section \[s3\] which only rely on manipulations of integrals are exactly mirrored by expressions (\[6.34\]) up to quantum corrections which come from 1. commuting products of the $\pi_\omega(Y^k_\pm(I))$, 2. ommission of states due to the projections in (\[6.32\]) and 3. “finite size effects” which come from the fact that we are dealing really with discrete objects (sums and intervals) rather than continuum ones (integrals and points). All of these corrections are suppressed in the semiclassical limit which is reached for states with large $M$ (they are, in a precise sense, of measure zero) and in the limit that $\ell_s\to 0$ as we will demonstrate below. Instead of going through a tedious bookkeeping exercise which would merely reproduce the results of [@6; @16; @7; @15] in a discrete language while keeping track of the operator ordering, let us give a typical example which illustrates these effects.
Notice that \[6.35\] && [\[]{}\_(Y\^k\_(I\_m)),\_(Y\^l\_(I\_[m’]{}))\]= (\_s\^2 \[kl\](I\_m,I\_[m’]{})/2)\
&& {\_(W\_((k,I\_m)+(l,I\_[m’]{})) +\_(\[W\_((k,I\_m)+(l,I\_[m’]{})\]\^[-1]{})\
&& + {\_(W\_((k,I\_m)+(-l,I\_[m’]{})) +\_(\[W\_((k,I\_m)+(-l,I\_[m’]{})\]\^[-1]{})} where \[6.36\] (I\_m,I\_[m’]{})=(\_[I\_m]{})\_[| I\_[m’]{}]{}-(\_[I\_[m’]{}]{})\_[|I\_m]{} ={
[cc]{} 0 & m=m’ |m-m’|>1\
-1 & m=m’+1\
1 & m’=m+1
. where we have used the convention that $\chi_I(x)=1$ for $x\in I-\partial
I$, $\chi_I(x)=1/2$ for $x\in \partial I$ and $\chi_I(x)=0$ for $I\not\in I$. This convention coincides $dx-$ a.e. with the usual convention but in our case does make a difference due to the singular support of our fields. It is the unique convention which ensures that for closed intervals $I,J$ with $f(I)=b(J)$ we have $\chi_{I\cup J}=\chi_I+\chi_J$. Here $b(I),f(I)$ denote beginning point and final point of $I$ respectively.
Hence \[6.37\] && [\[]{}\_(Y\^k\_(I\_m)),\_(Y\^l\_(I\_[m’]{}))\] =(\_s\^2 \[kl\]/2) (\_[m,m’+1]{}-\_[m,m’-1]{})\
&& {\_(W\_((k,I\_m)+(l,I\_[m’]{})) +\_(\[W\_((k,I\_m)+(l,I\_[m’]{})\]\^[-1]{})\
&& +\_(W\_((k,I\_m)+(-l,I\_[m’]{})) +\_(\[W\_((k,I\_m)+(-l,I\_[m’]{})\]\^[-1]{})}\
&=:& 2i(\_s\^2 \[kl\]/2) \[\_[m,m’+1]{}-\_[m,m’-1]{}\] \_(a((m,k),(m’,l)) Semiclassicaly the expression $\pi_\omega(a((m,k),(m',l))$ will tend to the constant $1$ so that (\[6.37\]) is a specific quantum deformation of the classical Poisson bracket.
As an example we choose (notice that the first charge algebraically indpendent of $p_\mu$ involves three indices because $Z^{\mu_1\mu_2}=Z^{\mu_1} Z^{\mu_2}/2$ however, in the following illustrational calculation we will not make use of this fact)
\[6.37a\] \_(Z\^[k\_1]{}\_[,M]{})\_(Z\^[k\_2 k\_3]{}\_[,M]{}) &=& \_[m\_1=1]{}\^M \_[1m\_2m\_3 M]{} \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\
&&\
&=& \_[1m\_1m\_2m\_3 M]{} \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\
&&\
&+& \_[1m\_2<m\_1m\_3 M]{} \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\
&&\
&+& \_[1m\_2m\_3<m\_1 M]{} \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\
&&\
&=& \_[1m\_1m\_2m\_3 M]{} \[3 \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\]\
&&\
&+& \_[1m\_2 m\_1m\_3 M]{} \[3\_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\]\
&&\
&+& \_[1m\_2m\_3 m\_1 M]{} \[3\_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}))\]\
&&\
&-& \_[1m\_2 m\_3 M]{} \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_2]{}))\
&&\
&-& \_[1m\_2m\_3 M]{} \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_3]{}))\
&& The first three terms in the last equality of (\[6.37\]) combine, up to commutators, to the expected expression $\pi_\omega(Z^{k_1 k_2 k_3}_\pm)+\pi_\omega(Z^{k_2 k_1 k_3}_\pm)$, see section \[s3\], while the two remaining terms converge in the semiclassical limit to path ordered integrals of the form \[6.38\] \_[x\_1x\_2]{} d\^2x Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(x\_2) Y\^[k\_2]{}\_(x\_2) Y\^[k\_3]{}\_(x\_3) and thus vanishes in the large $M$ limit, see below. For the general relations we get similar correction terms whose number depends only on $n$ and which are therefore suppressed compared to the correct leading term as $M\to \infty$ and $\ell_s\to 0$.\
\
[**Commutation Relations:**]{}\
\
Next we consider commutators. We have \[6.39\] && \[\_(Z\^[k\_1..k\_n]{}\_), \_(Z\^[k’\_1..k’\_[n’]{}]{}\_)\] =C\_nS\_n\_[1m\_1..m\_nM]{} C\_[n’]{}S\_[n’]{}\_[1m’\_1..m’\_[n’]{}M]{}\
&& \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{}).. \_(Y\^[k\_n]{}\_(I\_[m\_n]{})), \_(Y\^[k’\_1]{}\_(I\_[m’\_1]{})).. \_(Y\^[k’\_[n’]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[n’]{}]{}))\]\
&=& 2i \_[l=1]{}\^n\_[l’=1]{}\^[n’]{} (\_s\^2\[k\_lk’\_[l’]{}\]/2)\
&&C\_nS\_n\_[m\_1,..,m\_n=1]{}\^M (m\_2-m\_1)..(m\_n-m\_[n-1]{}) C\_[n’]{}S\_[n’]{}\_[m’\_1,..,m’\_[n’]{}=1]{}\^M (m’\_2-m’\_1)..(m’\_[n’]{}-m’\_[n’-1]{})\
&& \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}+1]{}-\_[m’\_[l’]{},m\_l+1]{}\]\
&& \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{})).. \_(Y\^[k\_[l-1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[l-1]{}]{})) \_(Y\^[k’\_1]{}\_(I\_[m’\_1]{})).. \_(Y\^[k’\_[l’-1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[l’-1]{}]{})) \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{})))\
&& \_(Y\^[k’\_[l’+1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[l’+1]{}]{})).. \_(Y\^[k’\_[n’]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[n’]{}]{})) \_(Y\^[k\_[l+1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[l+1]{}]{})).. \_(Y\^[k\_n]{}\_(I\_[m\_n]{}))\
&=& 2i \_[l=1]{}\^n\_[l’=1]{}\^[n’]{} (\_s\^2\[k\_lk’\_[l’]{}\]/2)\
&& C\_nS\_n\_[m\_1,..,\_l,..,m\_n=1]{}\^M (m\_2-m\_1)..(m\_[l-1]{}-m\_[l-2]{}) (m\_[l+2]{}-m\_[l+1]{})..(m\_[n]{}-m\_[n-1]{})\
&&C\_[n’]{}S\_[n’]{}\_[m’\_1,..,’\_[l’]{},..,m’\_[n’]{}=1]{}\^M (m’\_2-m’\_1)..(m’\_[l’-1]{}-m’\_[l’-2]{}) (m’\_[l’+2]{}-m’\_[l’+1]{})..(m’\_[n’]{}-m’\_[n’-1]{})\
&& \_(Y\^[k\_1]{}\_(I\_[m\_1]{})).. \_(Y\^[k\_[l-1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[l-1]{}]{})) \_(Y\^[k’\_1]{}\_(I\_[m’\_1]{})).. \_(Y\^[k’\_[l’-1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[l’-1]{}]{}))\
&& { \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}=1]{}\^M (\_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}+1]{}-\_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}]{}) -(\_[m’\_[l’]{},m\_l+1]{}-\_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}]{})\]\
&&(m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-m\_l) (m’\_[l’]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m’\_[l’]{}) \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{})) }\
&& \_(Y\^[k’\_[l’+1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[l’+1]{}]{})).. \_(Y\^[k’\_[n’]{}]{}\_(I\_[m’\_[n’]{}]{})) \_(Y\^[k\_[l+1]{}]{}\_(I\_[m\_[l+1]{}]{})).. \_(Y\^[k\_n]{}\_(I\_[m\_n]{})) where $C_n$ and $S_n$ respectively enforce cyclic summation of the $k_1..k_n$ and symmetric projection of the $((m_1,k_1),..,(m_n,k_n))$ respectively. Here $\theta$ is the Heavyside step function and a hat above the argument denotes its omission.
Consider the curly bracket in the last equality of (\[6.39\]). We see that the square bracket that it contains is precisely the discretization of the distribution $(\partial_y-\partial_x)\delta(x,y)$ of the corresponding continuum calculation where the derivatives and $\delta-$distributions respectively are replaced by differences and Kronecker $\delta$ functions respectively. In the continuum calculation we would now perform an integration by parts, in the discrete calculation we perform a partial resummation. We have \[6.40\] && \_[m,m’=1]{}\^Mf(m,m’)\
&=& \_[m=1]{}\^M\[-f(m,M)\_[m,M]{}+\_[m’=1]{}\^[M-1]{} (\_[m,m’+1]{}-\_[m,m’]{}) f(m,m’)\
&&-\_[m’=1]{}\^M\[-f(M,m’)\_[M,m’]{}+\_[m=1]{}\^[M-1]{} (\_[m+1,m’]{}-\_[m,m’]{}) f(m,m’)\
&=& \_[m=1]{}\^M\[\_[m’=2]{}\^M \_[m,m’]{} f(m,m’-1) -\_[m’=1]{}\^[M-1]{}\_[m,m’]{} f(m,m’)\]\
&&-\_[m’=1]{}\^M\[\_[m=2]{}\^M \_[m,m’]{} f(m-1,m’) \_[m=1]{}\^[M-1]{} \_[m,m’]{}) f(m,m’)\]\
&=& \_[m=1]{}\^M\[\_[m,M]{} f(m,M)+ \_[m’=2]{}\^M \_[m,m’]{}(f(m,m’-1)-f(m,m’))\]\
&& -\_[m’=1]{}\^M\[\_[M,m’]{} f(M,m’)+ \_[m=2]{}\^M \_[m,m’]{} (f(m-1,m’)-f(m,m’))\]\
&=& \_[m,m’=1]{}\^M \_[m,m’]{} {\[f(m,m’-1)-f(m,m’)\]-\[f(m-1,m’)-f(m,m’)\]} for any function defined on $\{1,..,M\}^2$ where we used the convention $f(m,m')=0$ if one of $m,m'$ equals $0,M+1$.
Now for products of (possibly non commutative) functions defined on discrete values the difference replacing the derivative gives a discrete version of the Leibniz rule \[6.41\] \[fg\](m-1)-\[fg\](m)=\[f(m-1)-f(m)\]g(m-1)+f(m)\[g(m-1)-g(m)\] Combining (\[6.40\]) and (\[6.41\]) we may write the curly bracket in the last equality of (\[6.39\]) as \[6.42\] &&\_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}=1]{}\^M \[(-) -(-\]\
&&(m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-m\_l) (m’\_[l’]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m’\_[l’]{}) \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))\
&=& \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}=1]{}\^M \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}]{} { (m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-m\_l)\
&&{ \[(.-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-.) \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))\](m’\_[l’]{}-1)\
&& - \[(.-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-.) \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))\](m’\_[l’]{}) }\
&& -(m’\_[l’]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m’\_[l’]{})\
&&{ \[(.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.) \_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))\](m\_l-1)\
&& - \[(.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.) \_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))\](m\_l) } }\
&=& \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}=1]{}\^M \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}]{} { (m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-m\_l)\
&&{ \[((.-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-.))(m’\_[l’]{}-1) -((.-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-.))(m’\_[l’]{})\] \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))\](m’\_[l’]{}-1)\
&& + ((.-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-.))(m’\_[l’]{}) \[\_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))(m’\_[l’]{}-1) -\_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))(m’\_[l’]{})\] }\
&& -(m’\_[l’]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m’\_[l’]{})\
&&{ \[((.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.))(m\_l-1) -((.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.))(m\_l)\] \_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))\](m\_l-1)\
&& + ((.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.))(m\_l) \[\_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))(m\_l-1) -\_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))(m\_l)\] } } Now \[6.43\] && ((.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.))(m\_l-1) -((.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.))(m\_l)\
&=& \[(m\_l-1-m\_[l-1]{})-(m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})\](m\_[l+1]{}-(m\_l-1)) + (m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})\[(m\_[l+1]{}-(m\_l-1))-(m\_[l+1]{}-m\_l)\]\
&=& -\_[m\_l,m\_[l-1]{}]{}(m\_[l+1]{}-(m\_l-1)) +\_[m\_l,m\_[l+1]{}+1]{}(m\_l-m\_[l-1]{}) and similarly for the primed quantities. This allows us to carry out the sum over $m_l,m'_{l'}$ in the first and third term of (\[6.42\]) which simplifies to \[6.44\] && \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}=1]{}\^M \_[m\_l,m’\_[l’]{}]{} { (m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-m\_l)\
&&{ \[-\_[m’\_[l’]{},m’\_[l’-1]{}]{}(m’\_[l’+1]{}-(m’\_[l’]{}-1)) +\_[m’\_[l’]{},m’\_[l’+1]{}+1]{}(m’\_[l’]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})\] \_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))\](m’\_[l’]{}-1)\
&& + ((.-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-.))(m’\_[l’]{}) [\[]{}\_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))(m’\_[l’]{}-1) -\_(a((I\_[m\_l]{},k\_[m\_l]{}),(I\_[.]{},k’\_[.]{}))(m’\_[l’]{})\] }\
&& -(m’\_[l’]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m’\_[l’]{})\
&&{ [\[]{}-\_[m\_l,m\_[l-1]{}]{}(m\_[l+1]{}-(m\_l-1)) +\_[m\_l,m\_[l+1]{}+1]{}(m\_l-m\_[l-1]{})\] \_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))\](m\_l-1)\
&& + ((.-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-.))(m\_l) [\[]{}\_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))(m\_l-1) -\_(a((I\_[.]{},k\_[.]{}),(I\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{},k’\_[m’\_[l’]{}]{}))(m\_l)\] } } Now when comparing with the continuum calculation, (\[6.44\]) is almost exactly the discrete counterpart of the result that one gets when integrating the derivatives of the $\delta-$distributions, coming from the Poisson brackets, by parts. The derivatives then hit the $\theta-$functions which results in a second $\delta-$distribution since $\theta'(x)=\delta(x)$. The only difference is that in the classical theory the operator $\pi_\omega(a(.,.,.,.))$ is replaced by the constant $1$ so that the second and fourth term in (\[6.44\]) are missing. However, as we will see below, in a semiclassical state the difference between (in the sense of expectation values) the operator and the constant is of order $1/M$ and hence is suppressed semiclassically. Thus, dropping the extra terms, up to quantum corrections which are the result from reordering terms, the above discrete calculation precisely reproduces the classical continuum calculation. In particular, after carrying out the sum over the Kronecker $\delta$’s we obtain from (\[6.44\]), dropping boundary terms of order $1/M$ \[6.45\] && (m’\_[l’+1]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{}+1) \[(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m\_[l-1]{}+1)(m\_[l+1]{}-m’\_[l’+1]{}-1) -(m’\_[l’-1]{}-m\_[l-1]{})(m\_[l+1]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})\]\
&& - (m\_[l+1]{}-m\_[l-1]{}+1) \[(m\_[l+1]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{}+1)(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m\_[l+1]{}-1) -(m\_[l-1]{}-m’\_[l’-1]{})(m’\_[l’+1]{}-m\_[l-1]{})\]\
&& The effect is thus that the path ordering of the primed and unprimed labels gets intermingled. One now inserts a unity \[6.46\] 1=\_[S\_[n+n’-2]{}]{} (p\_[(2)]{}-p\_[pi(1)]{}) .. (p\_[(n+n’-2)]{}-p\_[(n+n’-3)]{}) where $(p_1,..,p_{n+n'-2})=(m_1,..,\hat{m}_l,..,m_n,m'_1,..,\hat{m}'_{l'},..,
m'_{n'})$ and notices that due to the partly still existing projection on the orderings $m_1\le .. \le m_n$ and $m'_1\le .. \le m'_{n'}$ only the reshuffle sums displayed in section \[s3\] survive. The remaining calculation is thus identical to the continuum for which we refer the reader to [@6; @16; @7; @15].
Classical Limit of the [**Quantum Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} {#s6.7}
--------------------------------------------------------
Thus, we have verified that ${\cal H}_\omega$ carries a representation of the [**Quantum Pohlmeyer Algebra**]{} with precise quantum corrections provided we show that these corrections are subleading in the semiclassical limit of the theory. We will now show that this is actually the case. To do this we use the background independent semiclassical techniques developed in [@26]:\
We choose a graph $\gamma$ with large $M=|\gamma|$ and use the same parameter $L$ with the dimension of length that we used in (\[6.32a\]). Then we consider the set ${\cal S}_{\gamma,L}$ of momentum network labels $s$ such that $\gamma(s)=\gamma$ and such that $n^I_\mu(s):=k^I_\mu(s) L$ is an integer for every $\mu=0,..,D-1$ and every $I\in \gamma$. Given a point $m_0:=(\pi^0_\mu(x),X^\mu_0(x))_{x\in S^1}$ in the classical phase space ${\cal M}$ we construct the following quantities for $s\in {\cal S}_\gamma$ \[6.47\] W\_(s,m\_0):=(i\_[I]{} k\^I\_(s)\_I dx) We can rewrite (\[6.47\]) in the form \[6.48\] W\_(s,m\_0)=\_[=0]{}\^[D-1]{}\_[I]{} \[W\_(,I,m\_0)\]\^[n\^I\_]{}, W\_(,I,m\_0)= (\_Idx \[\^\_0(x)+iX\^(x)\]/L) where $k^I_\mu(s)=n^I_\mu/L$, $n^I_\mu\in \Zl$. Next we choose any $DM$ real numbers $r_\mu^I $ such that $r_\mu^I-r_\mu^J\not\in\Ql$ for $I\cap J\subset \partial I$ and $\mu=0,..,D-1$ and denote the corresponding momentum network labels with momenta $k^I_{\mu 0}:=r_\mu^L /L$ by $s_0$.
We now define a semiclassical state by \[6.50\] \^\_[,L,m\_0]{}:=\_[s\_[,L]{}]{} e\^[-t(s)/2]{} \_(W\_(s+s\_0))\_where \[6.51\] t:=()\^2, (s)=\_[=0]{}\^[D-1]{}\_[I]{} (n\^I\_)\^2 For the motivation to consider precisely those states see [@26] or our companion paper [@11]. The states (\[6.50\]) are normalizable due to the damping factor as we will see but not normalized. The parameter $t$ is called the “classicality parameter” for reasons that will become obvious in a moment. Notice that our choices imply that every state in the infinite sum in (\[6.51\]) really has $\gamma$ as the underlying graph.
When we apply $\pi_\omega(Z_\pm)$ to (\[6.51\]) we obtain a specific linear combination of operators of the form $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))$ with $s$ in the “lattice” ${\cal S}_{\gamma,L}$. Again, due to the translation by $s_0$ in (\[6.50\]) none of these operators maps us out of ${\cal H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma}$ so that the projections in (\[6.32\]) act trivially. Let us compute the action of these operators on our semiclassical states. We find \[6.52\] \_(W\_(s))\^\_[,L,m\_0]{} &=& \_[s’\_[,L]{}]{}e\^[-(s’)]{} e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0+s’)/2]{} \_(W\_(s+s’+s\_0))\_\
&=& \_[s’\_[,L]{}]{}e\^[-(s’-s)]{} e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0+s’-s)/2]{} \_(W\_(s’+s\_0))\_\
&=& W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0)/2]{} \_[s’\_[,L]{}]{}e\^[-(s’-s)]{} e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s’)/2]{} \_(W\_(s’+s\_0))\_where we have used translation invariance of the lattice and antisymmetry as well as bilinearity of the function \[6.53\] (s,s’):=\_[I(s),I’(s’)]{} \[k\^I(s)k\^[I’]{}(s’)\] (I,I’) We thus find for the expectation value \[6.54\] &&\
&=&W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0)/2]{} In order to estimate this expression, let us write \[6.55\] i \_s\^2(s,s’)/2 =i\_[I,]{} n\^I\_(s’)\[\_J n\^[J]{}(s)(I,J)\] =:i\_[I,]{} n\^I\_(s’) c\^\_I(s) so that (\[6.54\]) factorizes \[6.56\] &&\
&=&W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0)/2]{} e\^[-(s)]{} \_[,I]{} We are interested in the limit of small $t$ and large $M$ of this expression. In order to estimate it, the presentation (\[6.56\]) is not very useful because the series in both numerator and denominator converge only slowly. Hence we apply the Poisson summation formula [@26] and transform (\[6.56\]) into \[6.57\] &&\
&=&W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0)/2]{} e\^[-(s)]{} \_[,I]{} e\^\
&=& W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0)/2]{} e\^[-(s)]{} e\^[\_[,I]{} \[n\^I\_(s)i c\^\_I(s)/2\]\^2]{} \_[,I]{}\
&=& W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[i \_s\^2(s,s\_0)/2]{} e\^[-\_[,I]{} \[(n\^I\_(s))\^2+(c\^\_I(s)/2)\^2\]]{} \_[,I]{} where in the last step we have used $\sum_{\mu,I} n^I_\mu(s) c^\mu_I(s)=0$.
Notice that for the applications that we have in mind we have \[6.58\] n\_\^I(s)=\_[l=1]{}\^n \_[I,I\_[m\_l]{}]{} \_\^[\_l]{} and \[6.59\] c\^\_I(s)=\_J n\^[I]{}(s) (I,J)= =\_[l=1]{}\^n \^[\_l]{} (I,I\_[m\_l]{}) =\_[l=1]{}\^n \^[\_l]{} [\[]{}\_[I,I\_[m\_l+1]{}]{}-\_[I,I\_[m\_l-1]{}]{}\] It follows that from the $MD$ numbers $n_\mu^I(s)$ and $c^\mu_I(s)$ respectively only $n$ respectively $2n$ are non vanishing. Thus \[6.60\] \_[,I]{} \[(n\^I\_(s))\^2+(c\^\_I(s)/2)\^2\]= n which is actually independent of the specific configuration of $\mu_1..\mu_n$ and $I_{m_1},..,I_{m_n}$.\
Next \[6.61\] \_s\^2(s,s\_0) =t\_[I,J]{} n\^I\_(s) r\^[J]{}(s\_0) (I,J) =t\_[l=1]{}\^n \[r\^[\_l I\_[m\_l+1]{}]{}-r\^[\_l I\_[m\_l+1]{}]{}\] We can make (\[6.61\]) vanish identically, for example, by choosing $M=|\gamma|$ to be an even number and by choosing $r^{I_m}_\mu=\sqrt{2}$ for $m$ even and $r^{I_m}_\mu=\sqrt{3}$ for $m$ odd. This meets all our requirements on the real numbers $r^I_\mu$ that we have imposed.\
Finally, consider the product over the $MD$ pairs $(I,\mu)$ appearing in (\[6.57\]). Precisely for the $n$ pairs $(I_{m_l},\mu_l),\;l=1,..,n$ and for the $2n$ pairs $(I_{m_l\pm 1},\mu_l),\;l=1,..,n$ the factor is different from unity. Thus (\[6.57\]) simplifies to \[6.62\] &&\
&=& W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[-]{} \[\]\^n \[\]\^[2n]{} It is easy to see that the constants \[6.63\] c\_1(t) &:=& 2\_[l]{} e\^[-]{}\
c\_2(t) &:=& 2\_[l]{} e\^[-]{} (2l)\
c\_3(t) &:=& 2\_[l]{} e\^[-]{} (l) vanish faster than any power of $t^{-1}$ as $t\to 0$. Hence we may finish our computation by displaying the compact formula \[6.64\] =W\_(s,m\_0) e\^[-]{} ()\^n Obviously, the expectation value of $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))$ in the states $\psi^\pm_{\gamma,L,m_0}$, divided by the the classical value at the phase space point $m_0$ (a complex number of modulus one), differs from unity by a constant of order $nt$. We could even get exact agreement by a finite “renormalization” of the operator $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))$ by multiplying it by inverse of the $t-$dependent factor in (\[6.64\]) which depends on $s$ only through the invariant quantity $n=|\gamma(s)|$ (counting non – empty intervals only).
Let us now come to the expectation value of the $\pi_\omega(Z_\pm)$. On the states $\psi^\pm_{\gamma,L,m_0}$ these operators reduce to \[6.65\] \_(Z\^[\_1..\_n]{}\_) &=& ()\^n C\_n \_[S\_n]{} \_[\_1,..,\_n=1]{} \_[1m\_1.. m\_nM]{}\
&& (i t/2\_[j=1]{}\^[n-1]{} \_[l=j+1]{}\^n \_[(j)]{}\_[(l)]{} \[n\^[(j)]{}n\^[(l)]{}\] \[\_[m\_[(l)]{},m\_[(j)]{}+1]{} -\_[m\_[(l)]{},m\_[(j)]{}-1]{}\])\
&& \_(W\_((I\_[m\_1]{},\_1 \^[(1)]{}).. (I\_[m\_n]{},\_n \^[(n)]{})) where $\delta^{(l)}_\mu=\delta^{\mu_l}_\mu$. Notice that the phase in the second line of (\[6.65\]) is non-trivial only on configurations $I_{m_1},..,
I_{m_n}$ which would have zero mesure in the continuum and even in that case it differs from unity only by a term of order $nt$. Thus, up to $nt/M$ corrections we can ignore that phase (alternatively we could avoid the phase right from the beginning by redifining our operators as to perform the sum over $m_{l+1}\ge m_l+2,\;l=1,..,n-1,\;m_n\le M,\;m_1\ge 1$). Then taking the expectation value of (\[6.65\]) using (\[6.64\]) gives up to $O(nt,\frac{1}{M})$ corrections \[6.66\] \_(Z\^[\_1..\_n]{}\_) = L\^n C\_n \_[1m\_1.. m\_nM]{} \_[l=1]{}\^n( Y\^[\_l]{}\_(I\_[m\_l]{},m\_0)) It is clear that for sufficiently large $M$ (\[6.66\]) is a very good approximation to $Z^{\mu_1..\mu_n}_\pm(m_0)$. In fact the limit $\lim_{M\to\infty}$ reproduces the exact integral.
This kind of calculations can be used to confirm that the terms that we claimed to be subleading in the commutation relations for the [**Quantum Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} are indeed neglible in the semiclassical limit. They can also be used to show that the relative fluctuations (absolute fluctuation divided by the square of the expectation value) of the quantum invariants are of order $O(nt/M)$. We will not display these tedious but straightforward calculations here but refer the interested reader to [@26] for similar calculations performed in LQG.
Physical Hilbert Space {#s6.8}
----------------------
What we have found so far is a representation $(\pi_\omega,{\cal
H}_\omega)$ for the algebra of quantum invariants or Dirac Observables corresponding to the classical $Z^{(n)}_\pm$. These operators commute with the unitary representations $U^\pm_\omega(\varphi)$ of the two copies of Diff$(S^1)$ generated by the two Virasoro constraints. The $\pi_\omega(Z^{k_1..k_n}_\pm)$ transform covariantly under Poincaré transformations. What is left to do is to find the physical Hilbert space. In the present situation one can define the physical Hilbert space in two equivalent ways. The first one corresponds to gauge fixing, the second one to group averaging as defined in section \[s5\].\
\
[**Gauge Fixing:**]{}\
\
Given any number $M$ we fix a graph $\gamma_M$ once and for all with $|\gamma_M|=M$. We then consider the gauge fixed Hilbert space ${\cal H}^\pm_{gf}$ defined by the completion of the finite linear span of states $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))\Omega_\omega$ with $\gamma(s)=\gamma_M$ whenever $|\gamma(s)|=M$. By definition, the $\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_\pm)$ preserve ${\cal H}_{gf}$. Consider any other choice $M\mapsto \gamma'_M$. For each $M=0,1,..$ there is an element $\varphi\in $Diff$_\pm(S^1)$ such that $\varphi_M(\gamma_M)=\gamma'_M$. It follows that if $\gamma(s'_{kl})=\gamma'_{M_k}$ for all $l=1,..,L_k$ then \[6.67\] && <\[\_[k=1]{}\^K \_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} z\_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s’\_[kl]{}))\] \_, \_(Z\_\^[(n)]{}) \[\_[k=1]{}\^K \_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} \_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s’\_[kl]{}))\]\_>\_\
&=& \_[k=1]{}\^K <\[\_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} z\_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s’\_[kl]{}))\] \_, \_(Z\_\^[(n)]{}) \[\_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} \_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s’\_[kl]{}))\]\_>\_\
&=& \_[k=1]{}\^K <\[\_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} z\_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s\_[kl]{}))\] \_, U\^\_(\_[M\_k]{})\^[-1]{}\_(Z\_\^[(n)]{}) U\^\_(\_[M\_k]{}) \[\_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} \_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s\_[kl]{}))\]\_>\_\
&=& <\[\_[k=1]{}\^K \_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} z\_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s\_[kl]{}))\] \_, \_(Z\_\^[(n)]{}) \[\_[k=1]{}\^K \_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} \_[kl]{} \_(W\_(s\_[kl]{}))\]\_>\_so that expectation values of the invariants coincide. Here we have made use of the orthogonality relations of the states defined over different graphs. In fact, the two gauge fixed representations are unitarily equivalent because both are equivalent to direct sums of Hilbert spaces ${\cal H}^{\pm}_{\omega,\gamma_M}$ and (${\cal H}^{\pm}_{\omega,\gamma'_M}$) respectively which are preserved by all charges and the unitary operator that maps between the Hilbert spaces is the one that maps ${\cal H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma_M}$ to ${\cal H}^\pm_{\omega,\gamma'_M}$.\
\
[**Group Averaging:**]{}\
\
Since on the $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))\Omega_\omega$ the gauge group acts by diffeomorphisms, we can directly copy the analysis from [@24]. We will just summarize the main results.
To each momentum network label $s$ we assign a class $[s]$ defined by the orbit of $s$, that is, $[s]:=\{\varphi(s);\;\varphi\in \mbox{Diff}(S^1)\}$. To each class $[s]$ we assign a distribution on the space $\Phi_{Kin}$, consisting of the finite linear combinations of states of the form $\pi_\omega(W_\pm(s))\Omega_\omega$, defined by \[6.68\] \^\_[\[s\]]{}(\_(W\_(s’))\_):=\_[\[s\]]{}(s’)= \_[\[s\],\[s’\]]{} where $\chi_.$ denotes the characteristic function. These states are the images of the anti – linear rigging map \[6.69\] \^\_[\[s\]]{}:=(\_(W\_(s))\_) and formally we have \[6.69a\] \^\_[\[s\]]{}= \_[s’ \[s\]]{}\_which explains the word “group averaging”.
The distributions $\rho_{[s]}$ belong to the dual $\Phi_{Kin}^\ast$ of $\Phi_{Kin}$ on which one defines duals of operators $O$ by \[6.70\] \[O’\^\_[\[s\]]{}\](f):=\_[\[s\]]{}(O\^f) where $O^\dagger$ is the adjoint of $O$ in ${\cal H}_{Kin}={\cal H}_\omega$ and $f\in \Phi_{Kin}$. It follows that \[6.71\] \[U\^\_()\]’\^\_[\[s\]]{}=\^\_[\[s\]]{} is invariant, hence they solve the Virasoro constraints exactly. One defines the physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}^\pm_{Phys}$ as the completion of the finite linear span of the $\rho^\pm_{[s]}$ under the inner product \[6.72\] <\^\_[\[s\]]{},\_[\[s’\]]{}>\_[Phys]{} :=\_[\[s’\]]{}(\_(W\_(s))\_) =\_[\[s\],\[s’\]]{}
The action of the charges $\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_\pm)$ is again by duality \[6.73\] \[(\_(Z\^[(n)]{}\_))’\^\_[\[s\]]{}\](f) \^\_[\[s\]]{}\]((\_(Z\^[(n)]{}\_)f) where we have used symmetry of the operators. It is not difficult to see that \[6.74\] (\_(Z\^[(n)]{}\_))’(\_(W\_(s))\_) =((\_(Z\^[(n)]{}\_) \_(W\_(s))\_) so that the rigging map $\rho$ commutes with the invariants due to diffeomorphism invariance. It follows from the general properties of a rigging map [@19a] that the dual operators $(\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_\pm))'$ are symmetric as well on ${\cal H}^\pm_{Phys}$.
Finally, it is clear that dual representation of the charges is unitarily equivalent to the gauge fixed representation above by simply identifying ${\cal H}^\pm_{Phys}$ with ${\cal H}^\pm_{gf}$.
Gravitons {#s6.9}
---------
It is easy to check that in our notation the graviton states in usual string theory in the lightcone gauge are given by the symmetric, transverse and traceless components of \[6.75\] |a,b;p>:=\[\_[S\^1]{}dx e\^[ix]{}\^a\_-\]|p> with $a,b=1,..D-1$ given by transversal indices and $|p>$ is the usual string theory vacuum (tachyon with momentum $p$). See e.g. [@11] for a derivation. Due to the mode functions $e^{\pm ix}$ appearing in (\[6.75\]), graviton states are not gauge invariant states in the sense of section \[s6.8\]. We can, however, describe them in our gauge fixed Hilbert space as the massless states ($p\cdot p=0$) \[6.76\] \^[ab]{}\_[\_p]{}:=\_[\_p]{}(W\^[aM]{}\_-) \_[\_p]{}(W\^[bM]{}\_+)\_[\_p]{} in the limit $M\to\infty$ where ($S_M$ denotes symmetric projection) \[6.77\] \_(W\^[aM]{}\_) &=&()\^M S\_M \_[m=1]{}\^M {\[\_(W\_(s\^a\_[c,m]{}))-\_(W\_(s\^a\_[c,m]{}))\^[-1]{}\] i\[\_(W\_(s\^a\_[s,m]{})-\_(W\_(s\^a\_[s,m]{}))\^[-1]{}\]}\
s\^a\_[c,m]{} &=& ( (),\[,\]), s\^a\_[s,m]{}=( (),\[,\]) Since, however, the operators (\[6.77\]) are not gauge invariant, it is not clear what their meaning is in the light of the invariant description of this paper. Clearly, more work is needed in order to obtain a meaningful notion of graviton creation operators in terms of the invariant charges $\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_\pm)$. Within LQG this has only recently been understood in the linearized sector [@28] but an understanding in the full theory is still lacking. We will come back to this question in the companion paper [@11].
Conclusions, Open Questions and Outlook {#s7}
=======================================
In this paper we have combined ideas from Loop Quantum Gravity, Algebraic Quantum Field Theory and Pohlmeyer’s Theory of the invariant charges in order to construct quantum field theories for the closed, bosonic string in flat Minkowskian target space which differ significantly from usual string theory. Let us list once more the main differences:
- [*Target Space Dimension*]{}\
There is no sign, neither from a ghost free spectrum requirement (covariant quantization of usual string theory) nor from a Lorentz invariance requirement (lightcone quantization of usual string theory), of a critical dimension. Our construction works in any dimension, especially $D=4$.
- [*Ghosts*]{}\
We always work with honest Hilbert spaces, mathematically ill – defined objects such as negative norm states are strictly avoided. Hence there are no ghosts to get rid of.
- [*Weyl Invariance*]{}\
We never introduce a worldsheet metric because we are working directly with the more geometrical Nambu – Goto string rather than the Polyakov string. Thus, there is no artificial Weyl invariance introduced which is to be factored out later.
- [*Conformal Invariance*]{}\
We never have to fix the (Weyl and) worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance by going to a conformal worldsheet gauge. Our formulation is manifestly worldsheet diffeomorphism invariant. Hence, there is never a residual gauge freedom corresponding to the conformal diffeomorphism group of the flat worldsheet metric to be taken care of. For the same reason, conformal field theory does not play any role whatsoever in our approach.
- [*Virasoro Anomalies and Central Charge*]{}\
Following the tradition of algebraic QFT, we have separated the quantum algebra of string theory from its representation theory. On a properly chosen Weyl algebra of kinematical operators we have the local gauge symmetry group of the string corresponding to worldsheet diffeomorphisms and the global Poincaré symmetry acting by automorphisms. Then by standard operator theoretical constructions one obtains automatically an anomaly – free, moreover unitary representation of both symmetry groups on an important subclass of cyclic representations, provided they exist. Hence, there are no anomalies in our formulation, the central charge vanishes. This is a direct consequence of carrying out a true Dirac quantization of the constraints in contrast to standard string theory where only half of the constraints are imposed strongly. We will come back to that point in our companion paper [@11]
- [*Existence of Representations*]{}\
We did not (yet) carry out a full analysis of the representation theory of the quantum string. However, we found at least one representation which fulfills all requirements.
- [*Invariants*]{}\
To the best of our knowledge, in standard string theory the problem of defining the classical Dirac observables as operators on the Hilbert space has not been addressed so far. The closest construction that we are aware of are the DDF operators in the lightcone gauge of the Virasoro constraints [@1]. In a fully worldsheet background independent and diffeomorphism invariant formulation that one is forced to from an LQG perspective, dealing with the Dirac observables is mandatory. Fortunately, the invariant charges have been constructed already by Pohlmeyer and his collaborators. The example representation that we have constructed actually supports a specific quantum deformation of the classical charge algebra. The corresponding operators define invariant n – point functions which are finite without UV – divergences.
- [*Tachyon*]{}\
We saw that we can construct representations with arbitrary, non – negative mass spectrum , so there is no tachyon in the spectrum. Usually the tachyon is (besides the phenomenological need for fermionic matter) one of the motivations for considering the superstring. Our example shows that this depends on the representation and is not always necessary.
\
In the jargon of standard string theory, one could summarize this by saying that [*the LQG – String presents a new and consistent solution to quantizing string theory*]{}. Actually, there is not [*the*]{} LQG – String, presumably there exist infinitely many solutions to the representation problem (which are consistent by definition).\
\
Of course, we do not claim that the particular representation we found is necessarily of any physical significance. In fact it cannot be since we have not included (yet) any fermionic degrees of freedom. Also, besides not having carried out a full analysis of the representation theory, our analysis is incomplete in many respects as for instance we have not yet developed the S – Matrix theory for the LQG – String (however, sinze the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} are nothing else than invariant n – point functions, this is presumably not very difficult). What is also missing, so far, is a comparison with the objects of usual string theory because it is hard to translate gauge dependent notions such as graviton states into our invariant language, see section \[s6.9\]. Finally, there are four immediate open questions:\
i)\
First of all the [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} together with the the boost generators reconstruct the string embedding $X^\mu$ (up to gauge transformations) completely only up to scalar multiples of the momentum $p^\mu$. It seems to be hard to define an invariant which captures this one parameter degree of freedom unless one includes string scattering [@6; @15].\
ii)\
Secondly, an interesting open question is whether one can find a supersymmetric (or at least fermionic) extension of our Weyl algebra and if curved target spaces can be treated the same way. What is needed is an analogue of the $Y_\pm$ with the same simple commutation relations and the same simple behaviour under gauge transformations. If that would be possible and if appropriately generalized [**Pohlmeyer Charges**]{} could be found, then one could repeat the analysis of this paper because the structure of the constraint algebra of the $V_\pm$ remains the same even for the supersymmetric extension and for curved target spaces.\
iii)\
Thirdly one might wonder whether an approach based on invariants as carried out in this paper is not possible also for higher p – brane theories such as the (super)membrane [@10] which is a candidate for M – Theory.\
iv)\
Lastly one may wonder which other GNS representations one gets by constructing the folium of $\omega$. Of course, the folium should be based on $G-$invariant positive trace class operators, see section \[s4\]. Thus one would try to define those from bounded operators constructed from the $\pi_\omega(Z^{(n)}_\pm)$. Notice that trace class operators are in particular compact, thus they must have discrete spectrum with all non vanishing eigenvalues of finite multiplicity. Since ${\cal H}_\omega$ is not separable, such an operator would have to have uncountably infinite multiplicity for the eigenvalue zero.\
\
Let us conclude by stressing once more that the claim of this paper is certainly not to have found a full solution of string theory. Rather, we wanted to point out two things:\
First of all, that canonical and algebraic methods can be fruitfully combined in order to analyze the string. Secondly, that the specific Fock representation that one always uses in string theory is by far not the end of the story: The invariant representation theory of the quantum string, as we have defined it here, is presumably very rich and we encourage string theorists to study the string from the algebraic perspective and to systematically analyze all its representations. This might lead to a natural resolution of major current puzzles in string theory, such as the cosmological constant puzzle [@27] (120 orders of magnitude too large), the tachyon condensation puzzle [@9] (unstable bosonic string vacua), the vacuum degeneracy puzzle [@29] (huge moduli space of vacua upon compactification), the phenomeology puzzle [@30] (so far the standard model has not been found among all possible string vacua of the five superstring theories currently defined, even when including D – branes) and finally the puzzle of proving perturbative finiteness beyond two loops [@31]. See the beautiful review [@32] for a status report on these issues. Namely, it might be that there are much simpler representations of the string, especially in lower dimensions and possibly without supersymmetry, which avoid or simplify all or some these problems.
While this would be attractive, the existence of new, phenomenologically sensible representations would demonstrate that $D=10,11,26$ dimensions, supersymmetry and the matter content of the world are tied to a specific representation of string theory and hence would not be a prediction in this sense. We believe, however, that the potential discovery of new, physically interesting representations for string theory, in the sense of this paper, is a fascinating research project which could lead to major progress on the afore mentioned puzzles.\
\
\
[Acknowledgements]{}\
\
We are grateful to Detlev Buchholz and Klaus Fredenhagen for repeatedly encouraging to look at the string from the algebraic point of view and to Jan Ambjorn and Hermann Nicolai for suggesting to apply Loop Quantum Gravity methods to string theory. We also would like to thank Dorothea Bahns, Gerrit Handrich, Catherine Meusburger and Karl – Henning Rehren for very fruitful discussions about Pohlmeyer’s programme for string theory. Special thanks to Dorothea Bahns for a copy of her diploma thesis.
This research project was supported in part by funds from NSERC of Canada to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
[99]{}
-5pt
M.B. Green, J. Schwarz, E. Witten, “Superstring Theory", vol. 1, 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987\
J. Polchinski, “String Theory", vol.1 : “An Introduction to the Bosonic String", vol. 2 : “Superstring Theory and Beyond", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998
C. Rovelli, “Quantum Gravity”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, at press\
T. Thiemann, “Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, at press A. Ashtekar, “Quantum Geometry and Gravity: Recent Advances”, gr-qc/0112038\
L. Smolin, “Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant”, hep-th/0209079\
C. Rovelli, “Loop Quantum Gravity", Living Rev. Rel. [**1**]{} (1998) 1, gr-qc/9710008\
T. Thiemann,“Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity”, Lecture Notes in Physics, [**631**]{} (2003) 41 – 135, gr-qc/0210094
R. Haag, “Local Quantum Physics”, 2nd ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1996
D. Buchholz, “Algebraic Quantum Field Theory: A Status Report”, Plenary talk given at 13th International Congress in Mathematical Physics (ICMP 2000), London, England, 17-22 Jul 2000, math-ph/0011044
G. B. Folland, “Harmonic Analysis in Phase Space”, Ann. Math. Studies, no. 122, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., 1989 K. Pohlmeyer, “A Group Theoretical Approach to the Quantization of the Free Relativistic Closed String", Phys. Lett. [**B119**]{} (1982) 100; “The Invariant Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory in WKB Approximation", Commun. Math. Phys. [**105**]{} (1986) 629; “The Algebra formed by the Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory: Casimir Elements", Commun. Math. Phys. [**114**]{} (1988) 351; “Uncovering the Detailed Structure of the Algebra Formed by the Invariant Charges of Closed Bosonic Strings Moving in (1+2)-Dimensional Minkowski Space", Commun. Math. Phys. [**163**]{} (1994) 629-644; “The Invariant Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory: Non-Additive Composition Laws", Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A10**]{} (1995) 295-308; “The Nambu-Goto Theory of Closed Bosonic Strings Moving in (1+3)-Dimensional Minkowski Space: The Quantum Algebra of Observables", Annalen Phys. [**8**]{} (1999) 19-50, \[hep-th/9805057\]
K. Pohlmeyer, K.H. Rehren, “Algebraic Properties of the Invariant Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory", Commun.Math.Phys. [**105**]{} (1986) 593; “The Algebra formed by the Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory: Identification of a Maximal Abelean Subalgebra" Commun. Math. Phys. [**114**]{} (118) 55; “The Algebra formed by the Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory: Their Geometric Origin and Their Completeness", Commun. Math. Phys. [**114**]{} (1988) 177
K. Pohlmeyer, M. Trunk, “The Invariant Charges of the Nambu-Goto Theory: Quantization of Non-Additive Composition Laws", hep-th/0206061\
G. Handrich, C. Nowak, “The Nambu-Goto Theory of Closed Bosonic Strings Moving in (1+3)-Dimensional Minkowski Space: The Construction of the Quantum Algebra of Observables up to Degree Five", Annalen Phys. [**8**]{} (1999) 51-54, \[hep-th/9807231\]\
G. Handrich, “Lorentz Covariance of the Quantum Algebra of Observables: Nambu-Goto Strings in 3+1 Dimensions", Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A17**]{} (2002) 2331-2349\
G. Handrich, C. Paufler, J.B. Tausk, M. Walter, “The Representation of the Algebra of Observables of the Closed Bosonic String in 1+3 Dimensions: Calculation to Order $\hbar^7$", math-ph/0210024
C. Meusburger, K.H. Rehren, “Algebraic Quantization of the Closed Bosonic String", math-ph/0202041
R. F. Streater, A. S. Wightman, “PCT, Spin and Statistics, and all that", Benjamin, New York, 1964
R. Helling, H. Nicolai, “Supermebranes and Matrix Theory", hep-th/9809103
T. Thiemann, “The LQG – String: Loop Quantum Gravity Quantization of String Theory II. Curved Target Space”
A. Starodubtsev, “String Theory in a Vertex Operator Representation: A Simple Model for Testing Loop Quantum Gravity”, gr-qc/0201089
J. Magueijo, L. Smolin, “String Theories with Deformed Energy Momentum Relations, and a Possible Non – Tachyonic Bosonic String”, hep-th/0401087
A. Hanson, T. Regge, C. Teitelboim, “Constrained Hamiltonian Systems", Accdemia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1976
M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, “Quantization of Gauge Systems" Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992
V. I. Arnol’d, “Dynamical Systems III. Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics", Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993
A.M. Perelomov, “Integrable systems of classical mechanics and Lie algebras”, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1990
D. Bahns, “Die Invariantenalgebra des Nambu – Goto – Strings in Erzeugungs – und Vernichtungsoperatoren”, Diploma Thesis (in German), Albert – Ludwigs – Universität Freiburg, November 1999
O. Bratteli, D. W. Robinson, “Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics", vol. 1,2, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997
R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen, M. Kohler, “The Microlocal Spectrum Condition and Wick Polynomials of Free Fields on Curved Spacetimes”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**180**]{} 633-652,1996, \[gr-qc/9510056\]\
R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen, “Microlocal Analysis and Interacting Quantum Field Theories: Renormalization on Physical Backgrounds”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**208**]{}, 623-661,2000, \[math-ph/9903028\]\
R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen,, R. Verch, “The Generally Covariant Locality Principle: A New Paradigm for Local Quantum Field Theory”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**237**]{}, 31-68,2003, \[math-ph/0112041\]\
R. Verch, “A Spin Statistics Theorem for Quantum Fields on Curved Spacetime Manifolds in a Generally Covariant Framework”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**223**]{}, 261-288, 2001, \[math-ph/0102035\]\
S. Hollands, R. M. Wald, “Local Wick Polynomials and Time Ordered Products of Quantum Fields in Curved Spacetime”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**223**]{} 289-326,2001, \[gr-qc/0103074\]; “Existence of Local Covariant Time Ordered Products of Quantum Fields in Curved Spacetime”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**231**]{} 309-345, 2002, \[gr-qc/0111108\]; “On the Renormalization Group in Curved Spacetime”, Commun.Math.Phys. [**237**]{}, 123-160, 2003, \[gr-qc/0209029\]\
S. Hollands, “A General PCT Theorem for the Operator Product Expansion in Curved Spacetime”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**244**]{} 209-244, 2004, \[gr-qc/0212028\]\
W. Junker, E. Schrohe, “Adiabatic Vacuum States on General Spacetime Manifolds: Definition, Construction and Physical Properties” Annales Poincare Phys.Theor. [**3**]{}, 1113-1182, 2002 \[math-ph/0109010\]
D. Giulini, D. Marolf , “A Uniqueness Theorem for Constraint Quantization" Class. Quant. Grav. 16:2489-2505,1999, \[gr-qc/9902045\]; “On the Generality of Refined Algebraic Quantization", Class. Quant. Grav. 16:2479-2488,1999, \[gr-qc/9812024\]
T. Thiemann, “ The Phoenix Project: Master Constraint Programme for Loop Quantum Gravity”, gr-qc/030580
B. Dittrich, T. Thiemann, “Testing the Master Constraint Programme for Loop Quantum Gravity”, in preparation
A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, D. Marolf, J. Mourão, T. Thiemann, “Quantization for diffeomorphism invariant theories of connections with local degrees of freedom", Journ. Math. Phys. [**36**]{} (1995) 6456-6493, \[gr-qc/9504018\]
H. Sahlmann, “When do Measures on the Space of Connections Support the Triad Operators of Loop Quantum Gravity?”, gr-qc/0207112; “Some Comments on the Representation Theory of the Algebra Underlying Loop Quantum Gravity”, gr-qc/0207111\
A. Okolow, J. Lewandowski, “Diffeomorphism Covariant Representations of the Holonomy Flux Algebra”, gr-qc/0302059\
H. Sahlmann, T. Thiemann, “On the Superselection Theory of the Weyl Algebra for Diffeomorphism Invariant Quantum Gauge Theories”, gr-qc/0302090; “Irreducibility of the Ashtekar-Isham-Lewandowski Representation”, gr-qc/0303074
J. Glimm, A. Jaffe, “Quantum Physics", Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987
W. Thirring, “Lehrbuch der Mathematischen Physik", vol. 3, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1978
A. Ashtekar, C.J. Isham, “Representations of the Holonomy Algebras of Gravity and Non-Abelean Gauge Theories", Class. Quantum Grav. [**9**]{} (1992) 1433, \[hep-th/9202053\]\
A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, “Representation theory of analytic Holonomy $C^\star$ algebras", in “Knots and Quantum Gravity", J. Baez (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 1994
T. Thiemann, “Kinematical Hilbert Spaces for Fermionic and Higgs Quantum Field Theories”, Class. Quant. Grav. [ **15**]{}, 1487-1512, 1998, \[gr-qc/9705021\]
A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, H. Sahlmann, “Polymer and Fock Representations for a Scalar Field”, Class.Quant.Grav. [**20**]{} L11-1,2003, gr-qc/0211012
Y. Yamasaki, “Measures on Infinite Dimensional Spaces", World Scientific, Singapore, 1985
G.W. Mackey, “Unitary Group Representations in Physics, Probability Theory and Number Theory”, Benjamin-cummings Publ.Comp., Reading, 1978
M. Reed, B. Simon, “Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics", vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, 1978
T. Thiemann, “Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD): VII. Symplectic Structures and Continuum Lattice Formulations of Gauge Field Theories", Class.Quant.Grav.18:3293-3338,2001, \[hep-th/0005232\]; “Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): I. General Properties", Class.Quant.Grav.18:2025-2064,2001, \[hep-th/0005233\]; “Complexifier Coherent States for Canonical Quantum General Relativity", gr-qc/0206037\
T. Thiemann, O. Winkler, “Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): II. Peakedness Properties", Class.Quant.Grav.18:2561-2636,2001, \[hep-th/0005237\]; “III. Ehrenfest Theorems", Class. Quantum Grav. [**18**]{} (2001) 4629-4681, \[hep-th/0005234\]; “IV. Infinite Tensor Product and Thermodynamic Limit", Class. Quantum Grav. [**18**]{} (2001) 4997-5033, \[hep-th/0005235\]\
H. Sahlmann, T. Thiemann, O. Winkler, “Coherent States for Canonical Quantum General Relativity and the Infinite Tensor Product Extension", Nucl.Phys.B606:401-440,2001 \[gr-qc/0102038\]\
H. Sahlmann, T. Thiemann, “Towards the QFT on Curved Spacetime Limit of QGR. 1. A General Scheme”, \[gr-qc/0207030\]; “2. A Concrete Implementation", \[gr-qc/0207031\]
M. Varadarajan, “Fock representations from U(1) Holonomy Algebras", Phys. Rev. [**D61**]{}, 104001, 2000, \[gr-qc/0001050\]\
M. Varadarajan, “Photons from Quantized Electric Flux Representations", Phys.Rev. [**D64**]{} (2001) 104003, \[gr-qc/0104051\]\
M. Varadarajan, “Gravitons from a Loop Representation of Linearized Gravity", Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{} (2002) 024017, \[gr-qc/0204067\] E. Witten, “The Cosmological Constant Problem from the Viewpoint of String Theory”, hep-ph/0002297 A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, “Tachyon Condensation in String Field Theory”, JHEP [**0003**]{} 002, 2000; \[hep-th/9912249\] W. Lerche, “Recent Developments in String Theory´´, hep-th/9710246 M. Haack, B. Kors, D. Lüst, “Recent Developments in String Theory: From Perturbative Dualities to M Theory", hep-th/9904033 E. D’Hoker, D.H. Phong, “Lectures on Two Loop Superstrings”, hep-th/0211111
L. Smolin, “How far are we from a quantum theory of gravity”, hep-th/0303185
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we study the lengths of certain chains of subalgebras of a Lie algebra $L$: namely, a chief series, a maximal chain of minimal length, a chain of maximal length in which each subalgebra is modular in $L$, and a chain of maximal length in which each subalgebra is a quasi-ideal of $L$. In particular we show that, over a field $F$ of characteristic zero, a Lie algebra $L$ with radical $R$ has a maximal chain of subalgebras and a chain of subalgebras all of which are modular in $L$ of the same length if and only if $L = R$, or$\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$ and $L/R$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional simple Lie algebras.
[*Mathematics Subject Classification 2000*]{}: 17B05, 17B20, 17B30, 17B50.
[*Key Words and Phrases*]{}: Lie algebras, maximal chain, chief series, modular subalgebra, quasi-ideal.
---
ON THE LENGTHS OF CERTAIN CHAINS OF SUBALGEBRAS IN LIE ALGEBRAS
DAVID A. TOWERS
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YF
England
[email protected]
Introduction
============
It has been shown by a number of authors that lattice-theoretic information about the subalgebra lattice of a Lie algebra can be used to infer information about the structure of the algebra itself. These studies resemble similar ones in the theory of groups, but there are interesting and striking differences. The current paper is inspired by the lattice-theoretic characterisations of finite solvable groups given by Shareshian and Woodroofe in [@sw], but again most of the results obtained, and the methods used, are different.
Throughout $L$ will denote a finite-dimensional Lie algebra over a field $F$. We write $minmax(L)$ for the minimal length of a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$ and $\ell(L)$ for the length of a chief series for $L$. In section two we consider the relationship between $\ell(L)$ and $\ell(M)$ when $M$ is a solvable maximal subalgebra of $L$. The main result is that if $L$ is nonsolvable and $F$ has characteristic zero, or else is algebraically closed of characteristic greater than 5, then $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L)$. In the case where $F$ has characteristic zero the nonsolvable algebras $L$ for which $\ell(M) = \ell(L)$ are characterised; in particular, if $F$ is also algebraically closed there are no such algebras.
The purpose of section three is to investigate the relationship between $\ell(L)$ and $minmax(L)$. We show first that if $L$ is solvable then there is a maximal chain of subalgebras which has the same length as a chief series for $L$ and such that the dimensions of the factor spaces in the two chains are in a one-one correspondence. Moreover, if $L$ is solvable then $minmax(L) = \ell(L)$. We then consider whether, as for groups, the converse is true. This is shown to be the case if $F$ has characteristic zero or is algebraically closed of characteristic greater than five. However, the situation for Lie algebras differs from that for groups in a number of repects: for example, there are Lie algebras $L$ with $minmax(L) = \ell(L) + 1$, whereas there is no group with this property. For all algebras $L$ we have $minmax(L) \geq \ell(L)$. We show that if $L$ is nonsolvable and $F$ has characteristic zero, or else is algebraically closed of characteristic greater than 5, then $minmax(L) \geq \ell(L) + 1$. In the case where $F$ has characteristic zero the algebras $L$ for which $minmax(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ are characterised; in particular, if $F$ is also algebraically closed, again there are no such algebras.
A subalgebra $U$ of $L$ is called [*modular*]{} in $L$ if it is a modular element in the lattice of subalgebras of $L$; that is, if $$\langle U,B \rangle \cap C = \langle B, U \cap C \rangle \hspace{.3in} \hbox{for all subalgebras}\hspace{.1in} B \subseteq C,$$ and $$\langle U,B \rangle \cap C = \langle B \cap C,U \rangle \hspace{.3in} \hbox{for all subalgebras}\hspace{.1in} U \subseteq C,$$ (where, $ \langle U, B \rangle$ denotes the subalgebra of $L$ generated by $U$ and $B$). A subalgebra $Q$ of $L$ is called a [*quasi-ideal*]{} of $L$ if $[Q,V] \subseteq Q + V$ for every subspace $V$ of $L$. We write $mod\ell(L)$ for the maximal length of a chain of subalgebras each of which is modular in $L$, and $qi\ell(L)$ for the maximal length of a chain of subalgebras each of which is a quasi-ideal of $L$.
In section three we consider the relationship between these two measures and $\ell(L)$. It is shown that, over any field, $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L), \ell(L) + 1$ or $\ell(L) + 2$, and that if the field has characteristic zero, or if $L$ is restricted and $F$ is algebraically closed of characteristic $p > 0$, then $mod\ell(L) = \ell(L)$ or $\ell(L)+1$. Furthermore, the algebras $L$ for which $qi(L) \neq \ell(L)$ or $mod\ell(L) \neq \ell(L)$ are described. This situation again differs from the situation for groups, where $mod\ell(G) = \ell(G)$ for every finite group $G$. It is shown that, over a field $F$ of characteristic zero, Lie algebras $L$ that are solvable or whose Levi subalgebra is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional simple Lie algebras with a one-dimensional maximal subalgebra, are characterised by the purely lattice-theoretic condition that $mod\ell(L) = minmax(L)$. Finally it is shown that, if $L$ be a restricted Lie algebra over an algebraically closed field $F$ of characteristic $p > 0$, then $mod\ell(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ if and only if $L$ has an ideal $B$ such that $L/B \cong sl_2(F)$ or the Witt algebra $W(1:\underline{1})$.
If $A$ and $B$ are subalgebras of $L$ for which $L = A + B$ and $A \cap B = 0$ we will write $L = A \dot{+} B$; if, furthermore, $A, B$ are ideals of $L$ we write $L = A \oplus B$.
Chief series and solvable maximal subalgebras
=============================================
Let $0 = L_0 < L_1 < \ldots L_n = L$ be a chief series for $L$. Then we put $\ell(L) = n =$ the [*length*]{} of the chief series. For an ideal $B$ of $L$, let $il_L(B)$ denote the largest number $r$ such that there is a chain $0 = B_0 < \ldots < B_r= B$ of ideals of $L$ of length $r$. Clearly $\ell(L) = \ell(L/B) + il_L(B)$; in fact, if $C$ is an ideal of $L$ with $C \subseteq B$ we have $i_L(B) = i_{L/C}(B/C) + i_L(C)$. If $U$ is a subalgebra of $L$ we define the [*core*]{} (with respect to $L$) of $U$, $U_L$, to be the largest ideal of $L$ contained in $U$.
\[l:elmax\] Let $M$ be a maximal subalgebra of $L$ and let $B$ be an ideal of $L$ such that $B/M_L$ is a minimal ideal of $L/M_L$. Then $$\ell(M) - \ell(L) = il_M(M_L) - il_L(M_L) + il_{M/M_L}((M \cap B)/M_L) - 1.$$
Clearly $L = M + B$, so $L/B \cong M/(M \cap B)$. Now $$\begin{array}{lll}
\ell(M) - \ell(L) & = & \ell(M/M_L) + il_M(M_L) - \ell(L/M_L) - il_L(M_L) \\
& = & il_M(M_L) - il_L(M_L) + \ell(M/M_L) - (1 + \ell(L/B)) \\
& = & il_M(M_L) - il_L(M_L) + [\ell(M/M_L) - \ell(M/(M \cap B))] - 1 \\
& = & il_M(M_L) - il_L(M_L) + il_{M/M_L}((M \cap B)/M_L) - 1.
\end{array}$$
\[c:elmax\] Let $M$ be a maximal subalgebra of $L$ and let $B$ be an ideal of $L$ such that $B/M_L$ is a minimal ideal of $L/M_L$. Then
- $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L) - 1$;
- if $M \cap B \neq M_L$, then $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L)$; and
- if $(M \cap B)/M_L$ is neither trivial nor a minimal ideal of $M/M_L$, then $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L) + 1$
Simply note that $il_L(M_L) \leq il_M(M_L)$.
The [*Frattini ideal*]{} of $L$, $\phi(L)$, is the largest ideal of $L$ contained in all maximal subalgebras of $L$. The [*abelian socle*]{} of $L$, Asoc $L$, is the sum of the minimal abelian ideals of $L$. If $B/C$ is a chief factor of $L$ we define the [*centraliser*]{} in $L$ of $B/C$ to be $C_L(B/C) = \{x\in L : [x,B] \subseteq C \}$.
\[l:max\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra with nilradical $N$, and let $M$ be a maximal subalgebra of $L$ with $N \not \subseteq M$. Then $il_M(\phi(L)) = il_L(\phi(L))$ and $\ell(M) = \ell(L) - 1$.
We have $N \neq \phi(L)$ since $N \not \subseteq M$. Let $A/\phi(L) \subseteq N/\phi(L)$ be a minimal ideal of $L/\phi(L)$ with $A \not \subseteq M$. Such an $A$ exists by [@frat Theorem 7.4]. Then $L = A + M$, $A \cap M = \phi(L)$ and $A \subseteq N$.
Let $B/C$ be a chief factor of $L$ with $B \subseteq \phi(L)$. Then $N$ is the intersection of the centralizers of the factors in a chief series for $L$, by [@bg Lemma 4.3], so $A \subseteq N \subseteq C_L(B/C)$. It follows that $B/C$ is a chief factor of $M$ and $il_M(\phi(L)) = il_L(\phi(L))$. In view of this, to show that $\ell(M) = \ell(L) - 1$ we can assume that $\phi(L) = 0$. But then $L = A \dot{+} M$ and if $B$ is an ideal of $M$, $A + B$ is an ideal of $L$. The result follows.
\[l:ell\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra, over a field of characteristic zero, with radical $R$, nilradical $N$, and Levi decomposition $L = R \dot{+} S$. Then $$\ell(L) = il_L(\phi(L)) + il_{L/\phi(L)}(N/\phi(L)) + \dim(R/N) + \ell(S).$$
It suffices to show that if $\phi(L) = 0$ then $$\ell(L) = il_{L}(N) + \dim(R/N) + \ell(S).$$ This follows from the fact if $\phi(L) = 0$ then $L = N \dot{+} (S \oplus C)$, where $N =$ Asoc $L$ and $C$ is an abelian subalgebra of $L$, by [@frat Theorems 7.4, 7.5].
We will call a simple Lie algebra $L$ over a field $F$ of characteristic different from two [*special*]{} if it has a one-dimensional maximal subalgebra. It is well-known that $L$ is special if and only if it is three-dimensional and $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$.
\[l:simple\] Let $S = S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus S_n$ be a semisimple Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero, where $S_i$ is a simple ideal of $S$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and $n>1$. Let $M$ be a maximal subalgebra of $S$ with $S_n \not \subseteq M$.
- If $S_j \not \subseteq M$ for some $1 \leq j \leq n-1$ then $S_n \cong S_j$ and $\ell(M) = \ell(S) -1$.
- If $S_j \subseteq M$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n-1$ then $\ell(M) \geq \ell(S)$ with equality if and only if either
- $S_n$ is three-dimensional simple and $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$, or
- $M \cap S_n$ is simple.
\(i) We have $S = M + S_n = M + S_j$ and $M \cap S_n = M \cap S_j = 0$, since each of these is an ideal of $S$. It follows that $M \cong L/S_n \cong L/S_j$, whence $S_n \cong S_j$ and $\ell(M) = n-1 = \ell(S) - 1$.
\(ii) In this case $M = S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus S_{n-1} \oplus M \cap S_n$, whence $\ell(M) \geq n = \ell(S)$. Moreover, $\ell(M) = \ell(S)$ if and only if $\dim M \cap S_n = 1$, in which case $S_n$ is special (case (a)) or $M \cap S_n$ is simple (case (b)).
\[p:nonsolv\] Let $L$ be a non-solvable Lie algebra over field $F$ and let $M$ be a solvable maximal subalgebra of $L$.
- If $F$ has characteristic zero, or else is algebraically closed of characteristic greater than 5, then $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L)$.
- If $F$ has characteristic zero then $\ell(M) = \ell(L)$ if only if $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$, $L/R \cong S$ is three-dimensional simple, where $R$ is the radical of $L$, and each chief factor $B/C$ with $\phi(L) \subseteq C \subset B \subseteq N$ is an irreducible $M \cap S$-module.
\(i) Let $L$ be a minimal counter-example. If $M_L \neq 0$ then $L/M_L$ is non-solvable and $\ell(M/M_L) \geq \ell(L/M_L)$ by the minimality of $L$. But now $\ell(M) - il_M(M_L) \geq \ell(L) - il_L(M_L)$, whence $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L) + il_M(M_L) - il_L(M_L) \geq \ell(L)$, a contradiction. Thus $M_L = 0$.
Let $B$ be a minimal ideal of $L$. Then $B \not \subseteq M$, so $L = M + B$. We must have that $M \cap B$ is trivial or is a minimal ideal of $M$, since otherwise Corollary \[c:elmax\] (iii) is contradicted. Suppose first that it is a minimal ideal of $M$. Then $\ell(M) = \ell(M/(M \cap B)) + 1 = \ell(L/B) + 1 = \ell(L)$, a contradiction. We therefore have that $M \cap B = 0$. But then $M$ is a c-ideal of $L$, and so $L$ is solvable, by [@cid Theorems 3.2 and 3.3], a contradiction.
\(ii) We show first that if $L/R$ does not have a one-dimensional maximal subalgebra then $\ell(M) > \ell(L)$. Let $L$ be a minimal counter-example. Suppose $M_L \neq 0$. Clearly $M_L = R$ so $L/M_L$ is non-solvable and does not have a one-dimensional maximal subalgebra. We thus have $\ell(M/M_L) > \ell(L/M_L)$ by the minimality of $L$. But then, as above, $\ell(M) > \ell(L)$, a contradiction, so $M_L = 0$ and $L$ is semisimple. If $B$ is a simple ideal of $L$, then $L = M + B$ and $L/B \cong M/M \cap B$ is solvable, so $L$ is simple. But then $\ell (M) = \ell(L) = 1$ and so $M$ is one-dimensional, a contradiction.
It follows that, if $\ell(M) = \ell(L)$, then $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$, $L/R$ is three-dimensional simple and $M = R + Fs$ for some $s \in S$. But now $$\ell(M) = il_M(\phi(L)) + il_{M/\phi(L)}(N/\phi(L)) + \dim(R/N) + 1,$$ by Lemma \[l:ell\]. It follows from Lemma \[l:ell\] that $\ell(L) = \ell(M)$ if and only if $il_{M/\phi(L)}(N/\phi(L)) = il_{L/\phi(L)}(N/\phi(L))$. This occurs precisely when each chief factor $B/C$ with $\phi(L) \subseteq C \subset B \subseteq N$ is an irreducible $Fs$-module.
Note that, in particular, the chief factors referred to in part (ii) of the above result must have dimension at most two, as the following example illustrates.
\[e:one\] Let $L = A \rtimes S$ be the semidirect product of an abelian ideal, $A$, and a three-dimensional non-split simple Lie algebra, $S$, over the real field. Let $S$ act irreducibly on $A$ and let $\dim A \geq 3$. Then $\ell(L) = 2$. However, for any $s \in S$, $A$ has an ad$s$-invariant subspace of dimension at most two (see, for example, [@gein page23]). It follows that the maximal subalgebra $M = A \rtimes Fs$ has $\ell(M) \geq 3$.
\[c:nonsolv\] Let $L$ be a nonsolvable Lie algebra over a field $F$ which is algebraically closed of characteristic zero, and let $M$ be a maximal solvable subalgebra of $L$. Then $\ell(M) \geq \ell(L) + 1$.
Chains of subalgebras of maximal length
=======================================
The following two results are analogues of [@koh Theorems 1,2].
\[t:exists\] Let $L$ be a solvable Lie algebra with chief series $L = L_r > L_{r-1} > \ldots > L_0 = 0$. Then there is a maximal chain of subalgebras $L = M_r > M_{r-1} > \ldots > M_0 = 0$ of $L$ and a permutation $\pi \in S_r$ such that dim$(M_i/M_{i-1}) =$ dim$(L_{\pi(i)}/L_{\pi(i)-1})$ for $1 \leq i \leq r$.
We use induction on dim$L$. Let $A/\phi(L)$ be a minimal ideal of $L/\phi(L)$. Then there is a maximal subalgebra $M$ of $L$ with $L = A + M$ and $A \cap M = \phi(L)$. Let $B/C$ be a chief factor of $L$ with $B \subseteq \phi(L)$. Then, as in Lemma \[l:max\], $B/C$ is a chief factor of $M$. Form a chief series $L = L_r > \ldots > L_k = A > L_{k-1} = \phi(L) > \dots L_0 = 0$ for $L$. Since $M/\phi(L) \cong L/A$ and the chief factors of $L$ inside $\phi(L)$ are chief factors of $M$, the chief factors of $M$ are isomorphic to $L_j/L_{j-1}$ for $j \in \{0, \ldots, k-1\} \cup \{k+1, \ldots, r\}$. It follows by induction that $M$ has a maximal chain of subalgebras such that there is a bijection from the set of codimensions of successive elements in this chain to the set of dimensions of these chief factors. But dim$L/M =$ dim$A/\phi(L)$, which completes the proof.
\[t:maxmin\] Let $L$ be a solvable Lie algebra with chief series $L = L_s > L_{s-1} > \ldots L_0 = 0$, and let $L = M_r > M_{r-1} > \ldots > M_0 = 0$ be a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$ of minimum length. Then $r = s$ and there is a permutation $\pi \in S_r$ such that dim$(M_i/M_{i-1}) =$ dim$(L_{\pi(i)}/L_{\pi(i)-1})$ for $1 \leq i \leq r$.
We have $\ell(L) = s \geq r$, by Theorem \[t:exists\]. We use induction on dim$L$. Then there is a bijection from the set of codimensions of successive elements in the chain $M_{r-1} > \ldots > M_0 = 0$ to the set of dimensions of the chief factors of $M_{r-1}$. Hence $\ell(M_{r-1}) = r-1$. Let $B$ be the core of $M_{r-1}$, and $A/B$ be a chief factor of $L$. Then $L = M_{r-1} + A$ and $B = M_{r-1} \cap A$.
Form a chief series $L = L_s > \ldots > L_k = A > L_{k-1} = B > \dots L_0 = 0$ for $L$. Then $L/A \cong M_{r-1}/B$, so the chief factors of $M_{r-1}$ containing $B$ are isomorphic to $L_j/L_{j-1}$ for $k+1 \leq j \leq s$. Also any chief factor of $L$ inside $B$ is also a chief factor of $M_{r-1}$, since otherwise $\ell(M_{r-1}) \geq \ell(L) \geq r$, a contradiction. Finally dim$L/M_{r-1} =$ dim$A/B$, which completes the proof.
Put $minmax(L) =$ the minimum length of a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$.
\[l:minmaxell\] For every Lie algebra $L$ we have $minmax(L) \geq \ell(L)$.
Let $L$ be a minimal counter-example, and let $$0 = M_0 < \ldots < M_r = L$$ be a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$. Clearly $r \geq 1$. Then $$\begin{array}{llllll}
r & \geq & 1 + minmax(M_{r-1}) & \geq & 1 + \ell(M_{r-1}) & \hbox{ by the minimality of } L\\
& & & \geq & \ell(L) & \hbox{ by Corollary \ref{c:elmax} (i)}.
\end{array}$$
\[p:char0\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra, over a field of characteristic zero, with radical $R$ and Levi decomposition $L = R \dot{+} S$. Then $minmax(L) \leq il_L(R) + minmax(S)$.
We use induction on $\dim R$. The result is clear if $R = 0$, so suppose that $R \neq 0$. Clearly $\phi(L) \neq R$ by Levi’s Theorem, so let $A/\phi(L)$ be a minimal ideal of $L/\phi(L)$ with $A \subseteq R$. Then there is a maximal subalgebra $M$ of $L$ such that $L = A + M$, $S \subseteq M$ and $A \cap M = \phi(L)$. Let $R(M)$ be the radical of $M$. Then $A + R(M)$ is a solvable ideal of $L$, and so $R(M) \subseteq R \cap M \subseteq R(M)$. By induction we have that $$\begin{aligned}
minmax(M) & \leq il_M(R \cap M) + minmax(S) \nonumber \\
& = il_M(\phi(L)) + il_{M/\phi(L)}((R \cap M)/\phi(L)) + minmax(S) \nonumber \\
& = il_L(\phi(L)) + il_{L/\phi(L)}(R) - 1 + minmax(S) \nonumber \\
& = il_L(R) - 1 + minmax(S), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ using Lemma \[l:max\]. But now $$minmax(L) \leq minmax(M) + 1 \leq il_L(R) + minmax(S).$$
\[t:nonsolv\] Let $L$ be a nonsolvable Lie algebra over a field $F$ which is either of characteristic zero or else is algebraically closed of characteristic greater than 5. Then $minmax(L) \geq \ell(L) + 1$.
Let $L$ be a minimal counter-example, and let $0 = M_0 < \ldots < M_r = L$ be a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$ of minimal length $r$. Clearly $r \geq 1$. If $M_{r-1}$ is not solvable we get $$\begin{array}{llllll}
r - 1 & \geq & minmax(M_{r-1}) & \geq & 1 + \ell(M_{r-1}) & \hbox{ by the minimality of } L\\
& & & \geq & \ell(L) & \hbox{ by Corollary \ref{c:elmax} (i)},
\end{array}$$ a contradiction.
If $M_{r-1}$ is solvable then $$\begin{array}{llll}
r - 1 & \geq & minmax(M_{r-1}) = \ell(M_{r-1}) & \hbox{ by Theorem \ref{t:maxmin} }\\
& \geq & \ell(L) & \hbox{ by Proposition \ref{p:nonsolv} },
\end{array}$$ a contradiction.
Putting together Theorems \[t:maxmin\] and \[t:nonsolv\] we have the following corollary.
\[c:solvmaxmin\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra over a field over field $F$ which is either of characteristic zero or else is algebraically closed of characteristic greater than 5. Then $minmax(L) = \ell(L)$ if and only if $L$ is solvable.
\[c:nonsolvb\] Let $L$ be a nonsolvable Lie algebra over a field $F$ which is algebraically closed of characteristic zero. Then $minmax(L) \geq \ell(L) + 2$.
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[t:nonsolv\]. Let $L$ be a minimal counter-example, and let $0 = M_0 < \ldots < M_r = L$ be a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$ of minimal length $r$. Clearly $r \geq 1$. If $M_{r-1}$ is not solvable we get $$\begin{array}{llllll}
r - 1 & \geq & minmax(M_{r-1}) & \geq & 2 + \ell(M_{r-1}) & \hbox{ by the minimality of } L\\
& & & \geq & 1 + \ell(L) & \hbox{ by Corollary \ref{c:elmax} (i)},
\end{array}$$ a contradiction.
If $M_{r-1}$ is solvable then $$\begin{array}{llll}
r - 1 & \geq & minmax(M_{r-1}) = \ell(M_{r-1}) & \hbox{ by Theorem \ref{t:maxmin} }\\
& \geq & \ell(L) + 1 & \hbox{ by Corollary \ref{c:nonsolv} },
\end{array}$$ a contradiction.
The above result mirrors more closely what happens in group theory. It is noted in [@sw] that there is no group $G$ with $minmax(G) = \ell(G) + 1$. However, if $L$ is three-dimensional non-split simple, then $\ell(L) = 1$ and $minmax(L) = 2$. In fact, when $F$ has characteristic zero, we can classify the algebras $L$ for which $minmax(L) = \ell(L) + 1$.
\[p:split\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra over a field $F$ of characteristic zero with radical $R$. Then $minmax(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ if and only if $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$ and $L/R$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional simple Lie algebras.
We establish the ‘only if’ first. By Theorem \[t:nonsolv\] and Corollary \[c:solvmaxmin\] it suffices to show that if $L/R$ is not a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional special simple Lie algebras then $minmax(L) \geq \ell(L) + 2$. Let $L$ be a minimal counter-example, and let $$\begin{aligned}
0 = M_0 < M_1 < \ldots < M_n = L \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ be a maximal chain of minimal length. If $R \not \subseteq M_{n-1}$ then $L = R + M_{n-1}$ and $L/R \cong M_{n-1}/(R \cap M_{n-1})$, so $M_{n-1}/R(M_{n-1})$ is not a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional special simple Lie algebras (where $R(M_{n-1})$ is the radical of $M_{n-1}$). It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
n-1 \geq minmax(M_{n-1}) \geq \ell(M_{n-1}) + 2 \geq \ell(L) + 1,\end{aligned}$$ by the inductive hypothesis and Corollary \[c:elmax\], whence $n \geq \ell(L) + 2$, as claimed.
So suppose that $R \subseteq M_{n-1}$. Let $L = R \dot{+} S$ be the Levi decomposition of $L$, let $S = S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus S_r$ where $S_i$ is a simple ideal of $L$ for $1 \leq i \leq r$, and suppose that $S_r \not \subseteq M_{n-1}$. If $M_{n-1}$ is solvable, then $$\begin{aligned}
n-1 \geq minmax(M_{n-1}) \geq \ell(L) + 1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ by Proposition \[p:nonsolv\], and the result follows. If $M_{n-1}/R(M_{n-1})$ is non-zero but not a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional special simple Lie algebras, then $(1)$ holds again. So suppose that $M_{n-1}/R(M_{n-1})$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional special simple Lie algebras. Then $S_j \subseteq M_{n-1}$ for $1 \leq j \leq r$, since otherwise $S$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional special simple Lie algebras, by Lemma \[l:simple\]. We therefore have $$\begin{array}{llll}
n-1 & \geq minmax(M_{n-1}) \geq \ell(M_{n-1}) + 1 & \hbox{by Theorem \ref{t:nonsolv}} \\
& = il_{M_{n-1}}(R) + \ell(M_{n-1} \cap S) + 1 & \\
& \geq il_L(R) + \ell(M_{n-1} \cap S) + 1 & \\
& \geq il_L(R) + \ell(S) + 1 & \hbox{by Lemma \ref{l:simple}} \\
& = \ell(L) + 1, &
\end{array}$$ and the result follows.
Suppose now that $L/R$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional special simple Lie algebras. As a result of Theorem \[t:nonsolv\] it suffices to show that $minmax(L) \leq \ell(L) + 1$. Moreover, by Proposition \[p:char0\], it suffices to show that $minmax(L/R) \leq \ell(L/R) + 1$. Let $L/R \cong S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus S_k$, where the $S_i$ are isomorphic copies of the same three-dimensional special simple Lie algebra. Define $\Delta_i$ inductively by $\Delta_1 = \{s + \bar{s}: s \in S_{k-1}, \bar{s} = \theta(s),$ where $\theta$ is an isomorphism from $S_{k-1}$ to $S_k \}$ (the diagonal subalgebra of $S_{k-1} \oplus S_k$), $\Delta_i =$ the diagonal subalgebra of $S_{k-i} \oplus \Delta_{i-1}$ for $2 \leq i \leq k-1$. Then $$0 < Fs < \Delta_{k-1} < S_1 \oplus \Delta_{k-2} \ldots < S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus S_{k-2} \oplus \Delta_1 < L$$ is a maximal chain of subalgebras of $L$, so $minmax(L) \leq k+1$. But then $minmax(L) = \ell(L) + 1$, by Theorem \[t:nonsolv\].
\[e:two\] Notice that $minmax(L) - \ell(L)$ can take any value $n \in \N$. For, let $L = S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus S_n$, where the $S_i$ are mutually non-isomorphic three-dimensional non-split simple Lie algebras for $1 \leq i \leq n$. Over the rational field there are infinitely many such $S_i$. Let $M$ be a maximal subalgebra of $L$. Then Lemma \[l:simple\] implies that $M = S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus \hat{S_i} \oplus \ldots \oplus S_n \oplus Fs_i$, for some $1 \leq i \leq n$, where $s_i \in S_i$ and $\hat{S_i}$ indicates a term that is missing from the direct sum. Similarly it is easy to see that any maximal subalgebra of $M$ is isomorphic to $S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus \hat{S_i} \oplus \ldots \oplus S_n$ or to $$S_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus \hat{S_i} \oplus \ldots \oplus \hat{S_j} \oplus \ldots \oplus S_n \oplus Fs_i \oplus Fs_j.$$ It follows that $\ell(L) = n$ and $minmax(L) = 2n$.
Chains of modular subalgebras and of quasi-ideals of maximal length
===================================================================
We shall need the following characterisation of modular subalgebras as given by Amayo and Schwarz in [@as].
\[t:mod\] ([@as page 311])A modular subalgebra $M$ of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra $L$ over any field of characteristic zero is either
- an ideal of $L$; or
- $L/M_L$ is almost abelian, every subalgebra of $L/M_L$ is a quasi-ideal, $M/M_L$ is one-dimensional and is spanned by an element which acts as the identity map on $([L, L]+M_L)/M_L$; and $L/([L, L] + M_L)$ is one-dimensional; or
- $M/M_L$ is two-dimensional and $L/M_L$ is the three-dimensional split simple Lie algebra; or
- $M/M_L$ is a one-dimensional maximal subalgebra of $L/M_L$ and $L/M_L$ is a three-dimensional non-split simple Lie algebra.
\[t:modl\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra with radical $R$ over a field of characteristic zero. Then
- $\ell(L) \leq mod\ell(L) \leq \ell(L) + 1$; and
- $mod\ell(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ if and only if $L/R$ has a three-dimensional simple ideal.
The fact that $\ell(L) \leq mod\ell(L)$ follows from the fact that ideals of $L$ are modular in $L$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
0 = M_0 < M_1 < \ldots < M_s = L \end{aligned}$$ be a chain of modular subalgebras of $L$ of maximal length, and suppose that $M_i$ is the first ideal of $L$ that we encounter in going down the chain from $M_{s-1}$. Then $M_{i-k}$ is an ideal of $L$ for each $0 \leq k \leq i$, by [@tow Lemmas 1.1, 1.7]. If $i = s-1$ then $(2)$ is a chief series for $L$ and $\ell(L) = s = mod\ell(L)$. So suppose that $i < s-1$. Then $M_i = (M_{i+1})_L$ and one of cases (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Theorem \[t:mod\] holds. If $L/M_i$ is almost abelian, then $\ell(L) = i+2 = s$, and so $mod\ell(L) = \ell(L)$. If $L/M_i$ is three-dimensional simple, then $\ell(L) = i+1 = s-1$ and so $mod\ell(L) = \ell(L) + 1$. This proves both (i) and (ii).
A straightforward corollary is the following result which gives a purely lattice-theoretic characterisation of certain algebras.
\[c:modl\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra with radical $R$ over a field of characteristic zero. Then $mod\ell(L) = minmax(L)$ if and only if either
- $L=R$, or
- $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$ and $L/R$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional simple Lie algebras.
Suppose first that $mod\ell(L) = minmax(L)$ but $L$ is nonsolvable. Then $$\ell(L) + 1 \leq minmax(L) = mod\ell(L) \leq \ell(L) + 1,$$ by Theorem \[t:nonsolv\] and Theorem \[t:modl\] (i). It follows that $minmax(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ and so $\sqrt{F} \not \subseteq F$ and $L/R$ is a direct sum of isomorphic three-dimensional simple Lie algebras, by Proposition \[p:split\].
The converse follows from Theorems \[t:maxmin\], \[t:modl\] and Proposition \[p:split\].
We recall the definition of the algebras $L_m(\Gamma)$ over a field $F$ of characteristic zero or $p$, where $p$ is prime, as given by Amayo in [@am2 page 46]. Let $m$ be a positive integer satisfying $$m = 1, \hspace{1cm} \hbox{or if } p \hbox{ is odd, } \hspace{.2cm} m = p^r - 2 \hspace{.2cm} (r \geq 1),$$ $$\hbox{or if } p =2, \hspace{.2cm} m = 2^r - 2 \hbox{ or } m = 2^r - 3 \hspace{.2cm} (r \geq 2).$$ Let $\Gamma = \{\gamma_0, \gamma_1, \ldots\} \subseteq F$ subject to $$(m + 1 - i) \gamma_i = \gamma_{m+i-1} = 0 \hspace{.3cm} \hbox{for all } i \geq 1, \hbox{ and}$$ $$\lambda_{i,k+1-i} \gamma_{k+1} = 0 \hspace{.3cm} \hbox{for all } i,k \hbox{ with } 1 \leq i \leq k.$$ Let $L_m(\Gamma)$ be the Lie algebra over $F$ with basis $v_{-1}, v_0, v_1, \ldots, v_m$ and products $$[v_{-1},v_i] = -[v_i,v_{-1}] = v_{i-1} + \gamma_i v_m, \hspace{1cm} [v_{-1}, v_{-1}] = 0,$$ $$[v_i,v_j] = \lambda_{ij} v_{i+j} \hbox{ for all } i,j \hbox{ with } 0 \leq i,j \leq m,$$ where $v_{m+1} = \ldots = v_{2m} = 0$.
We shall need the following classifications of quasi-ideals and of Lie algebras with core-free subalgebras of codimension one as given in [@am1] and [@am2].
\[t:qi\] ([@am1 Theorem 3.6]) Let $Q$ be a core-free quasi-ideal of the Lie algebra $L$ over a field $F$. Then one of the following possibilities occurs.
- $Q$ has codimension one in $L$;
- $L \cong L_1(0)$ (defined below) and $F$ has characteristic two; or
- $L$ is almost abelian and $Q$ is one-dimensional.
\[t:am\] ([@am2 Theorem 3.1]) Let $L$ have a core-free subalgebra of codimension one. Then either (i) dim $L \leq 2$, or else (ii) $L \cong L_m(\Gamma)$ for some $m$ and $\Gamma$ satisfying the above conditions.
We shall also need the following properties of $L_m(\Gamma)$ which are given by Amayo in [@am2].
\[t:gamma\] ([@am2 Theorem 3.2])
- If $m > 1$ and $m$ is odd, then $L_m(\Gamma)$ is simple and has only one subalgebra of codimension one.
- If $m > 1$ and $m$ is even, then $L_m(\Gamma)$ has a unique proper ideal of codimension one, which is simple, and precisely one other subalgebra of codimension one.
- $L_1(\Gamma)$ has a basis $\{u_{-1}, u_0, u_1 \}$ with multiplication $[u_{-1}, u_0] = u_{-1} + \gamma_0 u_1$ $(\gamma_0 \in F, \gamma_0 = 0$ if $\Gamma = \{0\})$, $[u_{-1}, u_1] = u_0, [u_0, u_1] = u_1$.
- If $F$ has characteristic different from two then $L_1(\Gamma) \cong L_1(0) \cong sl_2(F)$.
- If $F$ has characteristic two then $L_1(\Gamma) \cong L_1(0)$ if and only if $\gamma_0$ is a square in $F$.
\[t:qil\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra over a field $F$. Then
- $\ell(L) \leq qi\ell(L) \leq \ell(L) + 2$;
- $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L) + 2$ if and only if $F$ has characteristic two and $L$ has an ideal $B$ such that $L/B \cong L_1(0)$; and
- $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ if and only if $L$ has an ideal $B$ such that $L/B \cong L_m(\Gamma)$ where $m$ is odd, and $\gamma_0$ is not a square in $F$ if $m=1$.
We proceed as in Theorem \[t:modl\]. The fact that $\ell(L) \leq qi\ell(L)$ follows from the fact that ideals of $L$ are quasi-ideals of $L$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
0 = M_0 < M_1 < \ldots < M_s = L \end{aligned}$$ be a chain of quasi-ideals of $L$ of maximal length, and suppose that $M_i$ is the first ideal of $L$ that we encounter in going down the chain from $M_{s-1}$. Then $M_{i-k}$ is an ideal of $L$ for each $0 \leq k \leq i$, by [@tow Lemmas 1.1, 1.7] and the fact that quasi-ideals of $L$ are modular in $L$. If $i = s-1$ then $(3)$ is a chief series for $L$ and $\ell(L) = s = qi\ell(L)$. So suppose that $i < s-1$. Then $M_i = (M_{i+1})_L$ and one of the cases of Theorems \[t:am\] and \[t:qi\] holds. If $L/M_i$ is almost abelian, then $\ell(L) = i+2 = s$, and so $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L)$. If not, then $L/M_i \cong L_m(\Gamma)$. There are the following possibilities:
- if $m>1$ and $m$ odd, then $\ell(L) = i+1 = s-1$, so $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L)+1$;
- if $m>1$ and $m$ even, then $\ell(L) = i+2 = s$, so $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L)$;
- if $m=1$ and $\gamma_0$ is not a square if $F$ has characteristic $2$, then $\ell(L) = i+1 = s-1$, so $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L)+1$; and finally
- if $m=1$, $F$ has characteristic $2$ and $L_1(\Gamma) \cong L_1(0)$, then $\ell(L) = i+1 = s-2$, so $qi\ell(L) = \ell(L)+2$.
This establishes all three cases.
\[c:restricted\] Let $L$ be a restricted Lie algebra over an algebraically closed field $F$ of characteristic $p > 0$. Then
- $mod\ell(L) \leq \ell(L) + 1$; and
- $mod\ell(L) = \ell(L) + 1$ if and only if $L$ has an ideal $B$ such that $L/B \cong sl_2(F)$ or the Witt algebra $W(1:\underline{1})$.
Since $L$ is restricted over an algebraically closed field $F$ of characteristic $p > 0$, every modular subalgebra of $L$ is a quasi-ideal of $L$; this was proved for $p>7$ by Varea in [@mod Theorem 2.2] and extended to cover $p=2,3,5,7$ by Towers in [@sm Theorem 2.2]. Moreover, case (ii) of Theorem \[t:qil\] cannot occur, and case (iii) only occurs when $L/B \cong sl_2(F)$ or the Witt algebra $W(1:\underline{1})$ (see the last paragraph of the proof of [@am2 Lemma 3.4]).
[1]{}
, ‘Quasi-Ideals of Lie Algebras I’, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} (3), [**33**]{} (1976), 28–36.
, ‘Quasi-Ideals of Lie Algebras II’, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} (3), [**33**]{} (1976), 37–64.
, ‘Modularity in Lie algebras’, [*Hiroshima Math. J.*]{} [**10**]{} (1980), 311–322.
, ‘On the cohomology of soluble Lie algebras’, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**101**]{} (1967), 343–349.
, ‘On the theory of soluble Lie algebras’, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**106**]{} (1968), 343–354.
, ‘A note on solvable groups’, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**43**]{} (1968), 235–236.
, ‘Projections of a Lie algebra of characteristic zero’, [*Izvestija vyss. ucebn. Zaved. Mat., no. 4*]{} [**191**]{} (1978), 26–31.
, ‘A new subgroup lattice characterization of finite solvable groups’, arXiv:1011.2503v2.
, ‘A Frattini theory for algebras’ [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} (3) [**27**]{} (1973), 440–462.
, ‘Semimodular Subalgebras Of Lie Algebras’, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**103**]{}(1) (1986), 202-207.
, ‘On Semimodular Subalgebras Of Lie Algebras Over Fields Of Arbitrary Characteristic’, [*Asian-European J. Math.*]{} [**1**]{}(2) (2008), 283-294.
, ‘C-ideals of Lie algebras’, [*Comm. Alg.*]{} [**37**]{} (2009), 4366–4373.
, ‘Modular subalgebras, quasi-ideals and inner ideals in Lie algebras of prime characteristic’, [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**21**]{} (11) (1993), 4195–4218.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we describe an infinite family of Cameron–Liebler line classes of $\PG(3,q)$ with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$, $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$. The example obtained admits $\PGL(2,q)$ as an automorphism group and it is shown to be isomorphic to none of the infinite families known so far whenever $q \ge 9$.'
address: 'A. Cossidente: Dipartimento di Matematica, Informatica ed Economia, Universit[à]{} degli Studi della Basilicata, Contrada Macchia Romana, 85100, Potenza, Italy; F. Pavese: Dipartimento di Meccanica, Matematica e Management, Politecnico di Bari, Via Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy; '
author:
- Antonio Cossidente
- Francesco Pavese
title: 'Cameron–Liebler line classes of $\PG(3,q)$ admitting $\PGL(2,q)$'
---
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
Let $\PG(3,q)$ be the three dimensional projective space over $\GF(q)$. A [*spread*]{} of $\PG(3,q)$ is a set of $q^2+1$ pairwise disjoint lines. The subject of this paper is the study of certain Cameron–Liebler line classes of $\PG(3,q)$.
In $\PG(3,q)$, a [*Cameron–Liebler line class*]{} $\cal L$ with parameter $x$ is a set of lines such that every spread of $\PG(3,q)$ contains exactly $x$ lines of $\cal L$.
The notion of Cameron–Liebler line class was introduced in the seminal paper [@CL] in order to classify those collineation groups of $\PG(3,q)$ having the same number of orbits on points and lines. On the other hand, a classification of Cameron–Liebler line classes would yield a classification of symmetric tactical decompositions of points and lines of $\PG(n,q)$ and that of certain families of weighted point sets of $\PG(3,q)$ [@CL],[@PJC], [@P]. Cameron–Liebler line classes are also related to other combinatorial structures such as two–intersection sets, strongly regular graphs and projective two–weight codes [@BKLP], [@MR]. Recently in [@FI], it has been pointed out that Cameron–Liebler line classes of $\PG(3,q)$ are equivalent to other well studied objects, namely the Boolean degree $1$ functions on the Grassmann graph $J_q(4,2)$.
The size of a Cameron–Liebler line class $\cal L$ equals $x(q^2+q+1)$ and the number of lines of $\cL$ intersecting a given line $\ell$ only depends on whether $\ell$ belongs to $\cL$ or does not. Note that, under the Klein correspondence between the lines of $\PG(3,q)$ and points of a Klein quadric ${\cal Q}^+(5,q)$, a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $i$ is equivalent to a so–called [*$i$–tight set*]{} of ${\cal Q}^+(5,q)$.
A set $\cT$ of points of ${\cal Q}^+(5,q)$ is said to be [*$i$–tight*]{} if $$\vert P^\perp\cap{\cal T}\vert=
\begin{cases} i(q+1)+q^2 & if \quad P\in {\cal T}\\
i(q + 1) & if \quad P\not\in {\cal T}\end{cases},$$ where $\perp$ denotes the polarity of $\PG(5,q)$ associated with ${\cal Q}^+(5,q)$.
For details and results on tight sets of polar spaces, see [@BKLP]. There exist trivial examples of Cameron–Liebler line classes $\cal L$ with parameters $x=1,2$ and $x=q^2,q^2-1$. A Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $x=1$ is either the set of lines through a point or the set of lines in a plane. A Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $x=2$ is the union of the two previous examples, if the point is not in the plane [@CL], [@P]. In general, the complement of a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $x$ is a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $q^2+1-x$ and the union of two disjoint Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameters $x$ and $y$, respectively, is a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $x+y$.
It was conjectured that no other examples of Cameron–Liebler line classes exist [@CL]. Bruen and Drudge [@BD] were the first to find a counterexample, namely an infinite family of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $x=(q^2+1)/2$, $q$ odd. See Section \[known\] for a description of the other known infinite families of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$. For non–existence and classification results of Cameron–Liebler line classes we refer the reader to [@GM], [@M], [@GM1].
In this paper we will introduce a new derivation technique for Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$, which generalizes [@CP1 Theorem 3.9], see Theorem \[cl\]. Applying such a derivation to the Bruen–Drudge’s example, we construct a new family of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$, $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, $q\ge 9$ odd, not equivalent to the examples known so far and admitting an automorphism group isomorphic to $\PGL(2,q)$.
Throughout the paper $q$ is a power of an odd prime.
The known examples of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $\frac{q^2+1}{2}$ {#known}
===================================================================================
Up to date, the following infinite families of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$ are known:
1. the Bruen–Drudge’s family [@BD], admitting the group $K \simeq \PSL(2,q^2)$ stabilizing an elliptic quadric $\cQ^-(3,q)$ of $\PG(3,q)$, $q$ odd.
Let $\cQ^-(3,q)$ be an elliptic quadric of $\PG(3,q)$ with quadratic form $Q$. The points of $\PG(3,q) \setminus \cQ$ can be partitioned in two sets of equal size, say $O_s$, $O_n$, corresponding to points of $\PG(3,q)$ such that the evaluation of the quadratic form $Q$ is a non–zero square or a non–square in $\GF(q)$, respectively. A tangent line to $\cQ^-(3,q)$ contains either $q$ points of $O_s$ or $q$ points of $O_n$. In particular, the set of lines that are tangent to $\cQ^-(3,q)$ can be partitioned in two sets of equal size, say $\cT_s$, $\cT_n$, where a tangent $t$ belongs to $\cT_s$ or $\cT_n$, depending on $t$ contains $q$ points of $O_s$ or $q$ points of $O_n$. Let $\cS_1$, $\cS_2$ be the set of lines that are external or secant to $\cQ^-(3,q)$, respectively. Then gluing together one set among $\cT_s$, $\cT_n$ and one set among $\cS_1$, $\cS_2$, an example of Cameron–Liebler line class constructed by Bruen and Drudge in [@BD] is obtained. In particular, if ${\cal L'} = \cT_s \cup \cS_1$, then $\cL'$ has the following three characters with respect to line–sets in planes of $\PG(3,q)$: $$\frac{q^2+q}{2}-q, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+1, q^2+\frac{q+1}{2},$$ and $$\frac{q+1}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+1,$$ with respect to line–stars of $\PG(3,q)$.
2. the first family derived from Bruen–Drudge [@CP], [@GMP], admitting the stabilizer $K'$ of a point of $\cQ^-(3,q)$ in $K$, $q \ge 5$ odd.
Consider a point $R$ of $\cQ^-(3,q)$ and let $\rho$ be the tangent plane to $\cQ^-(3,q)$ at the point $R$. Let $\cL''$ be the line–set of $\PG(3,q)$ obtained from $\cL'$, by replacing the $q^2$ lines of $\cS_1$ contained in $\rho$ with the $q^2$ lines of $\cS_2$ passing through $R$. Then ${\cal L}''$ is again a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$. In particular, ${\cal L}''$ has the following five characters with respect to line–sets in planes of $\PG(3,q)$: $$\frac{q+1}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-(q+1), \frac{q^2+q}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+1, q^2+\frac{q-1}{2},$$ and $$\frac{q+3}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-q, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+1, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+2, q^2+\frac{q+1}{2},$$ with respect to line–stars of $\PG(3,q)$. It turns out that, if $q >3$, these characters are distinct from those of a Bruen–Drudge Cameron–Liebler line class.
3. the second family derived from Bruen–Drudge [@CP1], say $\cL'''$, admitting a subgroup of $K'$ of order $q^2(q+1)$, $q \ge 7$ odd.
Here the existence of a pencil of elliptic quadrics fixed by a subgroup of $K'$ of order $q^2(q+1)$ plays a crucial role and the derivation is similar to the previous example with a more restrictive selection of tangent lines to the elliptic quadrics of the pencil. The characters of the Cameron–Liebler line class $\cL'''$ with respect to line–sets in planes of $\PG(3,q)$ form a subset of: $$\left\{ q^2 + \frac{q+1}{2}, q^2 - \frac{3(q+1)}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+2q+3, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+2, \right.$$ $$\left. \frac{q^2+q}{2}+1, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-q, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-2q-1, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-2(q+1) \right\} .$$ and with respect to line–stars of $\PG(3,q)$ form a subset of: $$\left\{ \frac{q+1}{2}, \frac{5(q+1)}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-2(q+1), \frac{q^2+q}{2}-(q+1), \right.$$ $$\left. \frac{q^2+q}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+1, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+2(q+1), \frac{q^2+q}{2}+3(q+1) \right\},$$
4. the “cyclic” family [@DDMR], [@FMX], admitting a group of order $3(q-1)(q^2+q+1)/2$, $q \equiv 5$ or $9 \pmod{12}$.
Infinite families of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2-1)/2$ were found for $q \equiv 5$ or $9\pmod{12}$ in [@DDMR], [@FMX]. By construction, for a line class $\cal X$ of such a family there is a fixed plane $\Pi$ and a fixed point $z\not\in\Pi$ such that $\cX$ never contains the lines $\cal Y$ of the plane $\Pi$ and the lines $\cal Z$ through the point $z$. Therefore, ${\cal X}\cup{\cal Y}$ and ${\cal X}\cup{\cal Z}$ are both examples of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$. In particular both examples $\cX \cup \cY$ and $\cX \cup {\cal Z}$ admit $q^2+q+1$ as a character.
A new family
============
The geometric setting {#setting}
---------------------
Let $X_1,\dots, X_4$ be homogeneous projective coordinates in $\PG(3,q)$. Let $\cQ_{\lambda}$ be the quadric with equation $X_1X_3 - X_2^2 + \lambda X_4^2 = 0$, $\lambda\in\GF(q)$. Then the non–degenerate quadrics $\cQ_{\lambda}$, $\lambda\in\GF(q)$, together with the plane $\pi$ satisfying the equation $X_4=0$, form a pencil $\cal P$ of $\PG(3,q)$. The base locus of $\cal P$ is the conic $\cC = \{(1,t,t^2,0) \;\; | \;\; t \in \GF(q)\} \cup \{U_3\}$, where $U_i$ denotes the points having $1$ in the $i$-th position and $0$ elsewhere. The quadric $\cQ_\lambda$ is elliptic or hyperbolic according as $\lambda$ is a non–square or a non–zero square in $\GF(q)$, while $\cQ_0$ is a quadratic cone having as vertex the point $U_4$ and as base the conic $\cC$. If $\lambda \ne 0$, let $\perp_{\lambda}$ be the orthogonal polarity associated to $\cQ_\lambda$. Note that $U_4^{\perp_{\lambda}}=\pi$, $\forall \lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{0\}$.
There exists a group $G$ of order $q^3-q$ that is isomorphic to $\PGL(2,q)$ which stabilizes each of the quadrics of the pencil $\cP$. Here and in the sequel we shall find it helpful to work with the elements of $\PGL(4, q)$ as matrices in $\GL(4, q)$. We shall consider the points of $\PG(3,q)$ as column vectors, with matrices acting on the left.
\[pencil\] The group $G$ given by $$M = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a^2 & 2ac & c^2 & 0 \\
ab & ad+bc & cd & 0 \\
b^2 & 2bd & d^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & ad-bc \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ with $a, b, c, d \in \GF(q)$, $ad - bc \neq 0$, stabilizes $\cQ_\lambda$.
\[tra\] The group $G$ acts faithfully on points of $\pi$. Hence $G$ is $3$–transitive on points of the conic $\cC$ and transitive on points of $\pi$ that are external or internal to $\cC$. Dually, $G$ is $3$–transitive on lines of $\pi$ that are tangent to $\cC$ and transitive on lines of $\pi$ that are secant or external to $\cC$.
\[point\] The group $G$ has $q+4$ orbits on points of $\PG(3,q)$:
1. The point $U_4$,
2. the plane $\pi$ is partitioned into three $G$–orbits:
- the conic $\cC$,
- an orbit $\cI$ of size $q(q-1)/2$ consisting of internal points,
- an orbit $\cE$ of size $q(q+1)/2$ consisting of external points,
3. an orbit of size $q^2-1$ consisting of points of $\cQ_0 \setminus (\cC \cup \{U_4\})$,
4. $(q-1)/2$ orbits of size $q^2+q$ consisting of points of $\cQ_\lambda \setminus \cC$, $\lambda$ a non–zero square in $\GF(q)$,
5. $(q-1)/2$ orbits of size $q^2-q$ consisting of points of $\cQ_\lambda \setminus \cC$, $\lambda$ a non–square in $\GF(q)$.
It is straightforward to prove [*1)*]{} and [*2)*]{}, see also Remark . Let $P = (1,0,0,\alpha) \in \cQ_0$, for some $\alpha \in \GF(q) \setminus \{0\}$. Then $P^M = P$ implies $b = 0$ and $a = d$. Hence $Stab_G(P) = \eta$, where $$\eta = \left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 2x & x^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & x & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) \;\; | \;\; x \in \GF(q) \right\}$$ and $|Stab_G(P)| = q$. It follows that $|P^G| = q^2-1 = |{\cQ_0} \setminus ({\cC} \cup \{U_4\})|$. Let $\lambda$ be a non–zero square in $\GF(q)$ and let $P = (0, \sqrt{\lambda},0,1) \in \cQ_\lambda$. Since the line joining $U_4$ and $P$ meets the plane $\pi$ in $U_2$, we have that $Stab_G(P) \le Stab_G(U_2)$. Note that $Stab_G(U_2)$ is a dihedral group of order $2(q-1)$ generated by $$\phi = \left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & d & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & d^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & d \end{array}\right) \;\; | \;\; d \in \GF(q) \setminus \{0\} \right\}, \;\; \tau_1 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \end{array}\right) .$$ On the other hand $\tau_1$ does not fix $P$ and hence $Stab_G(P) = \phi$. Therefore $|Stab_G(P)| = q-1$ and $|P^G| = q^2+q = |{\cQ_\lambda} \setminus {\cC}|$. Analogously, if $\lambda$ is a non–square in $\GF(q)$ and $P = (-s, 0, 1, \sqrt{s/\lambda}) \in \cQ_\lambda$, where $s$ is a non–square in $\GF(q)$, we have that the line joining $U_4$ and $P$ meets the plane $\pi$ in the point $R = (-s, 0,1,0)$ and again $Stab_G(P) \le Stab_G(R)$. Note that $Stab_G(R)$ is a dihedral group of order $2(q+1)$ generated by $$\psi = \left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cccc} a^2 & 2sab & s^2b^2 & 0 \\ ab & a^2+sb^2 & sab & 0 \\ b^2 & 2ab & a^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & a^2-sb^2 \end{array}\right) \;\; | \;\; a,b \in \GF(q), a^2-sb^2 = \pm 1 \right\},$$ $$\tau_2 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \end{array}\right) , \;\; \tau_3 = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & s^2 & 0 \\ 0 & s & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -s \end{array}\right) .$$ Indeed, there are $2(q+1)$ elements $(a,b) \in \GF(q) \times \GF(q)$ such that $a^2-sb^2 = \pm 1$ and there are either $4$ or $2$ couples inducing the identity collineation according as $-1$ is a square or not in $\GF(q)$. This means that $\psi$ is a group of order $(q+1)/2$ if $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$ or $q+1$ if $q \equiv -1 \pmod{4}$. In any case $|\langle \psi, \tau_3 \rangle| = q+1$. On the other hand, $\tau_2$ does not fix $P$ and hence $Stab_G(P) = \langle \psi, \tau_3 \rangle$. Therefore $|Stab_G(P)| = q+1$ and $|P^G| = q^2-q = |{\cQ_\lambda} \setminus {\cC}|$.
From the proof of the previous lemma we have the following result.
\[cono\] A line $\ell$ through $U_4$ is secant to every elliptic quadric of $\cP$ or to every hyperbolic quadric of $\cP$, according as $\ell \cap \pi$ belongs to $\cI$ or to $\cE$.
\[tang\] Every line of $\PG(3,q)$ not contained in $\pi$ and not containing a point of $\cC$, is tangent to exactly one quadric $\cQ_{\lambda}$ of $\cal P$.
Let $\ell$ be a line of $\PG(3,q)$ not contained in $\pi$ and not containing a point of $\cC$. If $|\ell \cap \cQ_0| = 1$, then either $\ell$ contains the vertex $U_4$ and the result follows from Corollary \[cono\], or there exists a point $T \in \cC$ such that $\ell$ is contained in the plane $\sigma$ spanned by $U_4 T$ and the line of $\pi$ tangent to $\cC$ at $T$. If the latter case occurs, then either $\sigma \cap \cQ_\lambda = \{T\}$ and $\lambda$ is a non–square, or $\sigma \cap \cQ_\lambda$ consists of two lines through $T$ and $\lambda$ is a non–zero square. In any case, if $\lambda \ne 0$, then $|\ell \cap \cQ_\lambda| \in \{0,2\}$.
Assume that $\ell \cap \cQ_{\bar \lambda} = \{P\}$, for some fixed non–zero element ${\bar \lambda} \in \GF(q)$. Then $\ell \subset P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$.
If ${\bar \lambda}$ is a non–square, then we may assume $P = (-s,0,1,\sqrt{s/{\bar \lambda}})$, where $s$ is a fixed non–square in $\GF(q)$. In this case the plane $P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$ meets $\pi$ in a line $r$ external to $\cC$ and it meets $\cQ_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \ne {\bar \lambda}$, in a non–degenerate conic ${\cal C}_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$. Then $P$, $r$, ${\cal C}_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$, form a pencil of quadrics of $P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$. From [@H1 Table 7.7], $r$ is the polar line of $P$ with respect to ${\cal C}_{\lambda}$. Hence, $P$ is an internal point with respect to ${\cal C}_{\lambda}$ and the result follows.
If ${\bar \lambda}$ is a square, then we may assume $P = (0,\sqrt{{\bar \lambda}},0, 1)$. In this case the plane $P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$ meets $\pi$ in a line $r'$ secant to $\cC$, with $\ell \cap \cC = \{R_1, R_2\}$, and it meets $\cQ_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \ne {\bar \lambda}$, in a non–degenerate conic ${\cal C}'_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$. On the other hand, $\cQ_{\bar \lambda} \cap P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$ is a degenerate quadric $\cD$ consisting of the two lines $P R_1$ and $P R_2$. Then $\cD$, $r'$, ${\cal C}'_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$, form a pencil of quadrics of $P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$. In particular, $r'$ is the polar line of $P$ with respect to ${\cal C}'_{\lambda}$ and the lines $P R_1$, $P R_2$ are tangent to $\cC'_{\lambda}$ at $R_1$ and $R_2$, respectively, for every $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$. Hence, every line of $P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$ through $P$ and not containing $R_1$ and $R_2$ is either external or secant to $\cC'_{\lambda}$.
\[lines\] The group $G$ has $3q+5$ orbits on lines of $\PG(3,q)$:
1. The lines of $\pi$ are partitioned into three $G$–orbits:
- $\cL_1$ consisting of the $q+1$ lines that are tangent to $\cC$,
- $\cL_2$ consisting of the $q(q-1)/2$ lines that are external to $\cC$,
- $\cL_3$ consisting of the $q(q+1)/2$ lines that are secant to $\cC$,
2. the lines through $U_4$ are partitioned into three $G$–orbits:
- $\cL_1'$ consisting of the $q+1$ lines of the cone $\cQ_0$,
- $\cL_2'$ consisting of the $q(q-1)/2$ lines meeting $\pi$ in a point of $\cI$,
- $\cL_3'$ consisting of the $q(q+1)/2$ lines meeting $\pi$ in a point of $\cE$,
3. $q-1$ orbits of size $q+1$, each of them is a regulus of $\cQ_\lambda$, $\lambda$ a non–zero square in $\GF(q)$,
4. $q-1$ orbits of size $(q^3-q)/2$ consisting of lines tangent to $\cQ_\lambda$, $\lambda \ne 0$, and meeting $\pi$ in exactly one point of $\cI$,
5. $q-1$ orbits of size $(q^3-q)/2$ consisting of lines tangent to $\cQ_\lambda$, $\lambda \ne 0$, and meeting $\pi$ in exactly one point of $\cE$,
6. $\cL_4$ consisting of the $q^3-q$ lines tangent to $\cQ_0$ not through $U_4$ and meeting $\pi$ in exactly one point of $\cE$,
7. $\cL_4'$ consisting of the $q^3-q$ lines that are secant to every quadric $\cQ_\lambda$ and meeting $\pi$ in exactly one point of $\cC$.
It is straightforward to prove [*1)*]{} and [*2)*]{}, see also Remark . In order to prove [*3)*]{}, let $\lambda$ be a non–zero square in $\GF(q)$ and let $\ell_1$ be the line joining $P=(0, \sqrt{\lambda}, 0, 1)$ and $U_1$. Then $\ell_1$ is a line of $\cQ_{\lambda}$. Note that $Stab_G(\ell_1) \le Stab_G(U_1)$ and $Stab_G(U_1)$ is the group of order $q(q-1)$ generated by $\eta$ and $\phi$. On the other hand, $Stab_G(U_1)$ fixes $\ell_1$, hence $|\ell_1^G| = q+1$. Also, since $G$ is transitive on points of $\cC$, we have that through every point of $\cC$ there pass a line of $\ell_1^G$ and, taking into account Lemma \[pencil\], we may conclude that $\ell_1^G$ is a regulus of $\cQ_{\lambda}$.
If $\ell_2$ denotes a line tangent to the hyperbolic quadric $\cQ_{\lambda}$ at $P = (0, \sqrt{\lambda}, 0, 1)$, then $P^{\perp_{\lambda}}$ meets $\pi$ in a line, say $r$, that is secant to $\cC$ and $\ell_2 \cap \pi$ is a point $R$ belonging either to $\cI \cap r$ or to $\cE \cap r$. Note that $Stab_G(\ell_2)$ has to fix both the line $r$ and the point $R$; also $Stab_G(r) = \langle \phi, \tau_1 \rangle$. Let $R = (1,0,\alpha,0)$, for some $\alpha \in \GF(q) \setminus \{0\}$. The stabilizer of $R$ in $Stab_G(r)$ is a group $H$ of order $4$ generated by $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \end{array}\right) , \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha & 0 & 0 \\ \alpha^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\alpha \end{array}\right) .$$ On the other hand, the unique non–trivial element of $H$ fixing $P$ is an involution. It follows that $|Stab_G(\ell_2)| = 2$. Similarly, if $\lambda$ is a non–square of $\GF(q)$ and $\ell_3$ is a line tangent to the elliptic quadric $\cQ_{\lambda}$ at the point $P' = (-s,0,1,\sqrt{s/{\bar \lambda}})$, for a fixed non–square $s$ in $\GF(q)$, then $P'^{\perp_{\lambda}}$ meets $\pi$ in a line, say $r'$, that is external to $\cC$ and $\ell_3 \cap \pi$ is a point $R'$ belonging either to $\cI \cap r'$ or to $\cE \cap r'$. Again, $Stab_G(\ell_3)$ has to fix both the line $r'$ and the point $R'$; in this case $Stab_G(r') = \langle \psi, \tau_2, \tau_3 \rangle$. The stabilizer of $R'$ in $Stab_G(r')$ is a group $H'$ of order $4$ generated by $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & s^2 & 0 \\ 0 & s & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -s \end{array}\right), \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & -2\alpha s & s^2\alpha^2 & 0 \\ \alpha & -s\alpha^2-1 & s\alpha & 0 \\ \alpha^2 & -2\alpha & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & s\alpha^2-1 \end{array}\right) ,$$ if $R' = (s \alpha,1,\alpha,0)$, for some $\alpha\in\GF(q)$, or is the group generated by $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & s^2 & 0 \\ 0 & s & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -s \end{array}\right), \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0& 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0& 0&1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1\end{array}\right) .$$ if $R'=(s,0,1,0)$. The unique non–trivial element of $H$ fixing $P$ is an involution. Hence $|Stab_G(\ell_3)|=2$ and [*4)*]{}, [*5)*]{} follow.
In order to prove [*6)*]{}, let $\ell_4$ be a line tangent to $\cQ_0$ at a point, say $T$, of $\cQ_0 \setminus (\cC \cup \{U_4\})$. Then $\ell_4$ lie in a plane spanned by a line $g$ of $\cQ_0$ and a line of $\pi$ that is tangent to $\cC$, say $t$, with $t \cap g \in \cC$. Since there are $q+1$ of these planes and each such a plane contains $q^2-q$ lines that are tangent to $\cQ_0$ at a point of $\cQ_0 \setminus (\cC \cup \{U_4\})$, it follows that $\ell_4$ can be chosen in $q^3-q$ ways. We will prove that these lines are permuted in a unique orbit under the action of $G$. In order to see this fact, it is enough to show that the stabilizer of $\ell_4$ in $G$ is trivial. Let $T = (1,0,0,1)$ and let $\ell_4 = U_2 T$. Then $g = U_1 U_4$ and $t = U_1 U_2$. The stabilizer of $\ell_4$ in $G$ is contained in the stabilizer of $U_1$ in $Stab_G(U_2) = \langle \phi, \tau_1 \rangle$, that is $Stab_G(\ell_4) \le \phi$. Hence $Stab_G(\ell_4) = Stab_\phi(T)$, that is the identity.
Finally to prove [*7)*]{}, observe that a line of $\cL_4$ is secant to every hyperbolic quadric and external to every elliptic quadric of $\cP$. Therefore, taking into account Lemma \[pencil\] and Lemma \[tang\], it is easily seen that $\cL_4' = \{ r^{\perp_{\lambda}} \;\; | \;\; r \in \cL_4 \}$, for a fixed $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{0\}$.
From the proof of Lemma \[lines\], we have the following result.
\[secant\] A line of $\cL_4$ is secant to every hyperbolic quadric and external to every elliptic quadric of $\cP$. A line of $\cL_4'$ is secant to every quadric of $\cP$.
A point $R$ of $\PG(3,q)$, with $R \not\in \pi \cup \{U_4\}$, is said to be [*of type $\cI$*]{} (resp. [*of type $\cE$*]{}, [*of type $\cC$*]{}), if the line joining $U_4$ with $R$ meets $\pi$ in a point of $\cI$ (resp. $\cE$, $\cC$).
\[lemma\]
- Through the point $U_4$ there pass: $q+1$ lines of $\cL_1'$, $q(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2'$, $q(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3'$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_2$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_4$, $\cL_4'$;
- through a point of $\cC$ there pass: one line of $\cL_1$, $q$ lines of $\cL_3$, one line of $\cL_1'$, $q(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4'$ and no line of $\cL_2$, $\cL_4$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$;
- through a point of $\cI$ there pass: one line of $\cL_2'$, $(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2$, $(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_4$, $\cL_1'$, $\cL_3'$, $\cL_4'$;
- through a point of $\cE$ there pass: $2$ lines of $\cL_1$, $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2$, $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3$, $2(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4$, one line of $\cL_3'$ and no line of $\cL_1'$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_4'$;
- through a point of type $\cC$ there pass: one line of $\cL_1'$, $q$ lines of $\cL_4'$, $q$ lines of $\cL_4$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_2$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$,
- through a point of type $\cI$ there pass: one line of $\cL_2'$, $q+1$ lines of $\cL_4'$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_2$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_4$, $\cL_1'$, $\cL_3'$,
- through a point of type $\cE$ there pass: one line of $\cL_3'$, $q-1$ lines of $\cL_4'$, $2(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_2$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_1'$, $\cL_2'$.
Preliminarily note that a line of $\cL_1'$ or of $\cL_4'$ meets $\pi$ in a point of $\cC$; a line of $\cL_3'$ or of $\cL_4$ meets $\pi$ in a point of $\cE$ and a line of $\cL_2'$ intersects $\pi$ in a point of $\cI$. Also, a line of $\cL_1'$ (resp. $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$) contains $q-1$ points of type $\cC$ (resp. of type $\cI$, of type $\cE$). Taking into account Corollary \[cono\] and Corollary \[secant\], it follows that a line of $\cL_4$ contains $q-1$ points of type $\cE$ and one point of type $\cC$, whereas a line of $\cL_4'$ contains $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cE$, $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cI$ and one point of type $\cC$.
It is straightforward to prove $i)$. To prove $ii)$, observe that $|\cC| = q+1$, $|\cL_4'| = q^3-q$ and every line of $\cL_4'$ contains exactly one point of $\cC$, see Lemma \[lines\], [*7)*]{}. Hence through a point of $\cC$ there pass $q^2-q$ lines of $\cL_4'$. Let $P \in \PG(3,q) \setminus (\cC \cup \{U_4\})$.
The unique line of $\cL_2'$ through $P$ is the line $U_4 P$. Also among the $q+1$ lines of $\pi$ through $P$ there are $(q+1)/2$ that are secant to $\cC$ and $(q+1)/2$ that are external to $\cC$.
Among the $q+1$ lines of $\pi$ through $P$ there are two lines of $\cL_1$, $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2$ and $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3$. The unique line of $\cL_3'$ through $P$ is the line $U_4 P$. Moreover, since a line of $\cL_4$ contains exactly one point of $\cE$, $|\cE| = (q^2+q)/2$ and $|\cL_4| = q^3-q$, we have that through the point $P$ there pass $2(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4$.
The unique line of $\cL_1'$ through $P$ is the line $g = U_4 P$. Let $Z = \cC \cap g$. Then the lines of $\cL_4'$ through $P$ are those joining $P$ with a point of $\cC \setminus \{Z\}$. Similarly if $z$ denotes the line of $\pi$ that is tangent to $\cC$ at the point $Z$, then the lines of $\cL_4$ through $P$ are those joining $P$ with a point of $z \setminus \{Z\}$.
The unique line of $\cL_2'$ through $P$ is the line $U_4 P$, whereas the $q+1$ lines of $\cL_4'$ through $P$ are those joining $P$ with a point of $\cC$.
The unique line of $\cL_3'$ through $P$ is the line $g = U_4 P$. Let $Y = g \cap \pi \in \cE$. Through the point $Y$ there pass two lines of $\pi$, say $r_1$, $r_2$, that are tangent to $\cC$ at the point $R_1$, $R_2$, respectively. Then the lines of $\cL_4'$ through $P$ are those joining $P$ with a point of $\cC \setminus \{R_1, R_2\}$, whereas the the lines of $\cL_4$ containing $P$ are those joining $P$ with the points of $(r_1 \cup r_2) \setminus \{U_4, R_1, R_2\}$.
Dually we have the following result.
\[lemma1\] Let $\sigma$ be a plane of $\PG(3,q)$ and let $r = \sigma \cap \pi$.
1. If $\sigma = \pi$, then $\sigma$ contains: $q+1$ lines of $\cL_1$, $q(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2$, $q(q+1)/2$ line of $\cL_3$ and no line of $\cL_1'$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$, $\cL_4'$, $\cL_4$.
2. If $U_4 \in \sigma$ and
- $|r \cap \cC| = 0$, then $\sigma$ contains: one line of $\cL_2$, $(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2'$, $(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3'$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_1'$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_4$, $\cL_4'$;
- $|r \cap \cC| = 1$, then $\sigma$ contains: one line of $\cL_1'$, $q$ lines of $\cL_3'$, one line of $\cL_1$, $q(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4$ and no line of $\cL_2$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_4'$;
- $|r \cap \cC| = 2$, then $\sigma$ contains: $2$ lines of $\cL_1'$, $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2'$, $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3'$, $2(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4'$, one line of $\cL_3$ and no line of $\cL_1$, $\cL_2$, $\cL_4$.
3. If $U_4 \notin \sigma$ and
- $|r \cap \cC| = 0$, then $\sigma$ contains: one line of $\cL_2$, $q+1$ lines of $\cL_4$ and no line of $\cL_1'$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$, $\cL_4'$, $\cL_1$, $\cL_3$,
- $|r \cap \cC| = 1$, then $\sigma$ contains: one line of $\cL_1$, $q$ lines of $\cL_4$, $q$ lines of $\cL_4'$ and no line of $\cL_1'$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$, $\cL_2$, $\cL_3$,
- $|r \cap \cC| = 2$, then $\sigma$ contains: one line of $\cL_3$, $q-1$ lines of $\cL_4$, $2(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4'$ and no line of $\cL_1'$, $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3'$, $\cL_1$, $\cL_2$.
First of all observe that a line of $\cL_1'$ or of $\cL_2'$ or of $\cL_3'$ passes through $U_4$; also, a line of $\cL_4$ is contained in a plane spanned by a line of the quadratic cone $\cQ_0$ and a line of $\pi$ that is tangent to $\cC$.
Let $\sigma$ be a plane of $\PG(3,q)$. If $\sigma = \pi$, then the proof easily follows. Let $\sigma \ne \pi$ and let $r = \sigma \cap \pi$.
Assume first that $U_4 \in \sigma$. There are three possibilities according as $|r \cap \cC|$ is $0,1,2$. If $|r \cap \cC| = 0$, then $r \in \cL_2$. Also among the $q+1$ lines of $\sigma$ through $U_4$ there are $(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2'$ and $(q+1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3'$. If $r \in \cL_1$, then $\sigma$ contains one line of $\cL_1'$, that is the line joining $U_4$ with $r \cap \cC$ and $q$ lines of $\cL_3'$. The $q^2-q$ lines of $\sigma$ distinct from $r$ and not containing $r \cap \cC$ and $U_4$ are lines of $\cL_4$. If $r \in \cL_3$, then among the $q+1$ lines of $\sigma$ through $U_4$ there are two lines of $\cL_1'$, $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_2'$ and $(q-1)/2$ lines of $\cL_3'$. Moreover the lines of $\cL_4'$ contained in $\sigma$ are those passing through one of the two points $r \cap \cC$, distinct from $r$ and not containing $U_4$.
Assume now that $U_4 \notin \sigma$. Again three possibilities arise according as $|r \cap \cC|$ is $0,1,2$. If $|r \cap \cC| = 0$, then $r \in \cL_2$ and $\sigma \cap \cQ_0$ is a non–degenerate conic having no point in common with $\pi$. It follows that the lines of $\cL_4$ contained in $\sigma$ are the $q+1$ lines meeting $\sigma \cap \cQ_0$ in one point. If $|r \cap \cC| = 1$, then $r \in \cL_1$ and $\sigma \cap \cQ_\lambda$ is a non–degenerate conic meeting $\pi$ in $r \cap \cC$, $\lambda \in \GF(q)$. Hence the $q$ lines of $\cL_4'$ contained in $\sigma$ are those through $r \cap \cC$ and meeting $\pi$ exactly in $r \cap \cC$, whereas the $q$ lines of $\cL_4$ contained in $\sigma$ are the lines that are tangent to $\sigma \cap \cQ_0$ at a point distinct from $r \cap \pi$. Finally, if $r \cap \cC = \{R_1, R_2\}$, with $R_1 \ne R_2$, then $r \in \cL_3$ and there exists a non–zero square element of $\GF(q)$, say ${\bar \lambda}$, such that $\sigma \cap \cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ consists of two lines, say $r_1$, $r_2$, with $r_i \cap \pi = R_i$, $i=1,2$. If $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$, then $\sigma \cap \cQ_{\lambda}$ is a non–degenerate conic passing through $R_1$ and $R_2$. In this case the line $r_i \subset \sigma$ is tangent to $\sigma \cap \cQ_{\lambda}$ at the point $R_i$, $\lambda \in \GF(q) \setminus \{{\bar \lambda}\}$. It follows that the $2(q-1)$ lines of $\cL_4'$ contained in $\sigma$ are those through $R_i$, distinct from $r_i$ and meeting $\pi$ exactly in $R_i$, $i = 1,2$, whereas the $q-1$ lines of $\cL_4$ contained in $\sigma$ are the lines that are tangent to $\sigma \cap \cQ_0$ at a point distinct from $R_1, R_2$.
A derivation technique
----------------------
Let $\cA$, $\cB$ be two line–sets of $\PG(3,q)$. For a line $\ell$ of $\PG(3,q)$, we consider the following sets: $$\cA_{\ell} = \{ r \in \cA \; : \; | r \cap \ell | \ge 1\}, \; \cB_{\ell} = \{ r \in \cB \; : \; | r \cap \ell | \ge 1\}.$$
\[cl\] Let $\cL$ be a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$ and let $\cA$, $\cB$ be line sets of equal size of $\PG(3,q)$ such that:
- $\cA \subset \cL$ and $|\cB \cap \cL| = 0$,
- if $\ell \notin \cA \cup \cB$, then $|\cA_{\ell}| = |\cB_{\ell}|$,
- if $\ell \in \cA$, then $|\cA_\ell| - |\cB_{\ell}| = q^2$,
- if $\ell \in \cB$, then $|\cB_\ell| - |\cA_{\ell}| = q^2$.
Then the set $\bar{\cL} = (\cL \setminus \cA) \cup \cB$ is a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$.
Since $\cL$ is a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$, we have that $|\{r \in \cL \; : \; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$ equals $q^2+ (q+1)(q^2+1)/2$ if $\ell \in \cL$, or $(q + 1)(q^2+1)/2$ if $\ell \notin \cL$.
Let $\ell$ be a line of $\PG(3,q)$.
- If $\ell \in \cL \setminus (\cA \cup \cB)$, then $\ell \in \bar{\cL}$. From $ii)$, it follows that $|\{r \in \bar{\cL} \; : \; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$ equals $q^2+ (q+1)(q^2+1)/2$.
- If $\ell \notin \cL \cup \cA \cup \cB$, then $\ell \notin \bar{\cL}$. From $ii)$, it follows that $|\{r \in \bar{\cL} \; : \; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$ equals $(q + 1)(q^2+1)/2$.
- If $\ell \in \cA$, then $\ell \in \cL \setminus \bar{\cL}$. From $iii)$, we have that $|\{r \in \bar{\cL} \; : \; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$ equals $q^2 + (q + 1)(q^2+1)/2 - |\cA_\ell| + |\cB_{\ell}| = (q+1)(q^2+1)/2$.
- If $\ell \in \cB$, then $\ell \in \bar{\cL} \setminus \cL$. From $iv)$, we have that $|\{r \in \bar{\cL} \; : \; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$ equals $(q + 1)(q^2+1)/2 + |\cB_\ell| - |\cA_\ell| = q^2 + (q+1)(q^2+1)/2$.
The proof is now complete.
With the same notation introduced in Section \[setting\], consider the following two line–sets of $\PG(3,q)$: $$\cA := \cL_1' \cup \cL_2' \cup \cL_3 \cup \cL_4' , \;\; \cB := \cL_1 \cup \cL_2 \cup \cL_3' \cup \cL_4 .$$ Set $n_i := |\{r : r \in \cL_i \;\; : \;\; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$ and $n_i' := |\{r : r \in \cL_i' \;\; : \;\; |r \cap \ell| \ge 1\}|$, $1 \le i \le 4$, where $\ell$ is a line of $\PG(3,q)$. With the notation introduced in the previous section, we have that $$|\cA_\ell| = n_1' + n_2' + n_3 + n_4' , \;\; |\cB_\ell| = n_1 + n_2 + n_3' + n_4.$$ We will prove that if $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, then there exists a Cameron–Liebler line class of Bruen–Drudge type such that the sets $\cA$, $\cB$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[cl\].
\[prop1\] Let $\ell$ be a line of $\PG(3,q)$, if $\ell \not \in \cA \cup \cB$, then $|\cA_{\ell}| = |\cB_{\ell}|$.
Let $\ell$ be a line of $\PG(3,q)$, with $\ell \not\in \cA \cup \cB$. From Lemma \[lines\], we have three possibilities: either $\ell$ is contained in a regulus of a hyperbolic quadric $\cQ_{\lambda}$, for some non–zero square $\lambda \in \GF(q)$, or $\ell$ is tangent to a quadric $\cQ_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \ne 0$, and $\ell \cap \pi$ is a point of $\cI$ or $\ell$ is tangent to a quadric $\cQ_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \ne 0$, and $\ell \cap \pi$ is a point of $\cE$. Let $\ell'$ be the line obtained by intersecting $\pi$ with the plane spanned by $U_4$ and $\ell$.
If the first case occurs, then $\ell'$ is tangent to $\cC$. Hence $\ell$ contains $q$ points of type $\cE$ and one point of $\cC$. Taking into account Lemma \[lemma\], we get $n_1 = 1$, $n_2 = 0$, $n_3 = q$, $n_4 = 2(q^2-q)$, $n_1' = 1$, $n_2' = 0$, $n_3' = q$ and $n_4' = 2(q^2-q)$. Hence $|\cA_\ell| = |\cB_\ell| = 2q^2-q+1$.
Assume that $\ell$ is tangent to a quadric $\cQ_\lambda$, $\lambda \ne 0$, and $\ell \cap \pi$ is a point of $\cI$ or of $\cE$. Then $\ell'$ is secant or external to $\cC$. If $\ell \cap \pi \in \cI$ and $\ell'$ is secant to $\cC$, then $\ell$ contains $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cE$, $(q-3)/2$ points of type $\cI$, two points of type $\cC$ and one point of $\cI$. In this case we have $n_1 = 0$, $n_2 = (q+1)/2$, $n_3 = (q+1)/2$, $n_4 = q^2+1$, $n_1' = 2$, $n_2' = (q-1)/2$, $n_3' = (q-1)/2$, $n_4' = q^2-1$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = |\cB_\ell| = q^2+q+1$.
If $\ell \cap \pi \in \cI$ and $\ell'$ is external to $\cC$, then $\ell$ contains $(q+1)/2$ points of type $\cE$, $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cI$ and one point of $\cI$. In this case we obtain $n_1 = 0$, $n_2 = (q+1)/2$, $n_3 = (q+1)/2$, $n_4 = q^2-1$, $n_1' = 0$, $n_2' = (q+1)/2$, $n_3' = (q+1)/2$, $n_4' = q^2-1$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = |\cB_\ell| = q^2+q$.
If $\ell \cap \pi \in \cE$ and $\ell'$ is secant to $\cC$, then $\ell$ contains $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cI$, $(q-3)/2$ points of type $\cE$, two points of type $\cC$ and one point of $\cE$. In this case we get $n_1 = 2$, $n_2 = (q-1)/2$, $n_3 = (q-1)/2$, $n_4 = q^2+1$, $n_1' = 2$, $n_2' = (q-1)/2$, $n_3' = (q-1)/2$, $n_4' = q^2+1$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = |\cB_\ell| = q^2+q+2$.
If $\ell \cap \pi \in \cE$ and $\ell'$ is external to $\cC$, then $\ell$ contains $(q+1)/2$ points of type $\cI$, $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cE$ and one point of $\cE$. In this case we have $n_1 = 2$, $n_2 = (q-1)/2$, $n_3 = (q-1)/2$, $n_4 = q^2-1$, $n_1' = 0$, $n_2' = (q+1)/2$, $n_3' = (q+1)/2$, $n_4' = q^2+1$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = |\cB_\ell| = q^2+q+1$.
\[prop2\] Let $\ell$ be a line of $\PG(3,q)$.
- If $\ell \in \cA$, then $|\cA_\ell| - |\cB_{\ell}| = q^2$,
- If $\ell \in \cB$, then $|\cB_\ell| - |\cA_{\ell}| = q^2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_1$, then $\ell$ consists of $q$ points of $\cE$ and one point of $\cC$. Taking into account Lemma \[lemma\], we have that $n_1 = q$, $n_2 = q(q-1)/2$, $n_3 = q(q+1)/2$, $n_4 = 2(q^2-q)$, $n_1' = 1$, $n_2' = 0$, $n_3' = q$, $n_4' = q^2-q$. Hence $|\cA_\ell| = (3q^2-q+2)/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = q^2+(3q^2-q+2)/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_2$, then $\ell$ contains $(q+1)/2$ points of $\cE$ and $(q+1)/2$ points of $\cI$. In this case it turns out that $n_1 = q+1$, $n_2 = q(q-1)/2$, $n_3 = q(q+1)/2$, $n_4 = q^2-1$, $n_1' = 0$, $n_2' = (q+1)/2$, $n_3' = (q+1)/2$, $n_4' = 0$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = (q+1)^2/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = q^2+(q+1)^2/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_3$, then $\ell$ has $(q-1)/2$ points of $\cE$, $(q-1)/2$ points of $\cI$ and two points of $\cC$. In this case it follows that $n_1 = q+1$, $n_2 = q(q-1)/2$, $n_3 = q(q+1)/2$, $n_4 = (q-1)^2$, $n_1' = 2$, $n_2' = (q-1)/2$, $n_3' = (q-1)/2$, $n_4' = 2(q^2-q)$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = q^2 + (3q^2-2q+3)/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = (3q^2-2q+3)/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_4$, then in $\ell$ there are $q-1$ points of type $\cE$, one point of type $\cC$ and one point of $\cE$. In this case we obtain $n_1 = 2$, $n_2 = (q-1)/2$, $n_3 = (q-1)/2$, $n_4 = 2(q^2-q)$, $n_1' = 1$, $n_2' = 0$, $n_3' = q$, $n_4' = q^2-q+1$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = (2q^2-q+3)/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = q^2+(2q^2-q+3)/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_1'$, then, apart from $U_4$, $\ell$ consists of $q-1$ points of type $\cC$ and one point of $\cC$. In this case we have that $n_1 = 1$, $n_2 = 0$, $n_3 = q$, $n_4 = q^2-q$, $n_1' = q+1$, $n_2' = q(q-1)/2$, $n_3' = q(q+1)/2$, $n_4' = 2(q^2-q)$. Hence $|\cA_\ell| = q^2 + (3q^2-q+2)/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = (3q^2-q+2)/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_2'$, then, apart from $U_4$, $\ell$ contains $q-1$ points of type $\cI$ and one point of $\cI$. In this case it turns out that $n_1 = 0$, $n_2 = (q+1)/2$, $n_3 = (q+1)/2$, $n_4 = 0$, $n_1' = q+1$, $n_2' = q(q-1)/2$, $n_3' = q(q+1)/2$, $n_4' = q^2-1$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = q^2 + (q+1)^2/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = (q+1)^2/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_3'$, then, apart from $U_4$, $\ell$ has $q-1$ points of type $\cE$ and one point of $\cE$. In this case it follows that $n_1 = 2$, $n_2 = (q-1)/2$, $n_3 = (q-1)/2$, $n_4 = 2(q^2-q)$, $n_1' = q+1$, $n_2' = q(q-1)/2$, $n_3' = q(q+1)/2$, $n_4' = (q-1)^2$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = (3q^2-2q+3)/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = q^2 + (3q^2-2q+3)/2$.
If $\ell \in \cL_4'$, then, apart from $U_4$, in $\ell$ there are $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cI$, $(q-1)/2$ points of type $\cE$, one point of type $\cC$ and one point of $\cC$. In this case we obtain $n_1 = 1$, $n_2 = 0$, $n_3 = q$, $n_4 = q^2-q+1$, $n_1' = 2$, $n_2' = (q-1)/2$, $n_3' = (q-1)/2$, $n_4' = 2(q^2-q)$ and hence $|\cA_\ell| = q^2 + (2q^2-q+3)/2$ and $|\cB_\ell| = (2q^2-q+3)/2$.
We are ready to prove the main result of this section.
\[main\] If $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, then there exists a Cameron–Liebler line class $\cL$ such that $\cA \subset \cL$ and $|\cB \cap \cL| = 0$.
Let ${\bar \lambda}$ be a fixed non–square element of $\GF(q)$ and consider the elliptic quadric $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ of $\cP$. Let $F$ be the quadratic form defining $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ and denote with $O_s$, $O_n$ the points of $\PG(3,q)$ such that the evaluation of the quadratic form $F$ is a non–zero square or a non–square in $\GF(q)$, respectively. Recall that a line that is tangent to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ contains either $q$ points of $O_s$ or $q$ points of $O_n$. Let $\cL$ be the Cameron–Liebler line class of $\PG(3,q)$ obtained by joining the tangent lines to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ containing $q$ points of $O_n$, say $\cT$, and the secant lines to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$, say $\cS$. Note that $U_4 \in O_n$, since $F(U_4) = {\bar \lambda}$; on the other hand $\cE \subset O_s$ if and only if $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$. To see this fact it is enough to show that the point $U_2 \in \cE$ belongs to $\cO_s$ if and only if $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, see Remark , which holds true since $F(U_2) = -1$. It follows that, if $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, the set $\cT$ contains $\cL_1'$, $(q-1)/2$ orbits of type [*3)*]{} and one orbit of type [*4)*]{}, whereas the set $\cS$ contains $\cL_2'$, $\cL_3$, $\cL_4'$, $(q-3)/2$ orbits of type [*4)*]{} and $(q-1)/2$ orbits of type [*5)*]{}. In particular $\cA = \cL_1' \cup \cL_2' \cup \cL_3 \cup \cL_4'$ is contained in $\cL$ and $\cB = \cL_1 \cup \cL_2 \cup \cL_3' \cup \cL_4$ is disjoint from $\cL$, as required.
The isomorphism problem
=======================
In this section we assume $q \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$ and we keep the notation used above. According to Theorem \[main\], there exists a Cameron–Liebler line class $\cL$ such that $\cA \subset \cL$ and $|\cB \cap \cL| = 0$. In particular $\cL = \cT \cup \cS$, where $\cT$ is the set of tangent lines to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ containing $q$ points of $O_n$ and $\cS$ is the set of secant lines to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$. Here $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ is a fixed elliptic quadric of $\cP$. Hence $\cL$ is equivalent to a Cameron–Liebler line class constructed by Bruen and Drudge.
\[oss\] There are either $q^2 + (q+1)/2$ or $(q^2+q)/2+1$ or $(q^2+q)/2+q$ lines of $\cL$ through a point $P$ of $\PG(3,q)$, according as $P \in \cQ_{\bar \lambda}$, $O_n$ or $O_s$, respectively. On the other hand, a plane $\sigma = P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$ of $\PG(3,q)$ contains either $(q+1)/2$ or $(q^2+q)/2$ or $(q^2+q)/2+q+1$, according as $P \in \cQ_{\bar \lambda}$, $O_n$ or $O_s$, respectively. Note that $|P^\perp_{\bar \lambda} \cap \cC| = 0,1,2$, depending on $P$ is a point of type $\cE, \cC, \cI$, respectively.
From Proposition \[prop1\], Proposition \[prop2\], Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[cl\], we have that ${\bar \cL} = \cL \setminus \cA \cup \cB$ is a Cameron–Liebler line class with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$. The main goal of this section will be to show that $\cL$ is not isomorphic to one of the previously known examples of Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $(q^2+1)/2$, whenever $q \ge 9$. In order to establish this result we investigate the characters of ${\bar \cL}$ with respect to line–stars and line–sets in planes of $\PG(3,q)$.
\[char1\] The characters of ${\bar \cL}$, with respect to line–stars of $\PG(3,q)$ are: $$\frac{q+1}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-2(q+1), \frac{q^2+q}{2}-(q+1), \frac{q^2+q}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+1, q^2 - \frac{q+3}{2}.$$
From the proof of Theorem \[main\], we have that $\cE \subset O_s$, $\cI \subset O_n$ and $U_4 \in O_n$. Let $P$ be a point of $\PG(3,q)$. Note that if $x$ is the number of lines of $\cL$ through the point $P$, then there are exactly $y$ lines of ${\bar \cL}$ containing $P$, where $$\label{eq1}
y = x - m_1' - m_2' - m_3 - m_4' + m_1 + m_2 + m_3' + m_4.$$ Here $m_i$, $m_i'$ denote the number of lines of $\cL_i$, $\cL_i'$, respectively, through the point $P$, $1 \le i \le 4$. Taking into account , Remark and Lemma \[lemma\], we have that if $P = U_4$, then $y = (q^2+q)/2$. Analogously, if $P \in \cC$, $\cE$, $\cI$, then $y = (q+1)/2$, $(q^2+q)/2+q+1$, $(q^2+q)/2$, respectively.
Assume that $P$ is a point of type $\cI$. Then there are three possibilities: either $P$ belongs to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ and there are $q^2-q$ such points, or $P \in O_n$ and there are $q(q-1)(q-5)/4$ such points, or $P \in O_s$ and there are $q(q-1)^2/4$ such points. It turn out that if $P \in \cQ_{\bar \lambda}$, $O_n$, $O_s$, then $y = q^2-(q+3)/2$, $(q^2+q)/2-(q+1)$, $(q^2+q)/2-2(q+1)$, respectively.
Assume that $P$ is a point of type $\cE$. Then there are two possibilities: either $P$ belongs to $O_n$ or to $O_s$. In both cases there are $(q^3-q)/4$ such points. It follows that if $P \in O_n$, then $y = (q^2+q)/2+(q+1)$, whereas if $P \in O_s$, then $y = (q^2+q)/2$.
Assume that $P$ is a point of type $\cC$. Then $P \in O_n$ and $y = (q^2+q)/2$.
\[char2\] The characters of ${\bar \cL}$, with respect to line–sets in planes of $\PG(3,q)$ are: $$\frac{3q+5}{2}, \frac{q^2+q}{2}-q, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+1, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+q+2, \frac{q^2+q}{2}+2q+3, q^2 + \frac{q+1}{2}.$$
From the proof of Theorem \[main\], we have that $\cE \subset O_s$, $\cI \subset O_n$ and $U_4 \in O_n$. Let $\sigma = P^{\perp_{\bar \lambda}}$ be a plane of $\PG(3,q)$. Note that if $x$ is the number of lines of $\cL$ contained in $\sigma$, then there are exactly $y$ lines of ${\bar \cL}$ contained in $\sigma$, where $$\label{eq2}
y = x - t_1' - t_2' - t_3 - t_4' + t_1 + t_2 + t_3' + t_4.$$ Here $t_i$, $t_i'$ denote the number of lines of $\cL_i$, $\cL_i'$, respectively, contained in $\sigma$, $1 \le i \le 4$. Taking into account , Remark and Lemma \[lemma1\], we have that if $P = U_4$, i.e. $\sigma = \pi$, then $y = (q^2+q)/2+1$. Analogously, if $P \in \cC$, $\cE$, $\cI$, then $\sigma$ contains $U_4$ and meets $\cC$ in $1$, $2$ or no point, respectively. Thus $y = q^2+ (q+1)/2$, $(q^2+q)/2-q$, $(q^2+q)/2+1$, respectively.
Assume that $P$ is a point of type $\cI$. Then $U_4 \not\in \sigma$ and $|\sigma \cap \cC| = 0$. There are three possibilities: either $P$ belongs to $\cQ_{\bar \lambda}$ or $P \in O_n$ or $P \in O_s$. It turn out that if $P \in \cQ_{\bar \lambda}$, $O_n$, $O_s$, then $y = (3q+5)/2$, $(q^2+q)/2+q+2$, $(q^2+q)/2+2q+3$, respectively.
Assume that $P$ is a point of type $\cE$. Then $U_4 \not\in \sigma$ and $|\sigma \cap \cC| = 2$. There are two possibilities: either $P$ belongs to $O_n$ or to $O_s$. It follows that if $P \in O_n$, then $y = (q^2+q)/2-q$, whereas if $P \in O_s$, then $y = (q^2+q)/2+1$.
Assume that $P$ is a point of type $\cC$. Then $U_4 \not\in \sigma$, $|\sigma \cap \cC| = 1$ and $P \in O_n$. Thus $y = (q^2+q)/2+1$.
If $q \ge 9$, the Cameron–Liebler line class ${\bar \cL}$ is not equivalent to one of the previously known examples.
From the proof of Proposition \[char2\], if $P \in \cQ_{\bar \lambda} \setminus \cC$, through $P$ there pass $(3q+5)/2$ lines of $\bar \cL$. Since, for $q \ge 9$, the value $(3q+5)/2$ does not appear among the characters of $\cL'$, $\cL''$ and $\cL'''$, we may conclude that $\bar \cL$ is distinct from $\cL'$, $\cL''$ and $\cL'''$ (see Section \[known\]). On the other hand, both examples $\cX \cup \cY$ and $\cX \cup {\cal Z}$ admit $q^2+q+1$ as a character, but from Proposition \[char1\] and Proposition \[char2\], such a value does not appear as a character of $\bar \cL$.
[SK]{}
J. Bamberg, S. Kelly, M. Law, T. Penttila, Tight sets and $m$–ovoids of finite polar spaces, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**114**]{} (2007), 1293–1314.
A.A. Bruen, K. Drudge, The construction of Cameron–Liebler line classes in $\PG(3,q)$, [*Finite Fields Appl.*]{} [**5**]{} (1999), 35–45.
P.J. Cameron, Four lectures in projective geometry, in “Finite Geometries”, 27–63, [*Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.*]{} [**103**]{}, Dekker, New York, 1985.
P.J. Cameron, R.A. Liebler, Tactical decompositions and orbits of projective groups, [*Linear Algebra Appl.*]{} [**46**]{} (1982), 91–102.
A. Cossidente, F. Pavese, Intriguing sets of quadrics in $\PG(5,q)$, [*Adv. Geom.*]{} [**17**]{} (2017), 339–345.
A. Cossidente, F. Pavese, New Cameron–Liebler line–classes with parameter $\frac{q^2+1}{2}$, [*J. Algebr. Comb.*]{}, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10801-018-0826-2
J. De Beule, J. Demeyer, K. Metsch, M. Rodgers, A new family of tight sets of ${\cal Q}^+(5,q)$, [*Des. Codes Cryptogr.*]{} [**78**]{} (2016), 655–678.
T. Feng, K. Momihara, Q. Xiang, Cameron–Liebler line classes with parameter $x = (q^2-1)/2$, [*J. Comb. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**133**]{} (2015), 307–338.
Y. Filmus, F. Ihringer, Boolean degree $1$ functions on some classical association schemes, [*arXiv:1801.06034v2*]{}.
A.L. Gavrilyuk, I. Matkin, Cameron–Liebler line classes in $\PG(3,5)$, [*arXiv:1803.10442*]{}.
A.L. Gavrilyuk, I. Matkin, T. Penttila, Derivation of Cameron–Liebler line classes, [*Des. Codes. Cryptogr.*]{} [**86**]{} (2018), 231–236.
A.L. Gavrilyuk, K. Metsch, A modular equality for Cameron–Liebler line classes, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**127**]{} (2014), 224–242.
J.W.P. Hirschfeld, [*Projective Geometries over Finite Fields*]{}, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
K. Metsch, An improved bound on the existence of Cameron–Liebler line classes, [*J. Comb. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**121**]{} (2014), 89–93.
T. Penttila, Cameron–Liebler line classes in $\PG(3,q)$, [*Geom. Ded.*]{} [**37**]{} (1991), 245–252.
M. Rodgers, [*On some new examples of Cameron–Liebler line classes*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, Denver, 2012.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Vortices have been postulated at a range of size scales in the universe including at the stellar size-scale. Whilst hydrodynamically simulating the wind from an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star moving through and sweeping up its surrounding interstellar medium (ISM), we have found vortices on the size scale of $10^{-1}$ pc to $10^1$ pc in the wake of the star. These vortices appear to be the result of instabilities at the head of the bow shock formed upstream of the AGB star. The instabilities peel off downstream and form vortices in the tail of AGB material behind the bow shock, mixing with the surrounding ISM. We suggest such structures are visible in the planetary nebula Sh 2-188.'
author:
- 'C. J. Wareing, Albert A. Zijlstra and T. J. O’Brien'
title: Vortices in the wakes of AGB stars
---
Introduction
============
Vortex instabilities are observed throughout the universe. On the smallest scales in the laboratory, [@robey02] have experimentally investigated the 3D interaction of a strong shock with a spherical density inhomogeneity via laser-driven experiments. They found a double vortex ring structure and an azimuthal instability that ultimately results in the breakup of the ring. They also performed 3D computational simulations which were shown to be in remarkable agreement with their experimental investigations.
In planetary atmospheres, vortices can be regularly observed in von Karman vortex streets often associated with atmospheric flow past stationary objects such as mountains. They have also been suggested as the explanation of the giant storm on Jupiter known as the Great Red Spot [@williams97]. Atmospheric simulations have successfully reproduced vortices comparable to the Great Red Spot [@yamazaki04] and other vortex anomalies in the atmosphere of Jupiter [@morales05]. [@li01] have hydrodynamically simulated vortices at the stellar size scale in thin accretion disks.
Vortices at the interstellar size scale have been predicted since some of the first ’high’ resolution calculations by [@woodward76] where Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities begin the breakup of interstellar clouds. More recently, [@klein94] predicted the existence of such vortices forming from the interaction of strong shocks with the medium through which they propagate. A series of laboratory experiements as well as two- and three-dimensional simulations [@klein03] confirmed these earlier predictions. They modelled the interaction of a supernova shock and a cloud in the interstellar medium (ISM) as the effect of a high density sphere embedded in a low density medium after the passage of a strong shock wave. They found vortex rings are shed from the sphere and, importantly, these vortex rings break up at high Mach number due to three-dimensional bending-mode vortex-ring instabilities. Since their simulations are isothermal, they can be scaled to any size, for the given Mach number, and so are relevant to clouds in the ISM ranging from the smallest resolved structures at $\sim10^{-3}$ pc to diffuse clouds up to 100 pc.
Vortices can act as a source of local angular momentum and turbulence, both of which are important in the evolution of molecular clouds. For a discussion of the importance of interstellar turbulence, we refer to the two-part review by Elmegreen & Scalo (2004a,b). Such molecular clouds are themselves important for star formation [@tilley04]. Vortices in the ISM can also affect anything expanding into this medium e.g. supernovae, novae and planetary nebulae.
In this paper, we present simulations that show under certain conditions von Karman-like vortices are produced in the wakes of asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars with size scales from $10^{-1}$ pc to $10^1$ pc. Specifically, we model the interaction of a stellar wind with the ISM where the star has a significant motion through the ISM. The stellar wind in our simulation is produced by an AGB star [@wareing06b]. AGB stellar winds have typical speeds of $\sim 15$ [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{} and mass-loss rates $\dot M \sim10^{-7}$–$10^{-5}$ [$\mathrm {M_{\odot}\,yr}^{-1}$]{}. This wind ejects up to a few solar masses of material into the surrounding medium over the course of $\sim 500\,000$ years. In our two-wind model, we have found that the movement of the star through the ISM (modelling the ISM as a second wind) causes the ejected stellar material to form into a bow shock upstream of the star with a tail flowing downstream. It is in this tail that we find evidence of von Karman-like vortices. Observational evidence for interaction between the ISM and AGB winds has been found by @zijlstra02 and @schoier05 and a model of the interaction has been used to explain the shape of the structure around R Hya as a bow shock [@ueta06; @wareing06b].
In hindsight, previous 2D astrophysical simulations considering this phase of stellar evolution have produced such vortices [see figure 18 of @szentgyorgyi03], but the authors did not discuss them. We consider the vortices in 3D allowing an investigation and description of their behaviour.
Simulations
===========
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) scheme, [cubempi]{}, has been used to hydrodynamically simulate the interaction of a star moving through the ISM ejecting a stellar wind during the AGB phase of evolution. The numerical scheme is based on a second-order Godunov scheme due to @falle91. The Riemann solver is due to @vanleer79. The scheme is Eulerian, posed in three dimensions and cartesian coordinates and is fully parallel using the MPI[^1] library of subroutines. The scheme also includes the effect of radiative cooling via a parametric fit to the cooling curve of @raymond76 above $10^4$ K. The scheme has been fully tested using standard CFD tests and its performance in these tests compared to results obtained by @liska03 for other CFD schemes. Astrophysical tests have also been performed using the Sedov and Primakoff analytical supernova models. The full details of the scheme and its performance can be found in @wareing05.
We have used a two-wind model with a numerical domain of $200^3$ cells. This model is the same as that used to successfully model the structure around R Hya [@wareing06b]. It is also the AGB stage of our triple-wind model following the AGB and post-AGB phases of evolution used to successfully model the planetary nebula (PN) Sh 2-188 [@wareing06]. We have considered four values of the mass-loss rate on the AGB: $10^{-7},
5\times10^{-7}, 10^{-6}\ \&\ 5\times10^{-6}$ [$\mathrm {M_{\odot}\,yr}^{-1}$]{}. We have considered the AGB phase, and hence the simulation, to last 500000 years with an AGB wind velocity of 15 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{}. These wind parameters are typical of previous models in the literature [@mellema91; @frank94]. An unphysical temperature of $10^4$ K was used for the AGB wind but this does not affect the overall result [@wareing06b]. In view of the still considerable uncertainties on the detailed properties and evolution of these winds, more detailed temporal variations were not modelled. Relative velocities of the star with respect to the ISM have been considered from 0 to 200 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{} in steps of 25 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{}corresponding to the range of velocities found within the Galaxy. With speeds of relative movement above 75 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{}, we have not simulated mass-loss rates of $10^{-7}$ [$\mathrm {M_{\odot}\,yr}^{-1}$]{} due to CPU constraints. The ISM has been modelled with densities n$_{\rm H}$ = $2,\ 0.1\ \&\ 0.01\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ and a temperature of $8\times10^3$ K. These are the properties of the warm ISM or WIM, the larger constituent of the ISM [@burton88].
The simulations begin at the start of the AGB phase of evolution of the central star and are performed in the frame of reference of the star. The wind from the star drives a shock into the ISM. In the case of a stationary star we have found the shock drives a spherical shell of AGB wind material sweeping up ISM material. Inside the reverse shock is a bubble of undisturbed AGB wind material. This bubble is of low density and temperature, increasing towards the star, and of high pressure. If the central star is moving through the ISM, a bow shock forms upstream of the star. Such bow shocks have been simulated in other cases of winds interacting with injected flows [@villaver03; @pittard05]. Eventually, the simulations show the bow shock reaches a maximum distance ahead of star which can be understood in terms of a ram pressure balance between the stellar wind and the ISM. Strong shock theory predicts the temperature of the shocked material at the head of the bow shock: T $\sim 3/16\ m\,v^2/k$ in general agreement with the simulations. Ram-pressure-stripped material from the head of the bow shock forms a tail behind the nebula. As material moves down the tail, it cools and mixes with ISM material.
Results
=======
Figure \[density\] shows two snapshots from the AGB evolution of a central star moving at 75 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{}. Both panels show the gas state at the end of the AGB phase, 500000 years into the simulation. In the left panel, the bow shock driven by the AGB wind has reached a stationary position at the point of ram pressure balance, 0.02 pc ahead of the central star, with a smooth tail of shocked material extending downstream of the bow shock. In the right panel, where the mass-loss rate is 50 times higher, the tail contains vortices flowing downstream.
Figure \[evolution\] shows the evolution of the vortex in the right panel of Figure \[density\]. In the top panel, the indentation near the head of bow shock indicates an instability, which in the second panel is shed downstream from the head of the bow shock. The remaining panels show the instability forming into a vortex, spiralling and flowing downstream. This episode of vortex shedding from the head of the bow shock is not the first such event. After 50000 years of evolution, the tail appears to become turbulent and the first episode of vortex shedding begins at 90000 years. The initial episode appears to be symmetric around the bow shock and the instability forms into a vortex ring flowing downstream. The next episode begins at 205000 years and continues with multiple episodes of vortex shedding with no clear periodicity or ring symmetry. The vortices flow out of the simulation domain in 100000 years having achieved a stable structure which suggests they will have an extended lifetime in the wake.
To show the breakdown of the later vortices azimuthally, Figure \[3d\] shows a visualisation of the density datacube 500000 years into the simulation. An azimuthally-unstable partial vortex ring can be seen mid-way down the tail and more partial vortex-rings are in the process of shedding off the bow shock.
In order to investigate the effect of grid resolution on the production of vortices, the same simulation which produces vortices with a movement through the ISM of 75 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{}was rerun at a grid resolution of $100^3$ and $300^3$. The low resolution simulation showed a smooth, steady state tail with no clear vortices produced from the head of the bow shock. Undulations at the head of the bow shock do appear to move down the tails. We suggest the initial instabilities which lead to vortices downstream are strongly suppressed by this low resolution. At $300^3$, many more vortices than at $200^3$ seem to be produced from similar instabilities at the head of the bow shock, but importantly the physical size of the vortices is similar and therefore not dependent on resolution. A 2D numerical simulation was also performed in cylindrical polar coordinates for further comparison. Similar vortex-like structures form in the tail of AGB material and flow downstream. The initial instability appears to be slower in developing and once developed, the instability causes a periodic movement of the tails more like von Karman vortices. The vortices themselves appear as density enhancements moving down the tail structure. Clearly in 3D simulations the vortices form fully and the periodicity is destroyed by the instability of the bow shock following the launching of the first vortex ring.
Discussion
==========
We postulate that the vortices in the tail are the result of vortex shedding from the head of the bow shock. Vortex shedding occurs when a fluid passes by an object and the shear layer near the object creates a velocity gradient. The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability often accompanies flows where shear is present, making the flow unstable to perturbations. The simulations show that the bow shock does not remain stationary in the frame of reference of the star after it has reached the ram pressure balance point. In fact, its distance ahead of the star is oscillating and it is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which is responsible for this oscillation. As the instabilities spread from the head of the bow shock, peel off and flow downstream to form vortices, the bow shock loses material in the vortices and is driven back towards the star by the pressure of the ISM. As the stellar wind supplies more material to the bow shock, it recovers its ram-pressure-balance position and this instability-driven oscillation begins again. Note that this shows that instabilities set in only after the bow shock has reached its balance position, and thus vortices only appear in the tail after this time.
Figure \[sh2-188\] shows the PN Sh 2-188 in the left panel and a detail of the nebula in the right panel. In a previous paper, [@wareing06] modelled Sh 2-188 as a nebula shaped by wind-ISM interaction where the bright arc is a bow shock ahead of the central star. The structures highlighted in the right panel can be interpreted in our vortex-shedding scenario as instabilities being peeled off the bow-shock which will form vortices downstream.
Theoretically, vortices form over a certain range of Reynolds number. The Reynolds number of a flow is defined as the ratio of internal forces to viscous forces and can be formulated as $Re = \rho\ V\ D / \nu$ where $\rho$ is the fluid density, $V$ is the free-stream fluid velocity, $D$ is the characteristic length and $\nu$ is the dynamic fluid viscosity. For a Reynolds number of less than 50, the wake behind an object is thin and the flow can be classed as laminar. With a Reynolds number around 100, features similar to the von Karman vortex street develop as we see here. The wake also can become several times wider than the characteristic width of the object. At Reynolds numbers of 1000 and greater, the wake behind the object becomes turbulent. It is difficult to estimate the Reynolds numbers in our simulations as this involves the viscosity of the fluid and the simulations include an artificial viscosity to suppress the Quirk instability [@quirk94]. Since this artificial viscosity is constant in all the simulations, it is possible to estimate [*relative*]{} Reynolds numbers between the simulations. The characteristic length in a particular simulation is estimated as the diameter of the object in the flow, defined by twice the ram-pressure-balance distance. Note that the point of ram pressure balance is inversely proportional to flow-velocity and thus so is the characteristic length. Therefore, there is no dependency on flow-velocity in the estimation of relative Reynolds numbers. The relative Reynolds number increases with increasing mass-loss rate and increasing ISM density. In the simulations, there is a general trend to see vortices when the mass-loss rates or ISM densities are not extreme. These simulations correspond to the mid-range of relative Reynolds numbers. However, in some cases of extreme mass-loss rate or ISM density, the bow shock structure is either so large that it is possible we do not see vortices on the simulation timescale, or so small that it is possible the ISM flow confines the bow shock enough to suppress the formation of vortices. Thus, it is not clear whether the vortices are dependent on relative Reynolds number although it seems there is a range where vortices are more apparent on the timescales of these AGB simulations, which we might expect from theoretical indications. All the simulations are supersonic from a Mach number of 1.8 at 25 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{} to 14.4 at 200 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{} suggesting no dependency on Mach number.
The vortex shedding lacks the regular period seen in the case of von Karman vortices. We do note though that the first episode of vortex shedding is in the form of a symmetric ring shed downstream from the head of the bow shock. Further episodes of vortex shedding do not shed such stable rings and vortices are shed from either side of the bow shock. This can be understood in terms of the regular shape of the bow shock at the time of the first vortex shedding instability; following this, vortex shedding occurs from an irregular bow shock and results in irregular behaviour.
AGB winds are important sources of dust and light elements and thus for the evolution of the global ISM, but their importance to the dynamics of the ISM has not previously been considered. Our results show that several vortices can be launched into the ISM during the AGB phase of evolution. These improve the mixing of material, and provide the local ISM with a source of a angular momentum. Our simulations suggest the vortices are long-lived since they appear to form stable structures which flow out of the simulation domain.
The space density of mass-losing AGB stars is low ($\sim
100$ kpc$^{-3}$), and assuming a typical life time of the phase of $10^5$ yrs, each region in the ISM may be affected by the tail of an AGB star every $10^9$ yrs. We estimate the power input into the ISM from AGB winds to be $2.5 - 125 \times 10^{-32}$ ergcm$^{-3}$s$^{-1}$. This is several orders of magnitude less than the contribution of supernovae and winds from massive stars at around $10^{-25}$ ergcm$^{-3}$s$^{-1}$ [@elmegreen04a]. We find the temperature of material in the vortices to be on the order of 5-10000 K, cooling as the vortex moves downstream. The global (as opposed to the local) importance of the vortices may therefore be limited and possibly the angular momentum returned to the local ISM may be most important. It is also possible that the galactic distribution of AGB stars provides a source of turbulence where supernovae and winds from massive stars do not. One may also expect similar vortices to form behind other types of mass-losing stars. We suggest that the swirls seen in the light echo of V838 Mon [@bond06] could represent such vortices.
In our simulations we have modelled the ISM with a constant density. In reality, the ISM is unlikely to be homogeneous and this will more than likely affect the structures forming around the star. It is possible that inhomogenities would fracture the bow shock, as seen in the case of the PN Sh 2-188 [@wareing06], and seed more vortex shedding. Further, a star travelling at 200 [$\mathrm {km\,s}^{-1}$]{} would travel approximately 100 pc during the AGB phase and with a bow shock cross-section of up to $\sim 2.0$ pc$^{\rm 2}$, interact with a volume of ISM of up to 200 pc$^3$, which could contain on the order of a few tens of stars which could interact with the vortices.
In our simulations, we have neglected viscosity and observed a variety of behaviour from low to high relative Reynolds numbers. Magnetic fields may suppress viscosity significantly implying a greater degree of turbulence. However, large amounts of viscosity in the ISM would smooth the structures which develop in our simulations. It is for this reason that it would be premature to quantify when to expect vortices for particular stellar parameters.
The authors acknowledge very useful comments from the anonymous referee and Professor John Scalo. CJW acknowledges the support of PPARC. The numerical computations were carried out using the COBRA supercomputer at Jodrell Bank Observatory.
Binney, J., & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), Ch. 10 Bond, H. 2006, preprint(astro-ph/0608222) Burton, W. B. 1988, Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy (New York: Springer), 295 Drew, J. E., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 753 Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, , 42, 211 Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, , 42, 275 Falle, S. A. E. G. 1991, , 250, 581 Frank, A., & Mellema, G. 1994, , 430, 800 Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., Colella, P. 1994, , 420, 213 Klein, R. I., Budil, K. S., Perry, T. S., Bach, D. R. 2003, , 583, 245 Li, H., Colgate, S. A., Wendroff, B., Liska, R. 2001, ApJ, 551, 874 Liska, R., & Wendroff, B. 2003, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 25, 995 van Leer, B. 1979, , 32, 101 Mauron, N., & Huggins, P. J. 2006, , 452, 257 Mellema, G., Eulderink, F., & Icke, V. 1991, , 252, 718 Morales-Juberias, R., & Dowling T. E., 2005, P&SS, 53, 1221-1233 Pittard, J. M., et al., 2005, , 361, 1077 Quirk, J. J. 1994, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 18, 555 Raymond, J. C., Cox, D. P., & Smith, B. W. 1976, , 204, 290 Robey, H. F., et al., 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 085001 Sch[ö]{}ier, F. L., Lindqvist, M., & Olofsson, H. 2005, , 436, 633 Szentgyorgyi, A., Raymond, J., Franco, F., Villaver, E. & Lopez-Martin, L. 2003, , 594, 874 Tilley, D. A., & Pudritz, R. E. 2004, , 353, 769 Ueta, T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, L39 Villaver, E., Garcia-Segura, G., Manchado, A., 2003, ApJL, 585, L49 Wareing, C. J. 2005, PhD thesis, Univ. of Manchester Wareing, C. J., et al., 2006a, , 366, 387 Wareing, C. J., et al., 2006b, , 372, L63 Williams, G. P. 1997, JGR, 102, 9303 Woodward, P. R. 1976, ApJ, 207, 484 Yamazaki, Y. H., Skeet, D. R., & Read, P. L. 2004, P&SS, 52, 423-445 Zijlstra, A. A., & Weinberger, R. 2002, , 572, 1006
\
[^1]: http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/mpi/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a novel strategy to reconstruct the quantum state of dark systems, i.e., degrees of freedom that are not directly accessible for measurement or control. Our scheme relies on the quantum control of a two-level probe that exerts a state-dependent potential on the dark system. Using a sequence of control pulses applied to the probe makes it possible to tailor the information one can obtain and, for example, allows us to reconstruct the density operator of a dark spin as well as the Wigner characteristic function of a harmonic oscillator. Because of the symmetry of the applied pulse sequence, this scheme is robust against slow noise on the probe. The proof-of-principle experiments are readily feasible in solid-state spins and trapped ions.'
author:
- Yu Liu
- Jiazhao Tian
- Ralf Betzholz
- Jianming Cai
title: 'Pulsed Quantum-State Reconstruction of Dark Systems'
---
*Introduction.—*The measurement of the quantum state of a system is a prerequisite ingredient in most modern quantum experiments, ranging from fundamental tests of quantum mechanics [@Aspelmeyer2014; @Neukirch2015] to various quantum-information-processing tasks [@Nielsen2003; @Briegel2009; @Ladd2010]. However, even with the rapid progress in the coherent manipulation and quantum-state tomography of several quantum systems, such as photons [@Altepeter2005; @Deglise2008], electron spins [@Elzerman2004; @Barthel2009; @Morello2010], atomic qubits [@Bochmann2010], superconducting circuits [@Steffen2006; @Fedorov2010], and mechanical resonators [@Vanner2013; @Rashid2017], many quantum systems still remain difficult to access for a direct observation of their state, systems we will refer to as dark. In order to circumvent the requirement of such a direct access, a promising technique is to employ an auxiliary quantum system as a measurement probe, on which measurements as well as coherent manipulations can be performed [@Leibfried1996; @Bertet2002; @Wallraff2005; @Burgarth2011; @Burgarth2015; @Sone2017a; @Sone2017b; @Zhang2018]. Interferometry [@Cronin2009] based on such a measurement probe allows us to extract information on a target system [@Recati2005; @Quan2006; @Dorner2013; @Peng2015; @Correa2015; @Asadian2014]. Nevertheless, it still remains a key challenge to achieve a full quantum-state tomography of dark systems without requiring any direct control.
In this Letter, we propose a general scheme for a probe-measurement based quantum-state reconstruction of dark systems, where the obtainable dark-system quantities can be tailored by a pulsed control of the two-level probe we employ. The scheme does not require any manipulation of the dark systems or the controllability of the coupling to the probe. This is a requirement on which, for example, many previous reconstruction methods for continuous-variable systems depend [@Lutterbach1997; @Kim1998; @Singh2010; @Casanova2012; @Mazzola2013; @Taketani2014]. Additionally, it inherits the feature of robustness against noise on the probe from pulsed dynamical decoupling [@Uhri2007; @de-Lange2010; @Naydenov2011], making it suitable also for noisy environments such as solid-state platforms. The proposed strategy is exemplified at the quantum-state tomography of a dark spin-1/2 and a dark harmonic oscillator by reconstructing their density operator and Wigner characteristic function, respectively. We discuss the feasibility of the proof-of-principle experiments to testify the distinct advantages of the present proposal in solid-state spin [@Taminiau2012; @Zhao2011; @Kolkowitz2012; @Liu2017] and trapped-ion systems [@Johanning2009; @Khromova2012; @Sriarunothai2017] within state-of-the-art experimental capabilities. The scheme is applicable to other dark systems as in a variety of physical settings, making it a versatile tool for quantum measurements.
*Pulsed state-reconstruction scheme.—*The probe we consider is a generic two-level system described by the Hamiltonian $H_p=(\omega_p/2)\sigma_z^p$, with the Pauli operator $\sigma_z^p=|1\rangle_p\langle1|-|0\rangle_p\langle0|$. We denote the Hamiltonian of the dark system by $H_d$. The underlying idea of the proposed scheme is that the interaction between the probe and the dark system is given by probe-state-dependent potentials $H_0$ and $H_1$ for the dark system, i.e., an interaction of the form $H_{\rm int}=|0\rangle_p\langle 0| H_0+|1\rangle_p\langle 1| H_1$. The dynamics of the combined system is then governed by $H_p+H_d+H_{\rm int}$ and in the interaction picture with respect to $H_p$ this Hamiltonian has the form $$\label{eq:H_int}
H=|0\rangle_p\langle 0| V_0+|1\rangle_p\langle 1| V_1,$$ with $V_0=H_d+H_0$ and $V_1=H_d+H_1$ acting on the dark system. The dynamics generated by this Hamiltonian is used to obtain information about the state of the dark system.
In order to do so, the probe is initialized in the superposition state $|+\rangle_p=(|0\rangle_p+|1\rangle_p)/\sqrt{2}$, such that the initial state of the full system has the form $|\Psi(0)\rangle=|+\rangle_p|\psi\rangle$, with the dark-system state $|\psi\rangle$. The free evolution of this state under the Hamiltonian generates entanglement between the probe and the dark system and thereby allows to connect measurements on the probe with quantities of the dark system. However, as we will show, appreciably more information can be obtained by the application of a series of pulses that manipulate the probe [@Li2011; @Zhao2014]. Explicitly, we apply a series of $2N$ $\pi$ pulses, all separated by the free-evolution time $\tau$, and thereby modulate the effective potential acting on the dark system. After such an evolution of total time $t=2N\tau$ the state of the full system has evolved into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Psi_T}
|\Psi(t)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(|0\rangle_p U_0|\psi\rangle+|1\rangle_p U_1|\psi\rangle\big),\end{aligned}$$ where the state-dependent dark-system time-evolution operators are given by $U_0=u_0^N$ and $U_1=u_1^N$, with the single pulse-segment evolution operators $$\begin{aligned}
u_0=& \exp(-iV_1\tau) \exp(-iV_0\tau),\\
u_1=& \exp(-iV_0\tau) \exp(-iV_1\tau).
\end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain any information on the dark-system state from this dynamics, a necessary condition is that the operators $V_0$ and $V_1$ do not commute, since otherwise the above evolution operators coincide. Following this time evolution, a measurement of the probe Pauli vector $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_p=(\sigma_x^p,\sigma_y^p,\sigma_z^p)$ can be performed resulting in $\langle \boldsymbol{\sigma}_p\rangle={\rm Tr}\{\boldsymbol{\sigma}_p\varrho(t)\}$, with $\varrho(t)=|\Psi(t)\rangle\langle\Psi(t)|$. The generalization to initially separable density operators of the form $\varrho(0)=|+\rangle_p\langle+|\,\rho$, with the possibly mixed initial dark-system density operator $\rho$, is straightforward and yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma_p}
\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle=&\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\big\{\big(U_0^{\dagger}U_1+U_1^{\dagger}U_0\big)\rho\big\},\\
\langle\sigma_y^p\rangle=&\frac{1}{2i}{\rm Tr}\big\{\big(U_0^{\dagger}U_1-U_1^{\dagger}U_0\big)\rho\big\},
\end{aligned}$$ and $\langle\sigma_z^p\rangle=0$. As we see, the probe-measurement outcomes $\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle$ and $\langle\sigma_y^p\rangle$ are, respectively, equal to the expectation value of the real and imaginary part of the operator $U_0^{\dagger}U_1$ in the initial dark-system state $\rho$. These expectation values are the information we can extract through Pauli measurements on the probe and by changing the pulse-sequence parameters $\tau$ and $N$ we can control to which dark-system quantity they correspond. The information is extracted by measuring the coherence of the probe and its dephasing thus affects the reconstruction fidelity. The scheme is feasible as long as the extended probe coherence time by the pulsed strategy is longer than the total measurement time. Up to this point we make no assumption on the nature of the dark system. In the following we give two explicit examples, one discrete and one continuous variable system, and demonstrate in both cases how the unitary $U_0^\dagger U_1$ can be engineered in order to perform a state reconstruction of these dark systems.
*State reconstruction of a spin-1/2 system.—*As a first case we consider a dark spin-1/2 system. Its density operator can be written as $\rho=(\mathbb{1}+\mathbf{r}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})/2$, with the unity operator $\mathbb{1}$, the dark-spin Pauli vector $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, and the Bloch vector $\mathbf{r}$ fulfilling $\mathbf{r}={\rm Tr}\{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\rho\}$. On the other hand, the unitary $U_0^\dagger U_1$ takes the form $U_0^{\dagger}U_1 =\cos\phi\,\mathbb{1}-i \sin\phi\,\mathbf{n}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, with a unit vector $\mathbf{n}$. Comparing this expression with Eq. reveals $\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle=\cos\phi$ and allows us to connect the probe-measurement outcome $\langle\sigma_y^p\rangle$ with the dark-spin Bloch vector $\mathbf{r}$ according to $$\label{eq:ex_val}
\langle\sigma_y^p\rangle=-\sin\phi\,\mathbf{n}\cdot\mathbf{r}.$$ Three independent measurements for different pulse-sequence parameters $\tau$ and $N$ are thereby sufficient for a full state reconstruction of the dark spin. It can also be seen that for a faithful measurement of any component of the dark-spin Bloch vector a crucial condition is $\cos\phi=0$. This additionally makes it possible to engineer the pulse sequences such as to obtain the three components $r_\kappa$ separately by ensuring $\sin\phi\,n_\kappa=-1$, for $\kappa=x,y,z$.
![\[fig1\] Measurement of $\langle\sigma_y\rangle$ of a dark spin-1/2 system. (a) Dependence of $|\sin\phi\,n_y|$ on the pulse-sequence parameters $\tau$ and $N$ for $a_z=0.015\, \omega_0$ and $a_x=0.08\, \omega_0$. (b) Vertical cut along the free evolution time $\tau_1=2\pi/(\omega_1+\omega_0)$, indicated by red circles in (a), resulting in an optimal pulse-cycle number $N=\pi/4v_x=10$. (c) Horizontal cut along $N=10$, indicated by blue lines in (a).](fig1.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
For a general dark-spin Hamiltonian $H_d=(\omega_0/2)\sigma_z$ this reconstruction can be achieved by the probe-state-dependent potentials $H_0=0$ and $H_1=(a_z/2)\sigma_z+(a_x/2)\sigma_x$, where $a_z$ and $a_x$ arise from the coupling between the probe and the dark spin. This results in the Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eff_fields_spin}
V_0 =\frac{\omega_0}{2}\sigma_z,\quad V_1 =\frac{\omega_1}{2}\left(v_x\sigma_x+v_z\sigma_z\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $v_x=a_x/\omega_1$, $v_z=(\omega_0+a_z)/\omega_1$, and $\omega_1^2=(\omega_0+a_z)^2+a_x^2$. The above Hamiltonians represent one effective longitudinal field of strength $\omega_0$ associated with the probe ground state and the other one of strength $\omega_1$ associated with the probe excited state, which is tilted from the $z$ direction by the angle $\arctan(v_x/v_z)$. From these state-dependent effective fields and the pulse sequence applied to the probe one can obtain the explicit form of the operator $U_0^\dagger U_1$.
Every pulse-sequence segment of length $2\tau$, i.e., first an evolution under $V_0$ and then under $V_1$, or vice versa, produces a state-dependent rotation given by the unitaries $u_k=\exp(-i\theta \mathbf{n}_k\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})$, for $k=0,1$, respectively. Here, the angle $\theta$ satisfies $\cos\theta=\cos\alpha\cos\beta-v_z\sin\alpha\sin\beta$ and the two rotation axes fulfill $\mathbf{n}_0\cdot\mathbf{n}_1=1-2v_x^2\sin^2\alpha\sin^2\beta/\sin^2\theta$, with $\alpha=\omega_0\tau/2$ and $\beta=\omega_1\tau/2$. The operators $U_k=u_k^N$ are then rotations around the same axis, but by the angle $N\theta$ and one obtains the expressions [@Kolkowitz2012; @Taminiau2012; @Supp] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{onespin1}
\cos\phi=1-\sin^2(N\theta)(1-\mathbf{n}_0\cdot\mathbf{n}_1),\\
\label{onespin2}
\mathbf{n}=\frac{\sqrt{2(1\!-\!\mathbf{n}_0\!\cdot\!\mathbf{n}_1)}\sin^2(N\theta)}{\sin\phi\sin\theta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sin\alpha\cos\beta\!+\!v_z\cos\alpha\sin\beta \\
\sin\theta\cot(N\theta) \\
-v_x\cos\alpha\sin\beta
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ for the quantities $\phi$ and $\mathbf{n}$. This is their functional dependence on the pulse-sequence parameters $\tau$ and $N$, which can be used to fully determine the Bloch vector $\mathbf{r}$, according to Eq. , from three independent probe measurements.
Among the possible choices for the parameters $\tau$ and $N$, which ensure $\cos\phi=0$, we can choose to measure the observables corresponding to the three components $r_\kappa$ of the Bloch vector, for which the additional condition $\sin\phi\,n_\kappa=-1$ has to be fulfilled, for $\kappa=x,y,z$. As an example, in the $y$ case, these two conditions are $\mathbf{n}_0\cdot\mathbf{n}_1=-1$ and $\sin^2(N\theta)=1/2$. Here, the first one is fulfilled for the evolution time $\tau_1=2\pi/(\omega_1+\omega_0)$ and the second one for $N=\pi/4v_x$, yielding $\sin\phi\,n_y=-1$ [@Supp]. The results for the measurement of $r_y$ are illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\], where we show $|\sin\phi\,n_y|$ as a function of $\tau$ and $N$. Our further simulations demonstrate that the measurement protocol is very robust against noise acting on the probe [@Supp]. As a brief note, we mention that without the application of pulses, one would have the unitary $U_0^\dagger U_1=\exp(iV_0\tau) \exp(-iV_1\tau)$ and the reachable points within the Bloch sphere are confined to a cylinder of radius $v_x$ around the $z$ axis, making a measurement of $r_x$ and $r_y$ impossible. The further generalization to multispin dark systems is feasible by employing sufficient controllability conditions and the technique of Cartan decomposition [@Albertini2002]. We also remark that the measurement of some specific observable may already be of significant interest, e.g., for entanglement and quantum-criticality detection [@Supp; @Cai2013; @Chen2013; @Xu2018].
![\[fig2\] State reconstruction of a dark harmonic oscillator. (a) Reachable points $\xi$ in reciprocal phase space for different numbers of pulse cycles, $N=1$ and $N=5$ in the first two panels and all points for $N=(1,...,10)$ in the right panel. (b) First 20 contour lines (blue) sampled from the characteristic function of a squeezed vacuum state $S(\lambda)|0\rangle$, with $\lambda=\log(1/2)$ and $g/\nu=3/40$. Red curves are obtained using $\chi(-\xi)=\chi(\xi)^\ast$. (c) Density matrices reconstructed from an interpolated characteristic function obtained from $N=(1,...,20)$ for $g/\nu=3/40$. Left panel: Squeezed vacuum from (b). Right panel: Coherent state $|\eta\rangle=D(\eta)|0\rangle$ with $\eta=1$. Gray inner bars represent the exact values for comparison.](fig2.eps){width="\linewidth"}
*State reconstruction of a harmonic oscillator.—*As a second case we consider a continuous-variable dark system which is formed by a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\nu$ with the annihilation operator $a$. The interaction between the probe and the harmonic oscillator is assumed to be of the form $H_{\rm int}=(g/2)\sigma_z^p(a+a^\dagger)$, leading to the state-dependent Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eff_fields_osc}
V_0=\nu a^\dagger a-\frac{g}{2}(a+a^\dagger),\quad V_1=\nu a^\dagger a+\frac{g}{2}(a+a^\dagger).\end{aligned}$$ Using the multiplication properties of the displacement operator $D(\eta)=\exp(\eta a^\dagger-\eta^\ast a)$, in a picture displaced by $g/2\nu$, the operator $U_0^\dagger$ can be brought into the form $D(\zeta)\exp(2iN\nu\tau a^\dagger a)$, while $U_1$ similarly is of the form $D(\zeta^\ast)\exp(-2iN\nu\tau a^\dagger a)$, where $\zeta$ is a function of $\tau$ and $N$ [@Supp]. In this way, we can obtain the unitary $U_0^\dagger U_1=D(\xi)$ in the simple form of a single displacement operator with the quantity $$\begin{gathered}
\xi(\tau,N)=-2\frac{g}{\nu}\sin(N\nu\tau)\tan\left(\frac{\nu\tau}{2}\right)e^{iN\nu\tau},\end{gathered}$$ which depends on the pulse-sequence parameters $\tau$ and $N$ [@Supp]. Equation then yields $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle+i\langle\sigma_y^p\rangle=\chi\left(\xi\right),\end{aligned}$$ with the Wigner characteristic function $\chi$, which is defined as $\chi(\xi)={\rm Tr}\{D(\xi)\rho\}$ [@Cahill1969a]. This function over reciprocal phase space is the complex Fourier transform of the Wigner function [@Wigner1932] and contains all information on the initial density operator $\rho$ of the harmonic oscillator. For a full knowledge of the characteristic function, the completeness of the displacement operators [@Cahill1969a] allows an exact reconstruction of the density operator itself according to $\rho=\int{\rm d}^2\xi\,\chi(\xi)D^\dagger(\xi)/\pi$. For example, in the Fock basis, the matrix elements $\langle n|\rho|m\rangle$ can easily be obtained using this expression and the matrix elements of the displacement operator $\langle n|D^\dagger(\xi)|m\rangle$ [@Cahill1969a].
In our scheme, every fixed pulse-sequence parameter $N$ corresponds to a closed curve $\xi(\tau,N)$ in reciprocal phase space, shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a) for several pulse numbers. Their periodicity in $\tau$ is determined by the harmonic oscillator frequency $\nu$, requiring a maximal necessary evolution time of $\tau=2\pi/\nu$. The maximal distance from the origin is reached for $\tau=\pi/\nu$ and has the value $4Ng/\nu$; i.e., it scales linearly with the pulse number. By varying $N$ we can sample the characteristic function along this manifold of curves, as shown by blue lines in Fig. \[fig2\](b) for the example of a squeezed vacuum state $S(\lambda)|0\rangle$, with $S(\lambda)=\exp[(\lambda^\ast a^2-\lambda a^{\dagger 2})/2]$. For a real squeezing parameter $\lambda=\log(1/2)$, as chosen here, and $\xi=\xi_{\rm r}+i\xi_{\rm i}$ the corresponding characteristic function is $\chi(\xi)=\exp(-\xi_{\rm r}^2/8-2\xi_{\rm i}^2)$. The property $\chi(-\xi)=\chi(\xi)^\ast$ allows us to obtain the values of $\chi$ along these curves mirrored around the origin by complex conjugation, as represented by red curves in Fig. \[fig2\](b).
Figure \[fig2\](c) shows the density matrices reconstructed from the characteristic function for the squeezed vacuum state from Fig. \[fig2\](b) and a coherent state by an interpolation of $\chi$ using $N=(1,...,20)$. The results are in good agreement with the exact density matrices, showing trace distances of the order $10^{-3}$ [@Supp]. As a comparison, for the case of no pulses applied to the probe only points on the circle $\xi=g[\exp(i\nu\tau)-1]/\nu$ in reciprocal phase space can be sampled, which would be insufficient for a satisfactory state reconstruction.
The fact that the characteristic function has its maximum $\chi(0)=1$ at the origin, and is mostly centered in this region, is favorable in experiments since the density of reachable points $\xi$ is high close to the origin. In contrast, the Wigner function, which contains the same information, can have its maximum at any point in phase space, making it necessary to scan over larger areas with schemes for its measurement. We also stress that contrary to other methods for the measurement of phase-space distributions, this scheme does not require any manipulation of the harmonic oscillator, such as a displacement operation prior to the measurement procedure, or a control of the coupling strength. This advantage would become particularly important for systems in which direct manipulation on the harmonic oscillator is hard to achieve.
*Potential experimental implementations.—*As an example for the state tomography of a spin-1/2 system, we use a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center as a probe and a dark spin of a weakly coupled $^{13}$C nucleus in diamond [@Doherty2013]. Under an external magnetic field of strength $B$ along the NV axis, i.e., the $z$ direction, the Hamiltonians then read $H_{\rm NV}=D S_z^2+\gamma_eBS_z$ and $H_{\rm C}=\gamma_{\rm C}BI_z$, where $\gamma_e$ and $\gamma_{\rm C}$ are the gyromagnetic ratios of the NV-center spin and the $^{13}$C nuclear spin, respectively, and $D/2\pi=2.87$ GHz is the electron-spin zero-field splitting. Furthermore, the components of $S_\kappa$ and $I_\kappa$ denote their respective spin-$1$ and spins-$1/2$ operators, for $\kappa=x,y,z$. One can choose the $x$ direction such that the hyperfine interaction between the NV center and the nuclear spin is of the form $H_{\rm hf}=A_{\parallel}S_z I_z+A_{\perp}S_z I_x$ [@Taminiau2012]. The external magnetic field allows us to address specific transitions of the NV-center electronic states and thereby, for example, to use the two states $|0\rangle_p=|m_s\!=\!0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle_p=|m_s\!=\!1\rangle$ as our probe. This results in the state-dependent effective fields acting on the $^{13}$C nuclear spin given by Eq. with $\omega_0=\gamma_{\rm C} B$, $a_z=A_\parallel$, $a_x=A_\perp$, and $\sigma_\kappa=2I_\kappa$, for $\kappa=x,y,z$. As an example, we consider a weakly coupled $^{13}$C with $A_\parallel/2\pi=2.54$ and $A_\perp/2\pi=13.22$ kHz under a magnetic field $B=15.4$ mT, which are the parameters used in Fig. \[fig1\]. The assumption of instantaneous $\pi$ pulses is well justified, since pulse durations $t_\pi$ of tens of nanoseconds have been realized, and the free-evolution time for the measurement of Bloch vector components thereby fulfill $t_\pi\ll\tau$ [@de-Lange2010; @Robledo2010; @de-Lange2011]. The condition $2N\tau<T_{2p}$ for the total evolution time can also be satisfied for achievable long probe coherence times $T_{2p}$ [@Ryan2010; @Naydenov2011; @Bar-Gill2013].
To show the feasibility of an experimental demonstration for a continuous-variable dark system, we consider the motional-state reconstruction of a single trapped ion in a magnetic field gradient [@Johanning2009; @Khromova2012]. We orient ourselves at parameters from Ref. [@Sriarunothai2017] with single $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ions trapped in a linear Paul trap with an axial frequency $\nu/2\pi=117$ kHz. In this setup, a magnetic field of the form $B(z)=B_0+B_1 z$ is applied along the trap axis $z$. As a probe two-level system one can choose the two sublevels $|0\rangle_p=|m_s\!=\!-1/2\rangle$ and $|1\rangle_p=|m_s\!=\!1/2\rangle$ with $m_F=0$ of the $^2S_{1/2}$ state, whose coherence time can be longer than 1000 s [@Fisk1997]. The linear magnetic field gradient $B_1$ induces a coupling between the ion motion and the probe of the form $H_{\rm int}=(g/2)\sigma_z^p(a+a^\dagger)$, yielding the Hamiltonians $V_0$ and $V_1$ given in Eq. . The coupling strength is determined by $g=2\mu_{\rm B} B_1 /\sqrt{2M\hbar\nu}$, with the Bohr magneton $\mu_{\rm B}$ and the ion mass $M$. For the reported magnetic field gradient $B_1=19$ T/m, this results in a coupling ratio of $g/\nu=0.072$, which is roughly the one we used above in Fig. \[fig2\]. In this system, high-fidelity $\pi$ pulses with durations on the order of tens of picoseconds have also been demonstrated for these $^2S_{1/2}$ states [@Campbell2010].
*Conclusions and outlook.—*We present a general scheme for the quantum-state reconstruction of a dark system, which is inaccessible for direct control and measurements. The scheme only relies on the pulsed control and readout of a probe-two-level system, while requiring no manipulation of the target system. We illustrate our idea at the state tomography of a spin and a harmonic oscillator. For both examples, we show the feasibility to implement proof-of-principle demonstrations in currently available experimental setups. Moreover, the measurement scheme is intrinsically robust against slow noise acting on the probe due to the incorporated dynamic decoupling. The present idea provides a versatile tool for quantum-state measurement and can be extended to more general scenarios, such as dark systems formed by higher spins, many-body systems, and novel mechanical systems. A further generalization to a sequence of nonequidistant pulses and continuous processes is possible and may increase the information that can be obtained of the dark system.
The authors thank C. Arenz, Y. Chu, S. B. Jäger, G. Morigi, M. B. Plenio, and R. Said for helpful discussions and comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11574103, No. 11874024, No. 11690030, and No. 11690032), the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFA0306600), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2017M622398), and the National Young 1000 Talents Plan.
[72]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.1391) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00107514.2014.969492) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys1157) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature08812) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/S1049-250X(05)52003-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature07288) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature02693) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160503) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature09392) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.203601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1130886) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.160502) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms3295) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1515/qmetro-2017-0003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4281) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.200402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.060501) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/13/1/013019) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/17/11/113055) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062334) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.95.022335) [ ](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08230) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1051) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.040404) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.140604) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.230601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.010601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.220405) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2547) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.R65) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.81.041804) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1140/epjd/e2012-30016-6) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.230602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.012312) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.100504) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1192739) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.081201) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.137602) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nnano.2011.22) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.137601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.150504) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.073004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.220502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/09500340.2017.1401137) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.1009797108) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.90.032319) @noop [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0024-3795(02)00290-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2519) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/15/4/043032) [ ](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06983) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.177.1857) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.40.749) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.physrep.2013.02.001) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.177403) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.080802) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.200402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms2771) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/58.585119) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.090502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/NNANO.2014.30) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41467-018-07121-0) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.77.245212) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.237601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103041) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.115122) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.54.2084) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1119/1.18210)
**Supplemental Material:\
Pulsed Quantum-State Reconstruction of Dark Systems**
S.1. Spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system
==============================
S.1.1. Basic principle
----------------------
For the pulse sequence applied to the probe in the presented state-reconstruction scheme a single pulse-sequence segment, which is applied $N$ times, has the form $[\pi\!-\!\tau\!-\!\pi\!-\!\tau]$, i.e., an evolution time $\tau$, a $\pi$ pulse, a second evolution time $\tau$ followed by a final $\pi$ pulse. For such a segment the probe-state-dependent evolution operators for a dark spin 1/2 read $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
u_0=&e^{-i\beta(v_z\sigma_z+ v_x\sigma_x)} e^{-i\alpha\sigma_z},\\
u_1=&e^{-i\alpha\sigma_z} e^{-i\beta(v_z\sigma_z+v_x\sigma_x)},
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_x=a_x/\omega_1$, $v_z=(\omega_0+a_z)/\omega_1$, $\omega_1^2=(\omega_0+a_z)^2+a_x^2$, $\alpha=\omega_0 \tau/2$ and $\beta=\omega_1 \tau/2$. Since these operators are composed of two rotations, they can both be combined into a single rotation $u_k=\exp(-i\theta\textbf{n}_k\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})$, with $k=0,1$, where the angle fulfills $\cos\theta=\cos\alpha\cos\beta-v_z\sin\alpha\sin\beta$, and the two rotation axes are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{supp:u01}
\textbf{n}_0=\frac{1}{\sin\theta}\begin{bmatrix}
v_x\cos\alpha\sin\beta \\
v_x\sin\alpha\sin\beta \\
\sin\alpha\cos\beta+v_z\cos\alpha\sin\beta
\end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathbf{n}_1=(n_0^x,-n_0^y,n_0^z)$. For the full pulse sequence we can thereby write $U_k=\exp(-iN\theta\,\textbf{n}_k\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ [@sKolkowitz2012; @sTaminiau2012], for $k=0,1$, and the unitary $U_0^\dagger U_1$ can likewise be written as a single rotation $U_0^{\dagger}U_1=\exp(-i\phi\,\textbf{n}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})$, with $$\begin{gathered}
\label{supp:phi-n}
\cos\phi=\cos^2(N\theta)+\sin^2(N\theta) (\textbf{n}_0\cdot\textbf{n}_1),\\
\textbf{n}=\frac{\sin(N\theta)}{\sin\phi}\left[\cos(N\theta)(\textbf{n}_1-\textbf{n}_0)
-\sin(N\theta)(\textbf{n}_0\times\textbf{n}_1)\right].\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Using $\textbf{n}_0\cdot\textbf{n}_1=1-2v_x^2\sin^2\alpha\sin^2\beta/\sin^2\theta$ this corresponds to the expressions given in the main text. On the other hand, for a time evolution of time $\tau$ without the application of pulses the unitary corresponding to $U_0^\dagger U_1$ merely has the form of $u_1$ with $\alpha$ replaced by $-\alpha$.
![\[figs1\]Trajectories of $\sin\phi\,\mathbf{n}$ when sweeping over $\tau$ for fixed $N$. Red: $N=10$, $\tau\in[0,\tau_1]$. Blue: $N=14$, $\tau\in[0,1.02\,\tau_1]$. Gray: $N=20$, $\tau\in[0,20\,\tau_1]$. Black dots represent measurement conditions for the Bloch vector components of $r_x$ and $r_y$, the dashed line indicates the equator.](figs1.eps){width="\linewidth"}
As an example to illustrate our idea, we now consider measurements of a single components of the Bloch vector $\mathbf{r}$, under the typical situation of weak coupling, viz. $a_x,a_z\ll\omega_0$. In this case we find $v_z=1-v_x^2/2$. And in first order of $v_x$ the $z$ component $\sin\phi\,n_z$ can be neglected, which is valid for relatively short evolution times $\tau$. This leads to the measurement condition for $x$ and $y$, namely the proper parameters $\tau$ and $N$, given in the main text: (i) $n_{\kappa}=-1$ with $\kappa=x,y$ and (ii) $\cos\phi=0$. First we focus on the $y$ component, where condition (i) implies $n_x=0$, which means $\sin\alpha\cos\beta+v_z\cos\alpha\sin\beta=0$. In first order of $v_x$ this leads to the condition $\tau_k=2k\pi/(\omega_1+\omega_0)$, with odd integers $k$. One also has $\theta=v_x$ and $\sin\alpha\sin\beta=1$, resulting in two anti-parallel rotation axes, viz. $\textbf{n}_0\cdot\textbf{n}_1=-1$. For condition (ii) this yields $\cos\phi=\cos(2N\theta)\approx\cos(2N v_x)=0$ and thereby $N=(l+\pi/2)/2v_x$. Here we choose $k=1$ and $l=0$ to minimize the total measurement time. In summary, the $r_y$-measurement conditions are $$\label{ycondition}
\tau_1=\frac{2\pi}{\omega_1+\omega_0},\quad N=\frac{\pi}{4v_x}.$$ Similarly, in the $x$ case, conditions (i) and (ii) read $n_y=0$ and $\cos(N\theta)=0$, which is fulfilled for perpendicular rotation axes, $\textbf{n}_1\cdot\textbf{n}_0=0$. Figure \[figs1\] shows three examples of the points $\sin\phi\,\mathbf{n}$ for different pulse-segment numbers (red, blue, and gray).
S.1.2. Measurement of unknown coupling constants
------------------------------------------------
A measurement of the probe-expectation value $\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle$, which is equal to $\cos\phi$, includes the possibility to extract the coupling constants $a_z$ and $a_x$ in case they are unknown [@sGrinolds2014; @sZopes2018]. For every value of $N$ the function $\cos\phi$ shows a minimum at the free-evolution time $\tau_1=2\pi/(\omega_1+\omega_0)$, which means in principle a single swipe over $\tau$, for a fixed $N$, is sufficient to determine $\tau_1$. In a second step the pulse number can be varied for the fixed evolution time $\tau_1$ in order to find the $N$ that minimizes $|\cos\phi|$. As in the case for a measurement of the $y$ component this is fulfilled for the integer closest to $\pi/4|v_x|$.
![\[figs2\]Procedure for the measurement of the coupling constants $a_z$ and $a_x$. (a) Measurement of $\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle=\cos\phi$, from which $\tau_1=2\pi/(\omega_1+\omega_0)$ can be extracted as the time where the curves take their minima (circles). (b) Value of $\langle\sigma_x^p\rangle$ at $\tau_1$, determined by the measurements shown in (a) used to obtain the optimal pulse number $N$. The ideal value $N=\pi/4v_x$ is indicated by the red line in (a) and the red circle in (b).](figs2.eps){width="\linewidth"}
This procedure is illustrated in Fig \[figs2\] for the values from the main text, viz. $a_z=0.015\,\omega_0$ and $a_x=0.08\,\omega_0$. An experimental determination of $\tau_1$ and the optimal $N$ allows to infer the coupling constants $a_z$ and $a_x$ in dependence of the known $\omega_0$. These may then be used to locate the dark spin if, for example, the coupling is given by a magnetic dipole-dipole interaction.
S.1.3. Robustness against noise
-------------------------------
In this section, we demonstrate the robustness of the proposed scheme against noise acting on the probe. We exemplify its robustness at the experimental implementation for the state tomography of a $^{13}$C nuclear spin weakly coupled to an NV-center probe. The main source of noise in this solid-state system comes from the spin bath surrounding the NV center. An established description of the collective effect of this complex environment on the probe is that of a fluctuating magnetic field [@sDobrovitski2008; @sDobrovitski2009; @sde-Lange2010; @sMaze2012; @sWang2013], resulting in the noise Hamiltonian $H_{\rm noise}=(b(t)/2)\sigma_z^p$. Here, the noise $b(t)$ is a random variable obeying a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with the autocorrelation $\langle b(t)b(0)\rangle=b_0^2\exp(-t/t_b)$, where $b_0^2$ denotes the variance and $t_b$ the correlation time of the noise. The time evolution of this random variable can be modelled as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [@sVanKampen2007] with the update formula as follows [@sGillespie1991; @sGillespie1995; @sGillespie1996] $$b(t+\Delta t)=b(t)e^{-\Delta t/t_b}+b_0\sqrt{1-e^{-2\Delta t/t_b}}\mathcal{N},$$ with a normally distributed random variable $\mathcal{N}$ and the time discretization $\Delta t$. Duo to the symmetrical structure of the pulse sequence, our scheme will be robust against slow noise, i.e., noise with a correlation time $t_b$ which is long compared to the free evolution time $\tau$ between pulses. This is evident in Fig. \[figs3\], where we show simulations for a $\langle\sigma_y\rangle$ measurement of the dark spin under the influence of the noise on the probe. Here, we use the parameters given in the main text and perform simulations for the three typical noise correlation times $t_b=(0.2,0.5,1)$ ms [@sDobrovitski2008; @sDobrovitski2009; @sde-Lange2010; @sMaze2012; @sWang2013] and different noise variances $b_0/2\pi\in[9,112]$ kHz, which are related to the probe coherence time $T_{2p}^\ast$, as measured in free-induction decay experiments, via $T_{2p}^\ast=\sqrt{2}/b_0$ [@sDobrovitski2008; @sDobrovitski2009; @sde-Lange2010; @sMaze2012; @sWang2013]. In our simulations, we assume the $^{13}$C spin to be initially in the state $\rho=(\mathbb{1}+\mathbf{r}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})/2$ with $\mathbf{r}=(0,0.4,0)$ and average the random process over 1000 realizations. The parameters are the ones from the main text, $N=10$ and $\tau=3\ \mu$s, leading to a total measurement time of $60\ \mu$s, which lies well below probe coherence times $T_{2p}$ achieved with pulsed dynamical decoupling [@sde-Lange2010; @sNaydenov2011].
![\[figs3\]Simulation of the $\langle\sigma_y\rangle$ measurement of the nuclear spin under the influence of noise on the probe in dependence on the noise variance $b_0$ for three different noise-correlation times $t_b$. The parameters are from the main text with $N=10$ and $\tau=3\ \mu$s.](figs3.eps){width="\linewidth"}
S.1.4. Two interacting spin-$\frac{1}{2}$
-----------------------------------------
As a further example for the applicability of the proposed scheme, we consider a dark system formed by two spin-1/2, whose Hamiltonian is given by $$H_d=\sum_{k=1,2}\frac{\omega_0}{2} \sigma_z^{(k)}+\frac{A_x}{2}\sigma_x^{(1)}\sigma_x^{(2)},$$ with the Pauli operators $\sigma_\lambda^{(k)}$, for $k=1,2$ and $\lambda=x,y,z$, and the inter-dark-spin coupling strength $A_x$. Analogous to the single-spin case in the main text, the probe-state-dependent potentials are assumed to be $H_0=0$ and $$H_1=\sum_{k=1,2}\bigg[\frac{a_z^{(k)}}{2}\sigma_z^{(k)}+\frac{a_x^{(k)}}{2}\sigma_x^{(k)}\bigg].$$ If we now consider the weak-coupling regime, where $a_z^{(k)},a_x^{(k)},A_x\ll\omega_0$ is fulfilled, the transitions in the manifold $\{|0\rangle_1|0\rangle_2,|1\rangle_1|1\rangle_2\}$ of the bipartite dark system can be neglected due to their large energy separation. We therefore focus on the subspace spanned by the two states $|\tilde 0\rangle=|0\rangle_1|1\rangle_2$ and $|\tilde 1\rangle=|1\rangle_1|0\rangle_2$, which can be considered as a pseudo spin with the Pauli vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$. In this subspace, the resulting state-dependent potentials, in the interaction picture with respect to the probe Hamiltonian, are then simply given by $$V_0=\frac{A_x}{2}\tilde\sigma_x,\quad V_1=\frac{A_x}{2}\tilde\sigma_x+\frac{A_z}{2}\tilde\sigma_z,$$ with $A_z=a_z^{(1)}-a_z^{(2)}$. For the probe-measurement outcome we find $\langle\sigma_y^p\rangle=-\sin\phi\,\tilde{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\langle\boldsymbol{\tilde{\sigma}}\rangle$, where we can apply Eq. (5) of the main text, with $\tilde{\mathbf{n}}=(n_z,n_y,n_x)$ and the substitutions $\alpha=A_x\tau/2$, $\beta=A\tau/2$, $A^2=A_x^2+A_z^2$, $v_x=A_z/A$, and $v_z=A_x/A$. The Bloch vector $\tilde{\mathbf{r}}=\langle\boldsymbol{\tilde{\sigma}}\rangle$ of the pseudo spin in this subspace can be determined by varying the pulse-sequence parameters $\tau$ and $N$, as described in the main text. Our strategy thereby yields a feasible method to measure correlations between the two dark spins, since the Bloch vector components $\tilde{r}_x$ and $\tilde{r}_y$ correspond to $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{r}_x=\frac{1}{2}\langle\sigma_x^{(1)}\sigma_x^{(2)}+\sigma_y^{(1)}\sigma_y^{(2)}\rangle,\\
\tilde{r}_y=\frac{1}{2}\langle\sigma_y^{(1)}\sigma_x^{(2)}-\sigma_x^{(1)}\sigma_y^{(2)}\rangle,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ which may be used as entanglement witnesses.
S.2. Harmonic oscillator
========================
S.2.1. Basic principle
----------------------
For a dark harmonic oscillator we show the derivation of the explicit form of the the operator $U_0^\dagger$, the operator $U_1$ can be derived along the same lines. Defining $\epsilon=g/2\nu$ the probe-state-dependent potentials $V_0$ and $V_1$ can be displaced according to $$D^\dagger(\epsilon)V_0D(\epsilon)=D(\epsilon)V_1D^\dagger(\epsilon)=\nu a^\dagger a-\epsilon^2\nu.$$ The multiplication property of displacement operators, $D(x)D(y)=\exp(i\,{\rm Im}\,xy^\ast)D(x+y)$, and the identity $\exp(ix a^\dagger a)D(y)\exp(-ix a^\dagger a)=D(y\exp(ix))$ allows to write the single pulse-segment evolution operator $u_0$ in the form $$u_0=e^{i\varphi_1}D^\dagger(\epsilon)e^{-2i\nu\tau a^\dagger a}D\left(2\epsilon e^{i\nu\tau}\right)D^\dagger(\epsilon),$$ with $\varphi_1=2\epsilon^2\nu\tau$. By Hermitian conjugating and taking the operator to the $N$th power we can write $U_0^\dagger=(u_0^\dagger)^N$ as $$U_0^\dagger=e^{i\varphi_2}D^\dagger(\epsilon)\left[D\left(2\epsilon \left(1-e^{i\nu\tau}\right)\right)e^{2i\nu\tau a^\dagger a}\right]^ND(\epsilon)$$ where $\varphi_2$ incorporates $-N\varphi_1$ and an additional phase that we abstain from writing explicitly, since the operator $U_1$ carries exactly the opposite one. In a next step we rewrite the powers using the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{supp:displ_identity}
\begin{aligned}
\left[D(x)e^{iy a^\dagger a}\right]^N&=\left[\prod_{n=0}^{N-1}D\left(x e^{iny}\right)\right]e^{iNya^\dagger a}\\
&=e^{i\vartheta}D\left(x\frac{1-e^{iNy}}{1-e^{iy}}\right)e^{iNya^\dagger a},
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where we also do not need to determine the phase $\vartheta$. In these identities, the first equality can be easily proven by induction and the second one follows from the multiplication property of the displacement operator and the geometric sum. This leaves us with $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
U_0^\dagger=e^{i\varphi_3}D^\dagger(\epsilon)D(&\zeta)e^{2iN\nu\tau a^\dagger a}D(\epsilon),\\
U_1=e^{-i\varphi_3}D^\dagger(\epsilon)D(&\zeta^\ast)e^{-2iN\nu\tau a^\dagger a}D(\epsilon),
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_3$ includes $\varphi_2$ and the phase corresponding to $\vartheta$ from identity \[supp:displ\_identity\]. The quantity $\zeta$ mentioned in the main text thereby has the form $$\zeta=\frac{g}{\nu}\left(1-e^{i\nu\tau}\right)\frac{1-e^{2iN\nu\tau}}{1-e^{2i\nu\tau}}$$ and the relevant unitary $U_0^\dagger U_1$ finally reads $$U_0^\dagger U_1=D\left(-2\frac{g}{\nu} \sin(N\nu\tau)\tan\left(\frac{\nu\tau}{2}\right)e^{iN\nu\tau}\right),$$ where the arguments of the displacement operator are the curves $\xi(\tau,N)$.
S.2.2. Reconstruction example
-----------------------------
In the Fock basis, the matrix elements $\langle n|\rho|m\rangle$ of a density operator $\rho$, with the associated characteristic function $\chi(\xi)={\rm Tr}\{D(\xi)\rho\}$, can be written as $$\label{matrix_elements}
\langle n|\rho|m\rangle=\frac{1}{\pi}\int d^2\xi\,\langle n|D(-\xi)|m\rangle\chi(\xi).$$ In order to calculate their explicit value, one can then use the form of the displacement-operator matrix elements [@sCahill1969a], which is given by $$\label{matrix_elements_D}
\langle n|D(\eta)|m\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{m!}{n!}}\eta^{n-m}L_m^{(n-m)}\left(|\eta|^2\right)e^{-\frac{|\eta|^2}{2}},$$ with the generalized Laguerre polynomials $L$. This expression is valid for $n\geq m$, while for $n<m$ one has to replace $\eta$ by $-\eta^\ast$ as well as exchange $n$ and $m$ on the right-hand side of Eq. .
![\[figs4\]Reconstruction of a Fock state $|n\rangle$. (a) Exact characteristic function $\chi_1(\xi)$ \[gray\] and the contour lines $\xi(\tau,N)$ \[blue\] for $N=(1,...,20)$, $\tau\in[0,2\pi/\nu]$, and $g/\nu=3/40$. (b) Trace distance $d_{n,\tilde{N}}$ between the exact density operator $|n\rangle\langle n|$ and the state $\rho_{n,\tilde{N}}$ reconstructed using an interpolation over the contour lines with $N\leq\tilde{N}$.](figs4.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Here, we demonstrate the state reconstruction using the matrix elements from Eq. obtained from an interpolated characteristic function. As an example, we assume a dark harmonic oscillator initially prepared in the Fock state $|n\rangle$. The characteristic function of this state has the form $\chi_n(\xi)=L_n^{(0)}\left(|\xi|^2\right)\exp(-|\xi|^2/2)$, as can be see from Eq. for $n=m$. In Fig. \[figs4\](a) we show $\chi_1(\xi)$ \[gray\] with the contour lines $\xi(\tau,N)$ \[blue\] for $N=(1,...,20)$ and $g/\nu=3/40$. In our case $\chi(\xi)$ can be interpolated from samples of the exact characteristic functions along these curves, and Eqs. and can then be used to calculate the matrix elements in the Fock basis. To show the performance of such a reconstruction, we increase the maximum number $\tilde{N}$ of pulse-sequence segments and reconstruct a density operator $\rho_{n,\tilde{N}}$ from interpolating over all curves $\xi(\tau,N)$ with $N\leq\tilde{N}$. As a measure for the accuracy of $\rho_{n,\tilde{N}}$ we employ its trace distance $d_{n,\tilde{N}}$ to the exact density matrix $\rho_n=|n\rangle\langle n|$ of the Fock state, which is given by $d_{n,\tilde{N}}={\rm Tr}\{\sqrt{(\rho_{n,\tilde{N}}-\rho_n)^2}\}/2$. Figure \[figs4\](b) shows this trace distance for $\tilde{N}=(1,...,20)$, $g/\nu=3/40$, and three values of $n$.
[15]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.137601)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.137602)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/NNANO.2014.30)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41467-018-07121-0)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.77.245212)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.237601)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1192739)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103041)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.115122)@noop [**]{}, ed. (, , )@noop [**]{}, ed.(, ,)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.54.2084)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1119/1.18210)[****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.081201)[****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRev.177.1857)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The electron beam-plasma system is ubiquitous in the space plasma environment. Here, using a Darwin particle-in-cell method, the excitation of electrostatic and whistler instabilities by a gyrating electron beam is studied in support of recent laboratory experiments. It is assumed that the total plasma frequency $\omega_{pe}$ is larger than the electron cyclotron frequency $\Omega_e$. The fast-growing electrostatic beam-mode waves saturate in a few plasma oscillations by slowing down and relaxing the electron beam parallel to the background magnetic field. Upon their saturation, the finite amplitude electrostatic beam-mode waves can resonate with the tail of the background thermal electrons and accelerate them to the beam parallel velocity. The slower-growing whistler waves are excited in primarily two resonance modes: (a) through Landau resonance due to the inverted slope of the beam electrons in the parallel velocity; (b) through cyclotron resonance by scattering electrons to both lower pitch angles and smaller energies. It is demonstrated that, for a field-aligned beam, the whistler instability can be suppressed by the electrostatic instability due to a faster energy transfer rate between beam electrons and the electrostatic waves. Such a competition of growth between whistler and electrostatic waves depends on the ratio of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$. In terms of wave propagation, beam-generated electrostatic waves are confined to the beam region whereas beam-generated whistler waves transport energy away from the beam.'
author:
- Xin An
- Jacob Bortnik
- Bart Van Compernolle
- Viktor Decyk
- Richard Thorne
bibliography:
- 'LangWhist\_pic.bib'
title: Electrostatic and whistler instabilities excited by an electron beam
---
Introduction
============
Energetic electron beams are ubiquitous throughout the solar system, such as the upstream from the interplanetary shock [@Tokar1984-JGR; @Marsch1985-JGR; @Bale1999-GRL], the auroral ionosphere [@Carlson1998-GRL; @Maggs1978-JGR], solar flares [@petrosian1973impulsive], in the outflow region of magnetic reconnection [@drake2003formation; @Pritchett2004-JGR] and possibly the Earth’s outer radiation belt [@Li2016-GRL]. The electron beam provides a free energy source for generating various electrostatic and electromagnetic instabilities. For example, a finite amplitude single electrostatic wave can be excited by a small cold beam [@Oneil1971-PoF; @Gentle1973-PoF]. Whistler waves can also be excited by an electron beam in a number of space plasma settings [@Maggs1976-JGR; @Gary1977-JGR; @Tokar1984-JGR; @Huang2016-JGR]. Some electrostatic structures, such as double layers and electron holes, seems to be generated by current-carrying electron beams in the presence of density inhomogeneities [@Newman2001-PRL]. Artificial electron beams have been injected into the Earth’s ionosphere and magnetosphere to probe the space environment and to study the rich variety of waves in the beam-plasma interaction (see Ref. and references therein). Extensive laboratory experiments in the past have been conducted to study the beam-generated whistler waves [@Stenzel1977-JGR; @Krafft1994-PRL; @Staro1999-PRL] and electrostatic waves [@Gentle1973-PoF]. Accordingly, many numerical experiments utilizing the particle-in-cell method were devoted to study the wave instabilities excited in the electron beam-plasma interaction [@Morese1969-PoF; @Omura1987-JGR; @Omura1988-GRL; @Pritchett1989-GRL; @Gary2000-PoP; @Fu2014-PoP; @Che2017-PNAS].\
A series of controlled laboratory experiments [@VanCompernolle2015-PRL; @*VanCompernolle2016-PRLerr; @An2016-GRL; @VanCompernolle2017-PPCF] were performed to study the excitation of whistler waves in the Large Plasma Device [@Gekelman2016-RSI] at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In the experiments, both electrostatic and whistler waves were excited by the injection of a gyrating electron beam into a cold plasma. It was demonstrated that the whistler mode waves were excited through a combination of cyclotron resonance, Landau resonance and anomalous cyclotron resonance [@An2016-GRL]. A measurement of the electron distribution function is desired to study the self-consistent wave-particle interactions. But such a diagnostic of the electron distribution is not available at the present time. On the other hand, linear kinetic theory can predict the growth rate of electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves for a given beam distribution. But the linear theory cannot resolve how the linearly unstable waves modify the electron distribution and therefore cannot resolve the saturation of the beam instability. Moreover, since both electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves can extract energy from the inverted slope ($\partial f_b / \partial v_\parallel > 0$, $f_b$ is the beam distribution function, $v_\parallel$ is the parallel velocity) of the electron beam through Landau resonance, the fast-growing of electrostatic beam-mode waves can affect the slow-growing whistler instabilities via this inverted population. Here, using a self-consistent Darwin particle-in-cell method, we study the excitation of electrostatic and whistler waves in a beam-plasma system, the associated evolution of the electron distribution and the competing growth between electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves.
Computational setup
===================
The Darwin particle-in-cell (PIC) model used in this study is based on a two-dimensional spectral code developed as part of the UCLA particle-in-cell (UPIC) framework [@Decyk2007-CPC; @PICKSC-skeleton]. The Darwin PIC model has been used previously to study the whistler anisotropy instability in the solar wind [@Hughes2016-PoP] and Earth’s inner magnetosphere [@Schriver2010-JGR; @An2017-JGR]. Compared to a conventional electromagnetic PIC method, the Darwin PIC method excludes the transverse component of the displacement current in Ampere’s law and hence excludes retardation effects and light waves, but leaves the physics of whistler waves unaffected [@BUSNARDONETO1977300; @GEARY1986313; @Hewett1985]. Thus the Darwin PIC model does not have the restriction on the time step set by Courant condition $\Delta t < \delta / c$. Here $\Delta t$ is the time step used in the simulation, $\delta$ is the grid spacing and $c$ is the speed of light. The grid spacing $\delta$ is required to resolve the Debye length to prevent numerical heating. Consequently, for a plasma having a background thermal component ($v_{t}/c = 0.01$) as in this study, the fully electromagnetic PIC method requires a very small time step ($\Delta t \lesssim 0.01\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$) whereas the Darwin PIC method does not. Such an advantage greatly improves the computation efficiency.\
A beam-plasma system with two dimensions of configuration space and three dimensions of velocity space is explored. The boundary conditions for both particles and fields are periodic in two spatial directions. The computational domain consists of $L_x = 4096$ grids in $x$ direction and $L_y = 1024$ grids in $y$ direction with a grid spacing of $0.02\, d_e$. Here $d_e = c/\omega_{pe}$ is the electron inertial length. $\omega_{pe}$ is the plasma frequency. Each cell contains $64$ particles, which is sufficient to keep a low level of particle noise and converge the growth rate of instabilities. The time step is $0.1\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. The total simulation time is $500\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ to include both the linear and nonlinear stages of the instabilities. A uniform external magnetic field $B_0$ is applied in the $x$ direction with a magnitude $\Omega_e/\omega_{pe} = 0.2$. In this study, the ions are immobile and form a charge neutralizing background. A beam ring distribution is initialized in the system, which takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
f_b \propto e^{ - \frac{ \left( v_{\parallel} - V_{\parallel b} \right)^2 }{ 2 v_{tb\parallel}^2 } } e^{ - \frac{ \left( v_{\perp} - V_{\perp b} \right)^2 }{ 2 v_{tb\perp}^2 } }\end{aligned}$$ It has a streaming velocity $V_{\parallel b}/c = 0.0766$ parallel to the magnetic field and a velocity ring centered at $V_{\perp b}/c = 0.0766$ in the perpendicular direction, which corresponds to an electron beam of $3$keV in kinetic energy and $45$ degree in pitch angle, which is typical in the experiment. The thermal spread of the beam is chosen as $v_{tb\parallel} = v_{tb\perp} = 0.001 c$ so that the beam has a narrow “ring” in both parallel and perpendicular directions, mimicking that of the experiment. The beam density profile is localized in the $y$ direction and uniform in the $x$ direction, which takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:beam-density-profile}
n_b(y) = \begin{cases}
n_b, & \frac{3}{8}L_y<y<\frac{5}{8}L_y \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The beam width $L_y/4$ is about $13$ times larger than the gyro-radius of the beam electrons, which is comparable to that in the experiment. In the beam region, the ratio of the beam density $n_b$ to the total plasma density is $n_b/(n_b + n_0) = 1/8$, where $n_0$ is background plasma density in the beam region. Note that the ratio of beam density to total plasma density is about $0.001 \sim 0.005$ in the experiment, which is much lower than that in the simulation. Correspondingly, relevant quantities in the simulation, such as the linear growth rate and the saturation time of the waves, should be properly scaled to compare with that in the experiment. The background electrons form a return current that cancels the beam current in the parallel direction, i.e., $n_b V_{\parallel b} + n_0 V_{\parallel 0} = 0$. Here $V_{\parallel 0} = -V_{\parallel b}/7$ is the streaming velocity of background electrons in the beam region. Aside from this small streaming velocity in the beam region, the background electrons have an isotropic Maxwellian distribution with a thermal velocity of $0.01 c$ (about $50$eV in thermal temperature). Outside the beam region, the density of background electrons is $n_b + n_0$ so that the total plasma density is uniform.
The wave field
==============
A slice of wave field data, electric field $\delta E_x$ and magnetic field $\delta B_x$, is taken along the $x$ direction located at $y = L_y/2$ at every time step. The wave field $\delta E_x$ and $\delta B_x$ are Fourier-transformed to the space of $\omega$ - $k_\parallel$, where $\omega$ is the wave frequency and $k_\parallel$ is the parallel wave number. The power spectral density of $\delta E_x$ is shown in Figure \[fig5-dispersion-relation\]a. Note that the magnetic power spectral density at the high frequencies around $\omega_{pe}$ is much weaker than the electric power spectral density. Thus the wave modes in Figure \[fig5-dispersion-relation\]a are dominantly electrostatic. To identify the wave modes, the electrostatic dispersion relation is written as (assuming $k_\perp = 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-es-disp-rel}
1 - \frac{\omega_{pe0}^2}{(\omega - k_\parallel V_{\parallel 0})^2} \left( 1 + 3 k_\parallel^2 \lambda_D^2 \right) - \frac{\omega_{pb}^2}{(\omega - k_\parallel V_{\parallel b})^2} = 0\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_D$ is the Debye length of the thermal core electrons, $\omega_{pe0}$ is the plasma frequency of core electrons and $\omega_{pb}$ is the beam plasma frequency. Here the wave propagation is assumed to be parallel, i.e. $k_\perp = 0$, since the propagation angle is found to be within $20$ degrees with respect to the background magnetic field. For a given $k_\parallel$, the dispersion relation is solved for a complex wave frequency $\omega$. The real part of $\omega$ is shown for a spectrum of $k_\parallel$ as the white solid lines in Figure \[fig5-dispersion-relation\]a. It is seen that the beam mode intersects with the Langmuir waves and modifies the topology of the dispersion relation of Langmuir waves. The electrostatic beam-mode waves has an enhanced power spectral density at $k_\parallel = 0.5 \sim 2\, \omega_{pe}/V_{\parallel b}$, which is consistent with the unstable range of the imaginary part of $\omega$ (not shown). Note that the intense electrostatic waves below $\omega_{pe}$ would not be present without an electron beam. The power spectral density of $\delta B_x$ is shown in Figure \[fig5-dispersion-relation\]b. The wave modes below $\Omega_e$ are whistler waves. The white solid line in Figure \[fig5-dispersion-relation\]b represents the dispersion relation of a whistler wave propagating $55^\circ$ with respect to the background magnetic field in a cold plasma. Whistler waves co-streaming with the beam ($k_\parallel > 0$) have a stronger power than the waves counter-streaming with the beam ($k_\parallel < 0$), indicating Landau resonance dominates over cyclotron resonance in the present settings.
![(a) The power spectral density of $\delta E_x$. The solid white lines stand for the dispersion relation of electrostatic waves ($k_\perp = 0$) by solving equation . The dashed white line represents $\omega = k_\parallel V_{\parallel b}$. (b) The power spectral density of $\delta B_x$. The solid white line stands for the dispersion relation of a whistler wave propagating at $55^\circ$ with respect to the background magnetic field in a cold plasma. Note that the parallel wave number $k_\parallel$ is normalized by $V_{\parallel b}/\omega_{pe}$ in panel (a) whereas it is normalized by $c/\omega_{pe}$ in panel (b), in order to better manifest the typical wave length of each wave.[]{data-label="fig5-dispersion-relation"}](fig5-dispersion-relation.png){width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig5-field-pattern\] shows the field pattern of electrostatic beam-mode waves and whistler waves in the post-saturation phase. In Figure \[fig5-field-pattern\]a (Multimedia view), the longitudinal electric field, $\delta\mathbf{E}_L = - \nabla \phi$, along the $x$ direction is displayed at $t = 300\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ after electrostatic beam-mode waves saturate. Here $\phi$ represents the electrostatic potential. This field pattern indicate the dominant nature of electrostatic waves at this time, since the electrostatic electric field energy of beam-mode waves is much larger than that of whistler waves. A Fourier analysis of the electrostatic wave field shows that substantial wave energy ranges in the parallel wave number $k_x$ of $10$ - $15\, \omega_{pe}/c$, corresponding to $0.42$ - $0.63\, d_e$ in wavelength. The perpendicular wave number $k_y$ of electrostatic beam-mode waves ranges between $0$ - $4\, \omega_{pe}/c$ at the time of wave saturation, which is much smaller than the parallel wave number $k_x$. It is worthy to note that the excited electrostatic beam-mode waves only exist in the beam region (see the integral multimedia for an animation of the evolution of $\delta E_{Lx}$). In contrast, the excited whistler waves can propagate out of the beam region, as shown by the wave magnetic field $\delta B_x$ in $x$ direction in Figure \[fig5-field-pattern\]b (Multimedia view). This snapshot is also taken at $t = 300\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ after whistler waves saturate. The beam-generated whistler waves have highly oblique wave fronts with $k_x = 1$ - $2\, \omega_{pe}/c$ and $k_y = 1$ - $4\, \omega_{pe}/c$ based on a Fourier analysis of the wave field, corresponding to a wavelength on the order of several electron inertial lengths. It is also noted that there are surface waves at the edge of the beam due to sharp boundaries of the beam density profile (see equation ). To demonstrate that the energy is flowing out of the beam, the Poynting flux is integrated for all the wave modes along the $x$ direction through the system. Note that the Poynting flux in the Darwin model (see Appendix \[append:poynting-flux\] for details) differs from that in the electromagnetic model, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:poynting-flux}
\mathbf{S} = \frac{c}{4 \pi} \left[ (\mathbf{E}_L + \mathbf{E}_T)\times \mathbf{B} - \frac{1}{c}\mathbf{E}_T \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \right]\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mathbf{E}_L$ and $\mathbf{E}_T$ are the longitudinal and transverse components of electric field, respectively, satisfying $\mathbf{\nabla} \times \mathbf{E}_L = 0$ and $\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{E}_T = 0$. The $y$ component of the integrated Poynting flux is shown in Figure \[fig5-poynting\]. Inside the beam, the Poynting flux can be oriented in both the $+y$ and $-y$ directions, while outside the beam, it is directed only away from the beam indicating that the energy is flowing out of the beam. The region outside of the beam in Figure \[fig5-poynting\]a is expanded and shown in Figure \[fig5-poynting\]b. It is seen that the leading edge of the Poynting flux propagates away from the beam as time advances.
![(a) The field pattern of the longitudinal electric field along the $x$-direction at $t = 300\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. (Multimedia view) (b) The field pattern of the wave magnetic field along the $x$-direction at $t = 300\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. (Multimedia view)[]{data-label="fig5-field-pattern"}](fig5-fieldpattern-revise.png){width="70.00000%"}
![(a) The $y$ component of the integrated Poynting flux as a function $y$ position. It is color coded by different time instants corresponding to the legend on the right. The beam region is between the two dashed lines. (b) An expanded display of the integrated Poynting flux for one side out of the beam indicating outflowing energy as a function of time.[]{data-label="fig5-poynting"}](fig5-poynting.png){width="70.00000%"}
THE EXCITATION OF ELECTROSTATIC BEAM-MODE AND WHISTLER-MODE WAVES AND THE ASSOCIATED EVOLUTION OF THE ELECTRON DISTRIBUTION
===========================================================================================================================
We are now in a position to explore the excitation of electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves and the associated evolution of the electron distribution. The time series data of the electromagnetic fields is sampled at $32$ locations centered in the $x$ direction and equally spaced in the $y$ direction inside the electron beam. A continuous wavelet transform which uses the Morlet wavelet function [@Grossmann1984-JMA; @Goupillaud1984-Geoeploration], is applied to the time series data of both the parallel electric field $\delta E_x$ and the $y$ component of the magnetic field $\delta B_y$. The results are shown in Figures \[fig5-nominal-wavelet\]a and \[fig5-nominal-wavelet\]b for $\delta E_x$ and $\delta B_y$, respectively. Note that the power spectrum is averaged over $32$ sampling locations to minimize its variance. Electrostatic beam-mode waves at $\omega/\Omega_e = 3$ - $5$ dominate over other wave modes in the power spectrum of $\delta E_x$ as shown in Figure \[fig5-nominal-wavelet\]a. They saturate in approximately five plasma oscillations (around $t = 30\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$) and gradually damp out. Whistler waves show up prominently below the electron cyclotron frequency in the power spectrum of $\delta B_y$. Around $t = 100\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ ($\sim 3$ cyclotron periods), whistler waves saturate with a primary peak at $\omega/\Omega_e = 0.6$ and a secondary peak at $\omega/\Omega_e = 0.25$. After saturation, the magnitude of these oblique whistler waves further decreases through Landau damping. To contrast the very different growth rates between electrostatic beam-mode waves compared to whistler waves, two line cuts are taken from the wavelet spectral peaks, one at $\omega/\Omega_e = 3.5$ for electrostatic beam-mode waves and the other at $\omega/\Omega_e = 0.6$ for whistler waves. The results are shown in a linear-log plot in Figure \[fig5-nominal-wavelet-cut\]. The magnitude of the linear growth rate corresponds to $1/2$ of the slope in the linear part of the wave energy evolution. This linear growth rate is calculated to be $0.15\, \omega_{pe}$ for electrostatic beam-mode waves at $\omega/\Omega_e = 3.5$, and $0.015\, \omega_{pe}$ ($= 0.075\, \Omega_e$) for whistler waves at $\omega/\Omega_e = 0.6$. This calculation characterizes the rapidly growing electrostatic beam-mode waves and relatively slow-growing whistler waves. Note that before the electrostatic beam-mode wave saturates, whistler waves can also extract free energy from the inverted slope region (i.e., $\partial f_b / \partial v_\parallel > 0$) of the beam through Landau resonance, although the rate of such energy transfer is slower than that for the electrostatic beam-mode wave as shown in Figure \[fig5-nominal-wavelet-cut\]. After the electrostatic beam-mode wave saturates, whistler waves can only be excited through cyclotron resonance since the free energy from $\partial f_b / \partial v_\parallel > 0$ has been exhausted by the electrostatic instability. Correspondingly, the electron distribution responds to the electrostatic and whistler instabilities on two different time scales. Figure \[fig5-electron-distribution\] (Multimedia view) shows the electron distribution in velocity space, $v_\parallel$ - $v_\perp$ at four representative times. Note that the electrons are counted over the entire computation domain. To begin, the distribution is initialized with a population of core electrons and a separate population of beam ring electrons (Figure \[fig5-electron-distribution\]a). Shortly before the electrostatic beam-mode wave saturation at $t = 28\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$, the beam electrons are trapped and relaxed by the electrostatic beam-mode waves in the parallel direction (Figure \[fig5-electron-distribution\]b). As the magnitude of the electrostatic beam-mode wave grows, the width of its resonant island broadens in $v_\parallel$ due to $\Delta v_\parallel \propto \sqrt{\delta E}$, where $\Delta v_\parallel$ is the width of the resonant island and $\delta E$ is the electrostatic beam-mode wave amplitude. This large amplitude electrostatic wave becomes resonant with, and traps the tail of the core electrons and subsequently gets the tail of the core electrons accelerated to the beam energy level, as shown in Figure \[fig5-electron-distribution\]c at $t = 35\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. At a later time, the relaxed beam electrons are scattered along resonant diffusion surfaces to lower pitch angles and lose energy, through which whistler waves further gain energy and grow in magnitude. This is shown in Figure \[fig5-electron-distribution\]d taken at $t = 100\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ when the whistler waves saturate.
![(a) The power spectrum of $\delta E_x$ evolving as a function of time. (b) The power spectrum of $\delta B_y$ evolving as a function of time.[]{data-label="fig5-nominal-wavelet"}](fig5-nominal-wavelet.png){width="70.00000%"}
![The evolution of the power spectral density as a function of time. The power spectral density of $\delta E_x$ at $\omega/\Omega_e = 3.5$ is shown as the red line with the $y$ axis on the left. The power spectral density of $\delta B_y$ at $\omega/\Omega_e = 0.6$ is shown as the blue line with the $y$ axis on the right.[]{data-label="fig5-nominal-wavelet-cut"}](fig5-nominal-wavelet-cut.png){width="70.00000%"}
![The electron distribution in velocity space of $v_\parallel$ - $v_\perp$ at four selected time instants: (a) $t = 0$; (b) $t = 28\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$; (c) $t = 35\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$; (d) $t = 100\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. See the integral multimedia for an animation of the evolution of the electron distribution. (Multimedia view)[]{data-label="fig5-electron-distribution"}](fig5-electron-distribution.png){width="70.00000%"}
The suppression of beam whistler instabilities by electrostatic beam-mode wave
==============================================================================
The growth of whistler-mode waves through Landau resonance is limited by the growth of electrostatic beam-mode waves. The fast growing electrostatic waves saturate rapidly in a few plasma oscillations and deplete the beam free energy in the parallel direction through Landau resonance. Whistler waves saturate soon after the saturation of electrostatic beam-mode waves since there is little free energy left for the Landau resonant excitation of whistler waves. Such a competition between electrostatic and whistler instabilities depends on $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$, which characterizes the ratio between the linear growth rate of electrostatic instabilities and that of whistler instabilities. To test this idea and minimize the effect of cyclotron resonance, a field-aligned electron beam is used here while the rest of the setup is kept the same. Figure \[fig5-fpefce-dependence\]a shows the magnetic field energy of whistler waves with respect to time for a set of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$ values. Each of the color-coded lines corresponds to the colored spot in Figure \[fig5-fpefce-dependence\]b, in which the ratio of the saturated magnetic field energy to initial magnetic field energy is shown as a function of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$. Under the special scenario of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e = 1$, whistler waves and electrostatic beam-mode waves saturate over the same time scale and whistler waves saturate at a substantially larger amplitude compared to other cases. As $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$ increases, the saturated whistler wave energy decreases and eventually is immersed in the noise level beyond $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e = 7$. Linear theory predicts that Landau resonance between whistler waves and the electron beam does not occur beyond a critical value of $(\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e)_{critical} = 6.5$ for a cold beam in our parameter regime (see Appendix A for details). This inhibits the energy transfer between the beam electrons and whistler waves and results in a low signal to noise ratio in the high $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$ regime. Below the critical value of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e = 6.5$, electrostatic instabilities limit the saturation energy level of whistler instabilities by extracting the free energy of the beam at a faster rate than the whistler instabilities as long as $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e > 1$. It is also noted that there is a weak trend of decreasing signal to noise ratio beyond the critical value of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e = 6.5$. This may result from the fact that the theory prediction is for a cold beam while the distribution function is relaxed from the cold beam ring in the kinetic simulations and therefore it leads to a weak energy transfer between beam electrons and whistler waves even beyond the predicted critical value.
![(a) the evolution of magnetic field energy of whistler waves as a function of time. Starting from the black-blue line and going to the orange-red line, the corresponding values of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$ are $1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10$. (b) Corresponding to each run in (a), the ratio of saturated energy to initial energy is shown as a function of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$. Each colored spot corresponds to the line of the same color in panel (a).[]{data-label="fig5-fpefce-dependence"}](fig5-fpefce-dependence.png){width="70.00000%"}
Summary and discussion
======================
Using a self-consistent Darwin particle-in-cell method, we study the excitation of electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves in a beam-plasma system. The electrostatic beam-mode waves grow in magnitude rapidly and saturate in a few plasma oscillations, while the electron beam is slowed down and relaxed in the parallel direction. As the amplitude of electrostatic beam-mode waves approaches saturation, resonance with the tail of the background core electrons occurs and accelerates them parallel to the background magnetic field. Whistler waves grow in magnitude and saturate over the time scale of a few cyclotron periods. They are excited through Landau resonance and cyclotron resonance. In terms of wave propagation, electrostatic beam-mode waves are localized to the beam region, whereas whistler waves can leak out of the beam and transport energy away from the beam. Finally, the competition between electrostatic and whistler instabilities are tested for a field-aligned beam. Due to a faster depletion of the beam free energy by electrostatic beam-mode waves with increasing $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$, the saturation amplitude of whistler waves decreases. Beyond a critical $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$, Landau resonance does not occur for whistler waves and the saturation amplitude of whistler waves is immersed in the noise.\
There are still a number of differences between the kinetic simulation results and observations made with laboratory experiments. First, the PIC simulation is a relaxation of an initial beam whereas in the experiment, the beam electrons are continuously injected into the cold plasma. Second, the PIC simulation has the beam uniformly distributed along the parallel direction whereas in the experiment the beam source is fixed at a specific location along the parallel direction. In the experiment, it takes about $40$ cyclotron periods or $200$ plasma oscillations for the beam electrons to travel from the source location to the end of the experimental volume. In other words, the transit time of the beam electrons is $\Delta t \approx 1257\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. In the PIC simulation with the ratio of beam density to total plasma density as $n_b/n_t = 0.125$, electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves, respectively, saturate at $t = 30\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ and $t = 100\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$. However, the saturation time of waves with the simulation value $n_b/n_t = 0.125$ should be properly scaled to the experimental value of $n_b/n_t = 0.001 \sim 0.005$. As a rough estimate, suppose that the saturation time of waves is inversely proportional to the linear growth rate of waves, i.e., $t_{sat} \propto 1/\gamma$, and that the linear growth rate of waves scales with the beam density [@Oneil1971-PoF; @Bell1964-PR] as $\gamma \propto (n_b/n_t)^{\frac{1}{3}}$ and hence $t_{sat} \propto (n_b/n_t)^{-\frac{1}{3}}$. Electrostatic beam-mode and whistler waves, respectively, are estimated to saturate at $t = 90 \sim 150\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ and $t = 300 \sim 500\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ in the experiment. Therefore it is expected that the electron distribution would be fully relaxed as in Figure \[fig5-electron-distribution\]d at the end of the experimental volume with a transit time of $\Delta t \approx 1257\, \omega_{pe}^{-1}$ in the experiment. The more realistic situation of the injection experiment driven by a beam source will be implemented in the PIC simulation in a future study.
A critical value of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$ for Landau resonance between whistler waves and beam electrons
=========================================================================================================
It can be shown that [@Starodubtsev1999-PoP] Landau resonance between whistler waves and beam electrons only occurs below some critical $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$. From the refractive index surface of whistler waves, there exists a minimum $k_z$ for a given frequency $$\begin{aligned}
k_z^{\min} = \begin{cases}
\dfrac{\omega_{pe}}{c}\dfrac{2\omega}{\Omega_e} & \omega < \dfrac{\Omega_e}{2} \\
\dfrac{\omega_{pe}}{c} \sqrt{\dfrac{\omega}{\Omega_e-\omega}} & \omega > \dfrac{\Omega_e}{2}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $k_z$ takes the minimum value at the Gendrin angle for $\omega < \Omega_e/2$, while for $\omega > \Omega_e/2$, $k_z$ takes the minimum value in the parallel direction. In order to have Landau resonance between beam electrons and whistler waves, the resonant wave number must exceed $k_z^{\min}$. That is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\omega}{v_{z}} > k_z^{\min}\end{aligned}$$ There exists a critical value of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$, above which Landau resonance does not occur. This critical value is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\omega_{pe}}{\Omega_e}\right)_{\mbox{critical}} = \begin{cases}
\frac{c}{2v_{z}} & \omega < \frac{\Omega_e}{2} \\
\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\Omega_e} \left(1-\frac{\omega}{\Omega_e}\right)}\frac{c}{v_{z}} & \omega > \frac{\Omega_e}{2}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ For typical parameters in the simulation, i.e., $v_z/c=0.0766$ and $\omega/\Omega_e=0.5$, the critical value of $\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$ is $6.5$.
The equation of energy flux in the Darwin model {#append:poynting-flux}
===============================================
The energy flux equation in the Darwin model is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:energy-flux}
\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{S} + \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[ \frac{\mathbf{E}_L \cdot \mathbf{E}_L}{8 \pi} + \frac{\mathbf{B} \cdot \mathbf{B}}{8 \pi} \right] = - \mathbf{J} \cdot (\mathbf{E}_L + \mathbf{E}_T)\end{aligned}$$ where the Poynting flux takes the form of equation . $\mathbf{J}$ is the current density. Note that the energy of transverse electric field does not enter the field energy. The energy flux equation can be verified immediately by taking divergence of the Poynting flux in equation and making use of the following set of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\nabla} \times \mathbf{B} &=& \frac{4 \pi}{c} \mathbf{J} + \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \mathbf{E}_L}{\partial t} \label{eqn:curlB} \\
\mathbf{\nabla} \times \mathbf{E}_T &=& -\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \\
\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{B} &=& 0 \\
\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{E}_T &=& 0 \\
\mathbf{\nabla} \times \mathbf{E}_L &=& 0 \end{aligned}$$ The transverse component of the displacement current is neglected in equation due to the Darwin approximation.
We thank G. J. Morales for helpful discussions. We would also like to acknowledge high-performance computing support from Yellowstone (ark:/85065/d7wd3xhc) provided by NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The research was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation by grant DE-SC0010578, which was awarded to UCLA through the NSF/DOE Plasma Partnership program. The research was also funded by NASA grant NNX16AG21G.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a quantum cosmology with a massless background scalar field $\pb$ and adopt a wave packet as the wave function. This wave packet is a superposition of the WKB form wave functions, each of which has a definite momentum of the scalar field $\pb$. In this model it is shown that to trace the formalism of the WKB time is seriously difficult without introducing a complex value for a time. We define a semiclassical real time variable $\tp$ from the phase of the wave packet and calculate it explicitly. We find that, when a quantum matter field $\pq$ is coupled to the system, an approximate Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ holds with respect to $\tp$ in a region where the size $a$ of the universe is large and $|\pb|$ is small.'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
MMC-M-9\
May 1996\
[Wave Packet in Quantum Cosmology and\
0.5cm Definition of Semiclassical Time]{}\
Y. OHKUWA [^1]\
Department of Mathematics, Miyazaki Medical College, Kiyotake,\
Miyazaki 889-16, Japan\
0.3cm T. KITAZOE [^2]\
Faculty of Engineering, Miyazaki University, Miyazaki 889-21, Japan
0.5cm
Introduction
=============
The notion of time is one of the most serious problems in quantum cosmology$.^{\scriptscriptstyle [1]}$ Though this is still controversial, many attempts have been done recently. One of them is to utilize the semiclassical approximation. Banks and others assumed that the solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation has the form of the WKB approximation, namely $\Psi^{WKB}=\Phi e^{{i \over \hbar}\sz }$ , where $\sz$ is the Hamilton’s principal function, and they introduced a time variable $\tw$ , using $\sz$ $.^{\scriptscriptstyle [2]-[13]}$ They showed that , when a quantum matter field $\pq$ is coupled to the system, its wave function satisfies the Schrödinger equation with respect to $\tw$ in the region where the semiclassical approximation is well justified.
It has not yet been clarified how the classical universe emerged from the quantum universe. However, it seems probable to assume that the wave function of the universe forms a narrow wave packet in the classical region. In this paper we will consider a quantum cosmology with a massless background scalar field $\pb$ and adopt a wave packet with respect to $\pb$ as the wave function. This wave packet is a superposition of the WKB form wave functions, each of which has a definite momentum $\kappa$ of the scalar field $\pb$ . Thus, it is expected that the packet tends to a classical orbital motion in the classical region. In this model first we will show that it is seriously difficult to trace the formalism of the WKB time and to define a time variable for the Schrödinger equation of $\pq$ without introducing a complex value for a time.
Several years ago Greensite and Padmanabhan advocated a time variable $\te$ by requiring that the Ehrenfest principle holds with respect to $\te$ $.^{\scriptscriptstyle [14][15]}$ If this Ehrenfest time $\te$ exists, this is proportional to another time variable, a phase time, which is derived from the phase of an arbitrary solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. However, recently Brotz and Kiefer showed that the Ehrenfest time $\te$ does not always exist, since the constraints on $\te$ is considerably severe$.^{\scriptscriptstyle [16]}$ On the contrary it is possible to define a phase time which is real, as long as the phase of the wave function is not constant.
We will introduce a real background phase time $\tp$ and calculate it explicitly when the width $\sigma$ of the wave packet is narrow and the size $a$ of the universe is large. The phase time $\tp$ will be compared to $\tw$ which is derived by a WKB form wave function with a momentum $\kappa_0$ where the wave packet has a peak. It will be shown that $\tp$ is a smooth extension of $\tw$ and they become identical in the narrow limit of the wave packet. It is important to examine whether an expected dynamical equation that is a Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ with respect to $\tp$ can be derived. We will find that an approximate Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ holds with respect to $\tp$ in a region where the size $a$ of the universe is large and $|\pb|$ is small.
In §2 we first review the WKB approximation and $\tw$, and we construct a wave packet from WKB wave functions. Next we show that it is seriously difficult to trace the formalism of the WKB time and to define a time variable.
In §3 we introduce a background phase time $\tp$ , calculate its explicit form and compare it with $\tw$ .
In §4 we examine whether an approximate Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ can be derived.
We summarize in §5, and the appendix is devoted for the detailed estimation of the approximations used in §2 and §3.
Wave Packet and Difficulty in Definition of Time
================================================
We consider the following minisuperspace model in (n+1)-dimensional space-time $.^{\scriptscriptstyle [17]}$ Though $n=3$ in reality, we calculate in the more general case. The metric is assumed to be $
ds^2=-N^2(t) dt^2 + a^2(t)d\Omega_n^2 \ ,
$ where $d\Omega_n^2$ is the flat metric. We take a massless background scalar field $\pb (t)$ and a quantum matter field $\pq (t)$ . The Wheeler-DeWitt equation for a wave function $\Psi (a, \pb ,\pq)$ reads &= &( + ) = 0 ,\
&= &[\^2 2v\_n a\^[n-2]{}]{}([c\_n\^2 a\^]{} a\^ - [1 a\^2]{}[\^2 \^2]{} ) + U(a) ,\
c\_n &= & , U(a) = v\_n[216G]{}a\^n . Here $\HQ (a, \pb, \pq)$ is the Hamiltonian constraint for the quantum matter field $\pq ,$ $\poo$ is a parameter of operator ordering, $\Lambda$ is a cosmological constant, $v_n$ is the spatial volume, and we assume that $v_n$ is some properly fixed finite constant.
In order to look for a WKB solution to Eqs. (1) , write ( a , , ) = ( a , , ) e\^[[i ]{}( a , )]{} . Substituting Eq. (2) to Eqs. (1) and equating powers of $\hbar$ , we obtain -[c\_n\^2 2v\_n a\^[n-2]{}]{}( )\^2 + [1 2v\_n a\^n]{} ( )\^2 + U(a) &= 0 ,\
i+ &= 0 , where we have regarded that $\HQ$ is the order of $\hbar$ and ignored the terms in the order of $\hbar^2$ . The equation (3) is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the gravity coupled with a background scalar field, and $\sz$ is the Hamilton’s principal function.
Let us write the solution $\Phi$ of Eq. (4) as $\pz$ , when there is not the quantum matter field $\pq$ , that is c\_n\^2 ( + 2+ [p\_[oo]{} a]{} ) - [1 a\^2]{}(+ 2) = 0 . Now we write ( a , , ) = ( a , ) e\^[[i ]{}( a , )]{} ( a , , ) . Then from Eqs. (4)-(6) we obtain i+ = 0 . If we define a time variable $\tw$ as -[c\_n\^2 v\_n a\^[n-2]{}]{} + [1 v\_n a\^n]{}= 1 , Eq. (7) can be written as i = . This is a Schrödinger equation, so $\tw$ is a semiclassical time variable in the WKB approximation$.^{\scriptscriptstyle [2]-[13]}$
As in Ref. \[17\] Eqs. (3),(5),(8) can be solved by the separation of variables, and solutions are as follows. &= &[\_a c\_n]{}I\_S + + const. ,\
I\_S &= &[1 n]{} ,\
&= &c\_a\^[1-2]{} (a\^[2n]{} + \^2)\^[-[1 4]{}]{} (=0) ,\
&= &a\^[1-2]{} (a\^[2n]{} + \^2)\^[-[1 4]{}]{}\
& &{ c\_-[(n-1+)4]{} I\_+[n4]{}I\_+[\_a 2c\_n]{} I\_} \
& &+ (0) ,\
I\_&= &da a\^[-3 2]{}(a\^[2n]{} + \^2)\^x ,\
&= &- [\_a v\_n c\_n ]{} [ln]{} a + \_[W]{} () (=0) ,\
&= &[\_a c\_n]{}(I\_[W 1]{}-v\_n I\_[W 2]{}) + + const. (0) ,\
I\_[W 1]{} &= &[1 2n]{}[ln]{} ([- + ]{} ) ,\
I\_[W 2]{} &= &-[1 2n]{}[ln]{} ( [- a\^n + a\^n]{}) ,\
where $ \epsilon_a = \pm 1 , \ev = 4v_n^2 \Lambda / 16\pi G $ , $ \tau_W (\pb) $ is any function of $\pb$ and $ \kappa , \gamma , \xi , c_\phi $ are arbitrary constants. We can identify $\kappa$ as the momentum of $\pb$ .
This WKB time $\tw$ is very natural as a semiclassical time variable in the region where the WKB approximation is well justified $.^{\scriptscriptstyle [11]-[13]}$ However, this formalism crucially depends on the assumption that the wave function has the WKB form (2) . How can we define a time variable, if a wave function $\Psi$ is a superposition of the WKB form wave functions, for example, $\Psi$ is the following Gaussian wave packet?
&= & ,\
&= &d A() () ,\
A() &= & , () = () e\^[[i ]{}()]{} ,\
where $\kappa_0 $ and $\sigma$ are arbitrary constants, $\pz (\kappa) , \sz (\kappa)$ are given in Eqs. (10) - (12), and $\psi = \psi (a, \pb, \pq) $ is a wave function for the quantum matter field $\pq$ . Note that, in the limit $\sigma \rightarrow 0 $ , $\Psi_0$ becomes identical to $\Psi^{WKB}_0$ .
First let us try to trace the formalism of the WKB time and to define a time variable for the wave packet. Substituting Eqs. (15), (16) to Ees. (1) and using Eqs. (3), (5) , we obtain d A e\^[[i ]{}]{} = 0 , where we have neglected the higher order terms in $\hbar$ . This gives i &= & ,\
&= &\
& &d A . At a glance this seems a Schrödinger equation with a time $\ts$ . However, $\ts$ can not be a real variable in general. Therefore it is difficult to define a time variable in this way.
Phase Time
==========
Next let us introduce a background phase time $\tp$ . We write the background wave packet $\Psiz$ in Eqs. (16) as = e\^[[i ]{} ]{} , where $\rho$ and $\theta$ are real, that is $\rho$ and $\frac{\theta}{\hbar}$ are the absolute value and the phase of $\Psiz$ , respectively. If we replace $\sz$ in Eq. (8) with $\theta$ and define a background phase time $\tp$ as $$-{c_n^2 \over v_n a^{n-2}}{\partial \theta \over \partial a} \tpa
+ {1 \over v_n a^n}{\partial \theta \over \partial \pb} \tpb = 1 \ ,$$ we can obtain a real time variable $\tp$ .
However, the problem is whether an expected dynamical equation that is a Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ with respect to $\tp$ can be derived or not. Note that our background phase time $\tp$ is a little different from the phase time which is proportional to the Ehrenfest time $\te$ $.^{\scriptscriptstyle [14]-[16]} $ The latter phase time should be defined by the all over phase of a solution $\Psi$ to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and depend on not only background fields $a , \pb$ but also the quantum matter field $\pq$ . Before we examine the Schrödinger equation, let us calculate $\tp$ explicitly and compare it with $\tw$ .
For simplicity we choose $ \poo = 1 $ , $\gamma = 0$ . Then Eqs. (16) can be written as &= &c\_ d A () e\^[f()]{} ,\
f() &= &() + () , () = - (a\^[2n]{} + \^2) , where the last equation means $ \Phi_0 = c_{\phi} e^{\varphi}$ . If we assume that $A(\kappa)$ has a narrow peak at $\kappa_0$ , namely $\sigma$ is small, then $\sz$ and $\varphi$ can be expanded around $\kappa_0$ . We neglect higher terms than $(\kappa-\kappa_0)^2$ and integrate with respect to $\kappa$ , and we obtain $$\Psiz = \frac{c_\phi}{\sqrt{1 - \sigma^2 \fdpr}}
{\rm exp}
\biggl[ f + \frac{\sigma^2 f^{\prime 2}}{2(1 - \sigma^2 \fdpr)} \biggr] \ ,$$ where $f$ means $f(\kappa_0)$ and prime means a partial derivative with respect to $\kappa$ namely $\fpr = \frac{\partial f}{\partial \kappa}(\kappa_0)$ .
Suppose we assume $\sigma^2$ is small enough to satisfy 1 \^2 | | and neglect higher terms than $\sigma^2$ , we have $$\Psiz = c_\phi
{\rm exp} \Bigl[ f + \frac{\sigma^2}{2} ( f^{\prime 2} + \fdpr ) \Bigr] \ .$$
Let us consider the case when the size $a$ of the universe is large enough to satisfy following conditions, |S\_0\^ | &&| \^S\_0\^| ,\
S\_0\^[2]{} &&\^2 | \^[2]{} + \^ | . Detailed estimation of these conditions is given in the appendix. In this case $\rho$ and $\theta$ in Eq. (20) can be written as &= & ,\
&= &+ (\_0) , where we have ignored higher order infinitesimals.
At this stage it is interesting to mention a relation between the trace of the wave packet peak and the classical path. When $\sz$ in Eq. (10) is written as $
\sz = {\epsilon_a \over c_n}I_S (a, \kappa) + \kappa \; (\pb-\alpha)
$ with an arbitrary constant $\alpha$, the classical path is derived from = = according to the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. Since the parameter $\beta$ is additional and can be absorbed by $\alpha$ , we can set as = 0 in this case. The peak of the wave function is obtainable from Eq. (28) . If we take the lowest order WKB approximation, we arrive at the classical path equation (31) by setting $\szpr (\kappa_0 ) = 0$ as a peak of the amplitude $\rho$ .
>From Eqs. (10),(29) we find Eq. (21) becomes - + [\_0 v\_n a\^n]{} = 1 , and this can be solved by the separation of variables. After some calculation the result of $\tp$ is &= &- ( a\^[2n]{} + ) + \_P () (\_0 = 0) ,\
&= & ( I\_[P1]{} - v\_n I\_[P2]{} ) + + const. (\_0 0) ,\
I\_[P1]{} &= &da ,\
&= &- ,\
I\_[P2]{} &= &da ,\
&= & , where $\tau_P(\pb)$ is an arbitrary function of $\pb , $ $\zeta$ is any constant in the separation of variables, $\alpha_1 = \sqrt{\ev a^{2n} + \kappa_0^2} , \
\alpha_2 = \sqrt{\ev+ \kappa_0^2 a^{-2n}}$ , $ \Sigma_1^\pm = (-\sigma^2 \pm
\sqrt{\sigma^4 +8\sigma^2\kappa_0^2})/4 , $ $ \Sigma_2^\pm = (-\sigma^2\ev \pm
\sqrt{\sigma^4 +8\sigma^2\kappa_0^2}\ \ev)/4\kappa_0^2$ , and we have assumed $ \Lambda > 0 $ . We find from Eqs. (13),(14) and (33),(34) that, when $\kappa$ in Eqs. (13),(14) is replaced by $\kappa_0$, $ \xi=\zeta$ , $\tau_W = \tau_P$ and $\sigma\rightarrow 0 $, $\tp$ becomes equal to $\tw$ , which may be expected from the fact that $\Psiz$ becomes identical to $\PsiWz$ when $\sigma\rightarrow 0 $ .
Schrödinger Equation
====================
We will now examine a Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ . Suppose we substitute Eq. (15) into Eqs. (1), we obtain += 0 , where we have used the WKB approximation for the background wave function, that is $\ \HB \Psiz = 0$ . Using Eqs. (20) and (21), we can derive i &=&+ ( F\_a + F\_ ) + ( c\_n\^2 - ) ,\
&=&- + ,\
F\_a&=& ( + ) ,\
F\_&=&- . With Eqs. (22), (28) and (29), the last three equations become &=&- ( + ) + ,\
F\_a&=& ,\
F\_&=& . In order to compare Eqs. (37) , we need following explicit expressions: &=& ([-\_0 +\_0]{} ) + ,\
&=& , = ,\
&=& , = - .
The WKB approximation for the background wave function is estimated in the appendix, and it requires (A2), which means | | \^2 | | . When $a$ is large enough to satisfy (A4), the last equation in (38) gives $\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial a} \simeq -\frac{n}{2 a} \ .$ Hence we can obtain | | \^2 | + | , and we can neglect the first term in $F_a$ compared to the first term in $\dtp$ .
Next let us examine the condition that the $\sigma^2$-term in $F_a$ can be neglected than the first term in $\dtp$ . We must require | | \^2 | | , and this means when $a$ is large as in (A4) a\^[2n]{} \^2 | \_0 | | - +| , where we have used Eqs. (38). If $|\pb|$ is small as in (A9) , this condition (42) yields a ( )\^ \~( )\^ . Here we have used the definition of $\lp$ and $\lh$ in the appendix. Unless $|\pb|$ is small as in (A10), we need a ( )\^ \~ ( )\^ .
Finally consider the condition |\_0| \^2 || , so that we can neglect $F_\phi$ compared to the last term in $\dtp$ . Suppose $a$ is large as in (A4), the relation (45) means | \_0 | \^2 | - +| . When $|\pb|$ is small as in (A9), this requires $\hbar |\kappa_0 | \gg \frac{\sigma^2 |\kappa_0 |}{c_n \sqrt{\ev} a^n}$ , which is satisfied in the region of (A7). When $|\pb|$ is not small as in (A10), we need |\_0| \^2 || . This is consistent with (A10) in the region of (A7).
If $a$ is large enough to satisfy (A4) - (A7), (A11), (A14), (43) and (44) and if $|\pb|$ is small enough to satisfy (47), $F_a , F_\phi$ can be neglected than $\dtp$ . In the case when the WKB approximation for the total wave function with $\psi$ is well justified, the last terms in the first equation of (36) can be also neglected, and we obtain an approximate Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ , namely i .
Summary
=======
We considered a wave packet in quantum cosmology that is a superposition of the WKB wave functions, each of which has a definite momentum of a background scalar field $\pb$ . We showed that it is seriously difficult to trace the formalism of the WKB time and to define a time variable for the Schrödinger equation of a quantum matter field $\pq$ without introducing a complex value for a time. Then we introduced a background phase time $\tp$ which is real and calculated its explicit expression when $a$ is large and $\sigma$ is small. It has been shown that $\tp$ is a smooth extension of $\tw$ which is derived by a WKB form wave function and they become identical in the narrow limit of the wave packet. We found that, when a quantum matter field $\pq$ is coupled to the system, an approximate Schrödinger equation for $\pq$ holds with respect to $\tp$ in a region where the size $a$ of the universe is large and $|\pb|$ is small.
Appendix : Estimation of Approximations {#appendix-estimation-of-approximations .unnumbered}
=======================================
We start from the action $$S = \int d^{n+1} x \sqrt{-g} \biggl[ \frac{R-2\Lambda}{16\pi G}
- \frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{2} \partial_\mu \pb \partial_\nu \pb
+{\cal L}_{\scriptscriptstyle Q} \biggr] \ ,
\eqno{(A1)}$$ where $\Lambda$ is a cosmological constant and ${\cal L}_{\scriptscriptstyle Q}$ is a Lagrangian density for $\pq$ . This action yields the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (1). >From Eq. (A1) we can see that the dimension of the scalar field is $\pb \sim \sqrt{\hbar} l^{\frac{1-n}{2}}$ , where $l$ has a dimension of length. Since $\kappa$ is the momentum for $\pb$ , $\kappa \sim \sqrt{\hbar} l^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$ , and $\kappa$ and $\sigma$ have the same dimension. In our model the Planck length and the Hubble length are defined as $\lp = ( G \hbar )^{\frac{1}{n-1}}$ and $\lh = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat \Lambda}}$ , ${\hat \Lambda} = \frac{2 \Lambda}{n(n-1)} $ , respectively. Then we have $\hbar c_n \sim \sqrt{\hbar} \lp^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$ and $\sqrt{\ev} \sim \sqrt{\hbar} v_n \lh^{-1} \lp^{\frac{1-n}{2}}$ .
Now let us begin to estimate approximations used in §2 and §3. In order for the WKB approximation to be well justified, $\Phi_0$ should vary slower than $\sz$ , which means $$\frac{1}{\hbar} \Biggl| \sza \Biggr|
\gg \Biggl| \frac{1}{\pz} \frac{\partial \pz}{\da} \Biggr| \ , \qquad\qquad
\frac{1}{\hbar} \Biggl| \szb \Biggr|
\gg \Biggl| \frac{1}{\pz} \frac{\partial \pz}{\db} \Biggr| \ .
\eqno{(A2)}$$ Since $\phzb = 0$ when $\gamma = 0$ , the second condition in (A2) is satisfied automatically. Using Eqs. (22) and (38), we find that the first condition of (A2) is $$(\ev a^{2n} + \kappa_0^2 )^{\frac{3}{2}} \gg \hbar c_n \ev a^{2n} \ .
\eqno{(A3)}$$ To make discussion easy let us consider the case when $a$ is large enough to satisfy $$a \gg \Biggl( \frac{|\kappa_0 |}{\sqrt{\ev}} \Biggr)^\frac{1}{n}
\sim \left( \frac{ \frac{|\kappa_0 |}{\sqrt{\hbar}}
\lp^{\frac{n-1}{2}} \lh}{v_n}
\right)^\frac{1}{n} \ .
\eqno{(A4)}$$ In this case (A3) becomes $$a \gg \Biggl( \frac{\hbar c_n}{\sqrt{\ev}} \Biggr)^\frac{1}{n}
\sim \left( \frac{ \lp^{n-1} \lh}{v_n} \right)^\frac{1}{n} \ .
\eqno{(A5)}$$ So this condition is necessary for the WKB approximation.
Second we consider the neglect of the higher terms than $(\kappa-\kappa_0)^2$ in the expansion of $f(\kappa)$ . This requires $|\fdpr(\kappa_0) (\kappa-\kappa_0)^2| \gg
|f^{\prime\prime\prime}(\kappa_0)(\kappa-\kappa_0)^3|$ when $|\kappa-\kappa_0| \ \stackrel{<}{\sim}\ \sigma $ . This condition is satisfied when $$\Biggl| \frac{\fdpr(\kappa_0)}{f^{\prime\prime\prime}(\kappa_0)} \Biggr|
\gg |\kappa-\kappa_0 | \simeq \sigma \ ,$$ which means in the case of (A4) that $$a \gg \Biggl( \frac{\sigma |\kappa_0 | }{\ev} \Biggr)^\frac{1}{2n}
\sim \left( \frac{ \sqrt{\frac{\sigma |\kappa_0 | }{\hbar} }
\lp^{\frac{n-1}{2}} \lh}{v_n}
\right)^\frac{1}{n} \ .
\eqno{(A6)}$$ Here we have used Eqs. (22) and (38).
Next let us examine the condition (24). In the case of (A4) we obtain from Eqs. (22) and (38) that $\sigma^2 |\fdpr| \simeq \frac{\sigma^2}{\hbar} |\szdpr| \simeq
\frac{\sigma^2}{\hbar n c_n \sqrt{\ev} a^n} $ . Therefore (24) requires $$a \gg \Biggl( \frac{\sigma^2}{\hbar c_n \sqrt{\ev}} \Biggr)^\frac{1}{n}
\sim \left( \frac{\bigl( \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{\hbar}} \bigr)^2 \lh}{v_n}
\right)^\frac{1}{n} \ .
\eqno{(A7)}$$
Finally we estimate conditions (26), (27). In the case of (A4) the condition (26) gives $$\frac{\sqrt{\ev} a^n}{c_n | \kappa_0 |} \gg
\Biggl| - \frac{\epsilon_a \kappa_0}{n c_n \sqrt{\ev} a^n} +\pb \Biggr| \ .
\eqno{(A8)}$$ When $|\pb|$ is small and satisfies $$|\pb| \ {\mathop{<}_\sim}\ \; \frac{| \kappa_0 |}{n c_n \sqrt{\ev} a^n} \ ,
\eqno{(A9)}$$ (A8) is satisfied by (A4). When $|\pb|$ is not small, that is $$|\pb| \ {\mathop{>}_\sim}\ \; \frac{| \kappa_0 |}{n c_n \sqrt{\ev} a^n} \ ,
\eqno{(A10)}$$ (A8) means $$a \gg \Biggl( \frac{c_n |\kappa_0 | |\pb| }{\sqrt{\ev}} \Biggr)^\frac{1}{n}
\sim \left( \frac{ \frac{|\kappa_0 | |\pb|}{\hbar}
\lp^{n-1} \lh}{v_n}
\right)^\frac{1}{n} \ .
\eqno{(A11)}$$ In the case of (A4) the condition (27) requires $$\Biggl| - \frac{\epsilon_a \kappa_0}{n c_n \sqrt{\ev} a^n} +\pb \Biggr|
\gg \frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{\ev} a^n}\ .
\eqno{(A12)}$$ When $|\pb|$ is small as in (A9), the condition (A12) becomes $$\frac{|\kappa_0|}{\sqrt{\hbar}}
\gg \sqrt{\hbar} c_n \sim \lp^{\frac{n-1}{2}} \ ,
\eqno{(A13)}$$ and when $|\pb|$ satisfies (A10), the condition (A12) yields $$a \gg \Biggl( \frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{\ev} |\pb|} \Biggr)^\frac{1}{n}
\sim \left( \frac{
\lp^{\frac{n-1}{2}} \lh}{v_n \frac{|\pb |}{\sqrt{\hbar}}}
\right)^\frac{1}{n} \ .
\eqno{(A14)}$$
Since $v_n a^n$ is the spatial volume of our model, (A5) may be satisfied in the semiclassical region. If $\sigma$ is small and $\frac{|\kappa_0|}{\sqrt{\hbar}}$ is bigger than $l_p^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$ as in (A13) but is not too big, (A4),(A6) and (A7) do not impose too severe restriction on $a$ . When $|\pb| \cdot |\kappa_0| \simeq \hbar$ , which is allowed by the uncertainty principle, the conditions (A11) and (A14) are equivalent to (A5) and (A4), respectively. So we can think that, when $a$ is large and $\sigma$ is small, all the conditions in this appendix can be satisfied consistently.
[99]{} See, e.g., C.J. Isham, in [*Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories*]{}, eds. L.A. Ibort and M.A. Rodriguez (Kluwer, London, 1993); K.V. Kuchař, in [*Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics*]{}, eds. G. Kunstatter, D.E. Vincent and J.G. Williams (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992). T. Banks, . J.J. Halliwell, ; J.J. Halliwell, in [*Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes*]{}, eds. S. Coleman, J.B. Hartle, T. Piran and S. Weinberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991). J.J. Halliwell and S.W. Hawking, . S. Wada, ; erratum, . J.B. Hartle, in [*Gravitation in Astrophysics*]{}, eds. B. Carter and J.B. Hartle (Plenum, New York, 1986). A. Vilenkin, . T.P. Singh and T. Padmanabhan, . T. Padmanabhan, . C. Kiefer and T.P. Singh, ; C. Kiefer, in [*Canonical Gravity - from Classical to Quantum*]{}, eds. J. Ehlers and H. Friedrich (Springer, Berlin, 1994). Y. Ohkuwa, in [*Evolution of the Universe and its Observational Quest*]{}, ed. by K. Sato (Universal Academy Press, Tokyo, 1994); . Y. Ohkuwa, . Y. Ohkuwa, T. Kitazoe and Y. Mizumoto, . J. Greensite, . T. Padmanabhan, . T. Brotz and C. Kiefer, Ehrenfest’s Principle and the Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity, preprint Freiburg THEP-96/1 (1996). Y. Ohkuwa, Semiclassical Time Variables in a Quantum Cosmology with a Massless Scalar Field, preprint MMC-M-7 (1995).
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We develop a general framework for the open dynamics of an ensemble of quantum particles subject to spacetime fluctuations about the flat background. An arbitrary number of interacting bosonic and fermionic particles are considered. A systematic approach to the generation of gravitational waves in the quantum domain is presented that recovers known classical limits in terms of the quadrupole radiation formula and backreaction dissipation. Classical gravitational emission and absorption relations are quantized into their quantum field theoretical counterparts in terms of the corresponding operators and quantum ensemble averages. Certain arising consistency issues related to factor ordering have been addressed and resolved. Using the theoretical formulation established here with numerical simulations in the quantum regime, we discuss potential new effects including decoherence through the spontaneous emission of gravitons and collectively amplified radiation of gravitational waves by correlated quantum particles.\
author:
- Teodora Oniga
- 'Charles H.-T. Wang'
title: 'Quantum coherence, radiance, and resistance of gravitational systems'
---
Introduction
============
Recent detection of gravitational waves [@LIGO2016] has confirmed one of the most important predictions of general relativity. Their discovery is not only realizing the long-awaited gravitational wave astronomy [@Schutz1999; @Sesana2016] but also puts the quest for deeper and wider progress of fundamental physics in a new perspective [@gauge2009]. Despite their prevailing classical descriptions, the energy density of the observed gravitational waves, close to the source GW150914, is thought to be a small fraction of the Planck density [@LIGO2016]. This suggests the effects of quantum gravity and Planck scale physics on gravitational waves are of interest for further investigations. Indeed, one asks: What can be learned about quantum gravity from gravitational waves?
Gravitons are quantized gravitational waves [@AshtekarLoops1991] and carry the true dynamics of gravitational fields [@Wang2005a; @Wang2005b; @Wang2006a]. Like photons, under vacuum fluctuations spontaneous emission of gravitons by energized quantum states undergoing decay and decoherence has also been postulated. In particular, substantial spontaneous emissions of gravitons in the early universe following inflation by the matter content subject to quantum-to-classical transitions may be responsible for entropy production, thermodynamic arrow of time, structure formation, and the emergence of the classical world [@kiefer2000; @Joos2003; @Schlosshauer2008; @kiefer2012; @Lim2015]. The precise physical mechanisms involved in this chain of processes are however not fully understood at present. The ongoing efforts to observe gravitons of cosmological origin as part of primordial and stochastic gravitational waves [@LIGO2009; @LIGO2016b] are expected to provide evidence for the above scenarios having considerable implications on the interplay between cosmology, quantum gravity, and potentially the ultimate unified theory at the Planck scale.
Driven by the above significant developments with the need for increased conceptual understanding and technical tools, we report in this paper on a unified framework based on recent theoretical progress of generic gravitational decoherence [@Oniga2016a; @Oniga2016b; @Oniga2016c], and provide an application example using a confined gravitating many-particle system ready to be generalized. The theory and methodology are aimed at addressing a wide range of complex and collective quantum dynamical behaviours of realistic matter systems that may be isolated in space but open to spacetime fluctuations (Sec. \[sec:var\]). A broad class of phenomena may be relevant, covering gravitational decoherence, radiation with reaction and dissipation, and their classical reductions. We show that the classical dynamical structure for gravitational radiation is largely preserved as the deterministic part of the quantum structure, that also acquires an additional quantum stochastic influence from the universal fluctuations of spacetime (Sec. \[sec:rad\]). The generation of gravitational waves in the quantum domain under our systematic approach based on the modern formalism of open quantum systems [@Breuer2002] is shown to recover classical limits. In treating the quantum mechanisms for gravitational emission and absorption in terms of quantized operators and quantum ensemble averages, we have encountered certain factor ordering ambiguities, which have fortunately been resolved through consistency considerations (Sec. \[sec:dec\]). The established theoretical formulation, illustrated with numerical simulations, allows us to demonstrate novel gravitational radiative phenomena including the collectively amplified spontaneous emission of gravitons by a highly coherent state of identical bosonic particles, in close analogy with the superradiance of photons [@Dicke1954] (Sec. \[sec:col\]). Towards the end, we conclude this work with a summary of its results, implications, and future prospects (Sec. \[sec:con\]).
In this work, we will consider the lowest order quantum gravitational effects consistent with the effective quantum field theory approach to general relativity[ [@Burgess2004]]{}. At low energy, much less than the Planck scale, this description allows one to analyze the propagations of gravitons with matter interactions using linearized quantum gravity to be adopted below, without concerning the nonrenormalizability of gravity[ [@Arteaga2004]]{}. Although such a restricted framework does not capture higher order quantum gravity effects, it is a significant necessary step in making progress towards a full quantum gravitational description, which has been useful in probing low-energy quantum gravitational decoherence[ [@Oniga2016a; @Blencowe2013]]{}. A better understanding of the physical effects of linearized quantum gravity may also guide the connections between a fuller theory of e.g. loop quantum gravity[ [@Ashtekar2017]]{} with the real world. It is also sufficient to prove the quantum nature of gravity using linearized quantum gravity on the more accessible laboratory scales. Therefore, further theoretical and experimental understandings of linearized quantum gravity effects may bear important implications for full quantum gravity.
Additionally, the linearized quantum gravity framework serves as a tradeoff to suspend the problem of time in quantum gravity with full general covariance[ [@Isham1992]]{}, by providing a background Minkowski metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}=$ diag$(-1,1,1,1)$ with Lorentz coordinates $(x^\mu)=(t,x,y,z)$, using Greek indices $\mu,\nu,\ldots=0,1,2,3$. When the metric is perturbed by a weak compact gravitational system and weak gravitational waves, these coordinates behave as mean asymptotic Lorentz coordinates for an observer distantly exterior to the system. Such time $t=x^0$ may be measured e.g. by a laboratory which is stationary “relative to a remote star.” This way, while making no claims to resolve the ambiguity of time measurement often encountered in the context of quantum state reduction models[ [@Hu2013; @Bassi2017]]{}, prominently by Penrose[ [@Penrose1996]]{}, we circumvent similar discussions with the above choice of time. Its physical consistency and usefulness within the linearized gravity approximation can be justified by the recovery of the classical limits of the quadrupole radiation formula and backreaction dissipation for gravitational waves from our quantum derivations, as required by the correspondence principle. See [Secs. \[sec:rad\] and \[sec:dec\]]{}.
In what follows, apart from stated exceptions, we choose the relativistic units where the speed of light equals one, ${c=1}$. We retain in particular the reduced Planck $\hbar$ and Newtonian $G$ constants to manifest quantum and gravitational couplings. Spatial coordinates in the Cartesian basis are indexed with Latin letters $i,j,\ldots=1,2,3$. Summation over repeated indices is implied should no risk of confusion arise. The time derivative, trace-reversion, Hermitian and complex conjugates are denoted by an over-dot $(\,\dot{}\,)$, over-bar $(\,\bar{}\,)$, superscripts $(^\dag)$ and $(^*)$ respectively. Symbols $H$ and $L$ are used for the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian with calligraphic type ${{\mathcal H}}$ and ${{\mathcal L}}$ standing for their densities respectively.
Covariant and canonical variables of matter-gravity systems {#sec:var}
===========================================================
We start by considering the quantum dynamics of a (multicomponent) matter field $\varphi$ weakly coupled to gravity described by an action functional that can be approximated with $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{M}}[\varphi,g_{\alpha\beta}]
&\approx&
S_{\text{M}}[\varphi,\eta_{\alpha\beta}]
+
\frac12
\int h_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu}\,{\text{d}}^4 x
\label{Sapx}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where the spacetime metric takes the perturbative form $g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}
&=&
2\frac{\delta S_{\text{M}}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}
\Big|_{g=\eta}
\label{TS}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ is the stress-energy tensor of the matter on the Minkowski background. Since the matter action $S_{\text{M}}[\varphi,g_{\alpha\beta}]$ above may depend on the derivatives of the metric, thereby accommodating spin connection for Dirac fields [@Tucker1987; @Tucker1995], in this work we can extend the validity of the gravitational influence functional derived in [@Oniga2016a] for fermionic as well as bosonic particles.
The expansion gives rise to the matter Lagrangian of the form $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal L}}_{\text{M}}&=&
{{\mathcal L}}^{\text{(sys)}}_{\text{M}}(\varphi,\varphi_{,\alpha})
+
{{\mathcal L}}_{\text{I}}(\varphi,\varphi_{,\alpha},h_{\alpha\beta})
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathcal L}}^{\text{(sys)}}_{\text{M}}$, as the integrand of $S_{\text{M}}[\varphi,\eta_{\alpha\beta}]$, describes the dynamics of the unperturbed matter system when gravity is switched off, and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal L}}_{\text{I}}&=&
\frac12 h_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ describes both the self interaction of matter through gravity, when switched on, as well as its gravitational interaction with the environment. The total Lagrangian density $
{{\mathcal L}}_{\text{T}}=
{{\mathcal L}}_{\text{M}}+ {{\mathcal L}}_{\text{G}}$ in terms of ${{\mathcal L}}_{\text{G}}=(16\pi G)^{-1}R$ yields the linearized Einstein equation $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi G\, T_{\mu\nu}
\label{eineqb}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ using the second order perturbation of the scalar curvature $R=R^{(2)}[h_{\alpha\beta}]$ and the first order perturbation of the Einstein tensor $G_{\mu\nu}=G_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}[h_{\alpha\beta}]$ whose expressions can be found in Ref. [@MTW1973].
Note that the Einstein equation[ ]{} based on which the time evolution of the system density matrix to be developed is up to first order in metric perturbations. To obtain such first order field equations, the corresponding gravitational Lagrangian is therefore second order in metric perturbations as the fields. Accordingly we have consistently used the second order perturbation of the scalar curvature to enter into the gravitational Lagrangian for linearized gravity above.
The resulting classical theory is invariant under the gauge transformation $h_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow h_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\mu,\nu} + \xi_{\nu,\mu}$ induced from the coordinate transformation $x^\mu\to x^\mu-\xi^\mu$ for arbitrary displacement functions $\xi^\mu=(\xi,\xi^i)$.
To establish connection with the standard open system description in Hamiltonian formalism, where the perturbative interaction is assumed small, we introduce the conjugate momentum $\varpi$ of the matter field $\varphi$ with respect to ${{\mathcal L}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}$ and obtain the corresponding matter Hamiltonian density $$\begin{aligned}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}= {{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}+{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}\label{MMI}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}=\varpi\dot{\varphi}-{{\mathcal L}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}&=&
-\frac12 h_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}.
\label{HI}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$
The Hamiltonian density of linearized gravity ${{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}= p_{ij}h_{ij,0} - {{\mathcal L}}_{\text{G}}$ takes the ADM form [@ADM1962] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}&=&
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}^{\text{(env)}}+ n{{\mathcal C}}_{\text{G}}+ n_i{{\mathcal C}}_{\text{G}}^i
\label{HGM}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}^{\text{(env)}}$ contains kinetic- and potential-like terms quadratic in $p^{ij}$ and $h_{ij}$ respectively counting for the positive energy of the environmental gravitational waves, and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal C}}_{\text{G}}=
({16\pi G})^{-1}
\left( h_{ii,jj} - h_{ij,ij}\right),\;\;
{{\mathcal C}}_{\text{G}}^i
=
-2p_{ij}{}_{,j}
\label{CCG}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ are first class constraints with Lagrangian multipliers $n=-h_{00}/2$ and $n_i = h_{0i}$. Therefore by using Eqs. , and , the total Hamiltonian density ${{\mathcal H}}={{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}+{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{T}}&=&
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}+
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}+
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}\label{HHGMI}
{\\[3pt]}&=&
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}+
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{G}}^{\text{(env)}}-
\frac12 h_{ij}T^{ij}
+
n{{\mathcal C}}+ n_i{{\mathcal C}}^i
\label{HHGM}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ with the second line above taking an overall ADM form using the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}{{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal C}}_{\text{G}}+ {{\mathcal C}}_{\text{M}},\;\;
{{\mathcal C}}^i = {{\mathcal C}}_{\text{G}}^i + {{\mathcal C}}_{\text{M}}^i
\label{CCGM}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ including the matter contribution
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}{{\mathcal C}}_{\text{M}}= T^{00},\;\;
{{\mathcal C}}_{\text{M}}^i=-T^{0i}.
\label{CCM}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$
This Hamiltonian formulation enables the gauge transformations of all dynamical variables of the matter-gravity system to be generated by the first class constraints ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^i$ through canonical transformations.
Radiation, reception, and reaction of gravitational waves {#sec:rad}
=========================================================
In the Lorenz gauge $\bar{h}_{\mu\nu}{}^{,\nu}=0$, the linearized Einstein equation takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mu\nu,\alpha}{}^\alpha = - 16\pi G \bar{T}_{\mu\nu} \,.
\label{lfeq3}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ with solutions naturally separated into $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mu\nu} = h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu} + h^{\text{(env)}}_{\mu\nu}.
\label{bug}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ The first term above is an inhomogeneous solution combined from $$\begin{aligned}
h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}({\boldsymbol{r}},t) =
4 G \int {\text{d}}^3 x'
\frac{\bar{T}_{\mu\nu}({\boldsymbol{r}}',t-\epsilon|{\boldsymbol{r}}-{\boldsymbol{r}}'|)}{|{\boldsymbol{r}}-{\boldsymbol{r}}'|}
\label{ret}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ using the spatial position vector ${\boldsymbol{r}}$ with norm $|{\boldsymbol{r}}|=r$, for $\epsilon=1$ as a retarded potential, and $\epsilon=-1$ as an advanced potential, describing respectively the radiation and reception of gravitational waves by the mater system.
When the usual outgoing-wave boundary condition is applied with $\epsilon=1$, the amplitude $h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}$ appears to “leak into the environment” and becomes observable gravitational waves, though technically $h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}$ is tied to the matter system, and is not part of the environment. Likewise, if the less familiar though physically possible ingoing-wave boundary condition is applied with $\epsilon=-1$, the amplitude $h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}$ appears to be “sucked from the environment”, though again $h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}$ is technically not part of the environment.
The second term $h^{\text{(env)}}_{\mu\nu}$ of Eq. above satisfies the homogeneous part of Eq. and describes the environmental gravitational waves. As such, the addition transverse-traceless (TT) condition can be applied to $h^{\text{(env)}}_{\mu\nu}$. Since $h^{\text{(env)}}_{ij}$ is independent of the mater system, it carries the dynamical degrees of freedom of gravity.
The orthogonality of the TT decomposition allows us to split the interacting Hamiltonian density into $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}= {{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}+ {{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}\label{IHW}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}=
-\frac12 h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu}
\label{HIU}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ describing the self-gravity of the matter system and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}= -\frac12 h^{\text{(env)}}_{ij} \tau_{ij}
\label{HIW}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the TT stress tensor $\tau_{ij}=T^{\text{TT}}_{ij}$, describing the coupling between the matter system and the environmental gravitational waves.
The interacting matter system $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}= {{\mathcal H}}_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}+{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}\label{MMII}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ obtained from Eq. by incorporating self-gravity Eq. and hence turning off the environmental gravity, i.e. $h^{\text{(env)}}_{ij}=0$, provides a closed dynamics for the classical radiation (or reception) of gravitational waves whose wave amplitude is determined by Eq. . For a nonrelativistic compact matter system of size $r^{\text{(sys)}}$ much less than the wavelength, one obtains the TT part of this wave amplitude to be $$\begin{aligned}
h^{\text{TT}}_{ij}(t)
&=&
\frac{2G}{r}\,\ddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}^{\,{\text{TT}}}_{ij}(t-\epsilon r)
\label{gwh}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ at a distance $r \gg r^{\text{(sys)}}$ from the matter system having the reduced quadrupole moment $$\begin{aligned}
{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}_{ij}
&=&
\int{\text{d}}^3x\,\big(x^i x^j - \frac{1}{3}\,\delta_{ij}\, r^2\big)\,T^{00}({\boldsymbol{r}},t).
\label{qij}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$
The average radiation (or reception) power can be derived from integrating the total flux associated with Eq. using the gravitational wave energy density $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{E}}&=&
\frac1{32\pi G}\,{\langle\,\dot{h}^{\text{TT}}_{ij}\,\dot{h}^{\text{TT}}_{ij}\,\rangle}
\label{GWE}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ to be the well-known quadrupole gravitational radiation formula $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}&=&
\frac{G}{5}\,{\langle\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\rangle}
\label{qhpwr}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle\cdot\rangle}$ denotes classical averaging, which in principle applies for gravitational reception as well.
Since the above gravitationally interacting matter system is closed, deterministic and conservative, the gravitational wave energy escaping to (or feeding from) infinity must involve balancing (anti-)dissipation. This mechanism, at the classical level [@Maggiore2008], is indeed provided by the backreaction from the gravitational wave amplitude $h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}$ through its time retardation (or advance) induced effective (anti-)damping using Eqs. and .
Decoherence via spontaneous emission and absorption of gravitons {#sec:dec}
================================================================
The preceding paradigm for the radiation, reception and reaction of gravitational waves changes drastically when the fundamental quantum properties of matter and gravity are taken into account. The field theoretical nature of linearized gravity means that after quantization there is a permanent fluctuating gravitational background even at zero temperature. The ambient spacetime fluctuations couple universally to all matter systems through the environmental interaction term ${{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}$ given by Eq. . Like ${{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}$ in Eq. , this term can drain energy e.g. at a low environmental temperature, as well as pump energy e.g. at a high environmental temperature. Therefore, for a quantized gravitating system, there are now two channels of energy flow from the system: radiation reaction with a deterministic character and spacetime fluctuations with a stochastic character and hence a capacity to decohere. It may be physically conceivable that the exchange of gravitational energies, for classical-like macroscopic systems with fluctuations smoothed out, is dominated by radiation reaction, whereas for quantumlike microscopic systems with diminishing time retardation or advance inside the system, is dominated by spacetime fluctuations.
To quantize the total matter-gravity system while preserving gauge invariance, we carry out Dirac’s canonical quantization of constrained system [@Dirac1964] based on the Hamiltonian density in the Heisenberg picture [@Oniga2016a], where the operator forms of the first class constraints ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^i$ given by Eq. become quantum generators of gauge transformation. Accordingly, physical states ${|\psi\rangle}$ are required to be gauge invariant by satisfying the quantum constraints $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal C}}{|\psi\rangle}=0
\,,\;
{{\mathcal C}}^i {|\psi\rangle}=0.
\label{qCCipsi}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, our perturbative approach would naturally admit a “Dirac-Fock” description of quantization, for which it has been shown that only the positive frequency modes of the constraints are required to annihilate physical states. See e.g. [Ref. [@Antoniadis1997]]{} for relevant discussions and further details on the consistent Dirac quantization using the Fock representations.
The canonical variable operators acting on physical states satisfying Eq. then evolve in time according to the quantum Heisenberg equations, which are equivalent to the quantum linearized Einstein equation . In this formalism, supplementary relations can be used to restrict gauge redundances, as the quantum form of gauge conditions at no expense of breaking gauge invariance as gauge transformations can still be generated by ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^i$ [@Oniga2016a].
In this sense, to establish the influence of the quantum gravitational environment on the matter system, it is useful to work in the quantum Lorenz gauge so that the metric perturbation operator $h_{\mu\nu}$ satisfy quantized Eq. with solutions also separated in the same manner as Eq. . Using quantized Eqs. , , and Eq. , and considering only physical states satisfying the quantum constraints , we obtain the total Hamiltonian that governs the evolution and coupling of the matter-gravity system as follows $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\text{T}}&=&
H_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}+
H_{\text{G}}^{\text{(env)}}+
H_{\text{I}}{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&=&
H_{\text{M}}^{\text{(sys)}}+
H_{\text{G}}^{\text{(env)}}+
H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}+
H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}.
\label{IHWII}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$
To investigate the dynamics of matter-gravity coupling and the resulting radiation, decoherence and dissipation, we will from now on employ the interaction picture where the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{I}}$, consisting of self ($H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}$) and environmental ($H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}$) gravity contributions, generates the time evolution of quantum states. We consider the fluctuating spacetime to resemble an infinite reservoir in which environmental gravitons with frequencies $\omega$ are maintained in an equilibrium Gaussian state with a distribution function $N(\omega)$ described by a gravitational density matrix $\rho_{\text{G}}$. For thermal equilibrium $N(\omega)$ is given by the Planck distribution function and for the zero-point spacetime fluctuations $N(\omega)$ vanishes.
In terms of the total density matrix $\rho_{\text{T}}(t)$ of the matter system and the gravitational environment, the total time evolution is determined by the Liouville-von Neumann equation $$\dot\rho_{\text{T}}=
-\frac{i}{\hbar}\, [H_{\text{I}},\rho_{\text{T}}].
\label{drho}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}$$ The density matrix describing the statistical state of the matter system is reduced from the total system by averaging over the ensembles of the gravitational reservoir through the partial trace $$\rho_{\text{M}}= {\text{Tr}}_{\text{G}}(\rho_{\text{T}}).
\label{rhoM}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}$$
For a matter system initially untangled with the gravitational environment at $t=0$, when the total state takes the factored form $$\rho_{\text{T}}(0) = \rho_{\text{M}}(0) \otimes \rho_{\text{G}}\label{ini}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}$$ which may later develop entanglement with the environment, its reduced dynamical evolution is generated by the non-Markovian master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-30pt}
\dot\rho
&=&
-\frac{i}{\hbar} [H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}, \rho]
-\frac{8\pi G}{\hbar}
\int\!\! \frac{{\text{d}}^3 k}{2(2\pi)^3k}
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&
\times\,
\Big \{
\int_{0}^{t} \!\!{\text{d}}t'
e^{-i k (t - t')}
\big(
[
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}}, t),\,
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}}, t') \rho
]
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&
\,+\,N(\omega_k)\,
[
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}}, t),\,
[
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}}, t'),\,
\rho
]]
\big)
+{\text{H.c.}}\Big\}
\label{maseqn}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ using Eqs. , , , and the gauge invariant gravitational influence functional techniques [@Oniga2016a]. Above, $\rho=\rho_{\text{M}}$ abbreviates the matter system density matrix, $\omega_k=k=|{\boldsymbol{k}}|$ denotes the environmental graviton frequency associated with wave vector ${\boldsymbol{k}}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}}, t)
&=&
\int\!
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{r}}, t)\,
e^{-i {\boldsymbol{k}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{r}}}\,{\text{d}}^3x
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ are operators Fourier-transformed from quantized $\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{r}}, t)$ introduced in Eq. , which have been normal-ordered with particle nonconservation terms neglected in the low energy domain being considered.
Notably, [Eq. ]{} constitutes an integrodifferential equation satisfied by the Dyson series solutions of the spacetime-ensemble averaged [Eq. ]{}, whose time-nonlocality gives rise to non-Markovianity[ [@Oniga2016a]]{}. In accord with the perturbation theory of the non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems[ [@Fleming2012]]{}, the order of coupling in such a series expansion increases consistently by one, for each Dyson expansion order, with an extra time integral.
Similarly, in the standard perturbative scattering theory with a linear order coupling in the sense of time-local field equations, the transition amplitudes can be obtained from the Dyson expansions containing time-nonlocal integrals with nonlinear coupling orders, physical constraints permitting. For instance, the validity of such expansions for a scattering system may be limited by whether pair productions or other high-energy effects are evident. For weak gravitational systems being considered, the size of the dynamical metric perturbations should ultimately remain much less than order one for [Eq. ]{} to be valid.
It is also worth remarking that, in deriving [Eq. ]{}, the averaging over the Gaussian environment with zero-mean fluctuating gravitational fields assimilates the Dyson expansion into a cumulant expansion that terminates at the second order, making the non-Markovian master equation[ ]{} truncation-free[ [@Oniga2016a]]{}.
The second coupling order with fluctuating linearized gravity has also emerged previously in calculating transition amplitudes under a gravitational bath[ [@Schafer1980; @Schafer1981]]{} using Feynman’s path integral approach[ [@Feynman1963]]{}. Indeed, second-order master equations have been a prevalent feature for models of stochastic quantum evolutions under weak gravitational fluctuations[ [@Hu2013; @Bassi2017]]{}.
Here we investigate new nontrivial dynamical consequences of this master equation in a more general physical context, covering in particular radiation through quantum decoherence and dissipation for particles in confined states as opposed to free particles studied in Ref. [@Oniga2016b]. Kinematically, the finite spatial extension of such a system permits the definitions of outgoing and ingoing gravitational waves. Dynamically, the coupling between these waves and the time evolution of the system results in their emissions (or absorptions) through Eq. in general and Eq. for nonrelativistic systems. On quantization, these equations and become operator equations.
The average gravitational wave energy density expression then acquires quantum meaning by interpreting ${h}^{\text{TT}}_{ij}$ there to be operators and averaging to be over quantum ensembles so that given a variable $v$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\langlev\rangle}={\text{Tr}}(\,v\rho\,)
\label{var}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ using the matter system density matrix $\rho$ [@Breuer2002]. The quantum radiation formula also takes the same form as Eq. through quantized Eq. . However, factor ordering requires some care here as the energy density related term $\dot{h}^{\text{TT}}_{ij}\,\dot{h}^{\text{TT}}_{ij}$ in Eq. is normal-ordered. Accordingly, when the reduced quadrupole moment operator given by quantized Eq. is expanded in frequency modes $$\begin{aligned}
{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}_{ij}(t) =
a_{ij}(\omega)\, e^{-i\omega t} + a_{ij}^\dag(\omega)\, e^{i\omega t}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ for some operators $a_{ij}(\omega)$ with positive frequencies $\omega$, the normal-like ordering of these operators $$\begin{aligned}
a_{ij}\, a_{kl}^\dag
\to
a_{kl}^\dag\, a_{ij}
\label{anij}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ should be implemented for consistency.
Factor ordering for the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{I}}$ given by Eq. bears some fundamental significance. For electromagnetic radiative problems, it is known that different factor ordering for the analogous interaction Hamiltonian leads to physically distinct mixes and separations of effects from vacuum fluctuations and radiation reaction [@Ackerhalt1973; @DDC1982; @DDC1984; @Scully1988; @Menezes2015]. Here, the gravitational coupling is constructed from the quantized general action assumed to be Hermitian for any metric perturbation operator $h_{\mu\nu}$. It follows that, the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{I}}$ separated from $H_{\text{M}}$ with arbitrary $h_{\mu\nu}$ factor is necessarily Hermitian. Now, from Eq. , the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{I}}$ is the sum of the environmental part $H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}$ in Eq. , which is Hermitian as $h^{\text{(env)}}_{ij}$ and $\tau_{ij}$ commute, and the system part , which is not readily Hermitian as $h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}$ is related to time delayed or advanced $T^{\mu\nu}$ through Eq. and so may not commute with $T^{\mu\nu}$. Nonetheless, to achieve the Hermiticity of $H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}$ and hence of $H_{\text{I}}$, with the correct classical limit, the factor ordering for Eq. can be resolved symmetrically as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal H}}_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}=
-\frac14 h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu}
-\frac14 T^{\mu\nu} h^{\text{(sys)}}_{\mu\nu}.
\label{HIUQ}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly symmetrized interaction Hamiltonian [@DDC1982; @DDC1984] has been applied in resolving the aforementioned factor ordering ambiguity in a wide range of problems involving electromagnetic fluctuations and radiation reaction. A recent related discussion and review can be found in Ref. [@Menezes2015].
Collective radiation by confined identical particles {#sec:col}
====================================================
The theoretical framework established above is applied in this section, as an illustrative example, to the quantum gravitational decoherence and radiation of a real, i.e., neutral, scalar field $\phi$ with mass $m$ and the associated inverse reduced Compton wavelength $\mu = m/\hbar$, subject to an external nongravitational potential $\nu({\boldsymbol{r}})$ described by the Lagrangian density $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal L}}&=&
-
\frac12\,g^{\alpha\beta}\phi_{,\alpha}\phi_{,\beta}
-\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\nu\Big)\mu^2
\phi^2.
\label{LL}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ We focus on the newly formulated spontaneous emission of gravitons by nonrelativistic particles through environmental decoherence at zero temperature and highlight previously undiscovered collective gravitational radiation, which we will refer to as “superradiance of gravitational waves” that mirrors its original electromagnetic description [@Dicke1954]. As noted in Sec. \[sec:dec\] and by analogy with standard treatments in quantum optical systems [@Breuer2002], we assume the radiation process to be primarily due to spacetime fluctuations using $H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}$ by neglecting radiation reaction from self-gravity using $H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(env)}}$. As a result, quantum dissipation alone is responsible for the radiative loss of energy, which we verify explicitly for one particle excited in one dimension. To consider the nonrelativistic dynamics of the scalar field representing nearly Newtonian particles we assume the potential energy to be much less than the mass energy so that $\nu \ll 1$. In the presence of weak gravity, we have $\eta_{\mu\nu} \to \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}$ with the proper coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
x^i
&\to&
x^i+\frac12h^{\text{(env)}}_{ij} x^j + O(h^{\text{(sys)}}_{jk} x^l)
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ by using , with related considerations discussed in Ref. [@Maggiore2008]. The resulting fluctuating potential in the TT gauge for free gravitational waves is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(x^i)
&\to&
\nu(x^i) + \frac{1}{2}h^{\text{(env)}}_{ij} x^i \nu_{,j} + O(h^{\text{(sys)}}\nu).
\label{v2v}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ The second and third terms in Eq. above contribute respectively to ${{\mathcal H}}^{\text{(env)}}$ in Eq. and ${{\mathcal H}}^{\text{(sys)}}$ in Eq. . The appearance of gravitational wave induced potential fluctuations have also been discussed in [Refs. [@Schafer1980; @Schafer1981]]{}. However, if the confinement of particles is limited by free masses then the corresponding boundaries fluctuate in the proper coordinates instead of the TT coordinates [@Oniga2016c].
The system part of Eq. yields the unperturbed quantum field equation $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot\phi
=
\nabla^2\phi
-
(1+2\nu)\mu^2\phi
\label{hseqa}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ having solutions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\phi
=
\Psi_n({\boldsymbol{r}})\, e^{-i\omega_n t} + {\text{H.c.}}\label{hPhi}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ with some orthogonal operators $\Psi_n({\boldsymbol{r}})$. Hence Eq. reduces formally to the time-independent Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\Psi_n + V\Psi_n
=
E_n \Psi_n
\label{hschreq}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where $V=m\,\nu({\boldsymbol{r}})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E_n
=
\frac{1}{2m}(\hbar^2\omega_n^2-m^2)
\label{wmE}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ represent the potential and eigen energies respectively.
As a concrete physical configuration, let us consider an isotropic harmonic potential with frequency $\omega$: $$\begin{aligned}
V
=
\frac12\,m\omega^2 r^2.
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ In this case, Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\phi
&=&
\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}}}\,
\big(
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}} e^{-i\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}} t}
+
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}^\dag e^{i\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}} t}
\big)
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}({\boldsymbol{r}})
\label{3hphi}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ using the multiple indices ${\boldsymbol{n}}=(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ for $n_1,n_2,n_3=0,1,2\dots$, and functions $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}({\boldsymbol{r}})
&=&
\psi_{n_1}(x)\psi_{n_2}(y)\psi_{n_3}(z)
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ with the harmonic oscillator wave functions $\psi_n(x)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
&=&
\mu +
(n_1+n_2+n_3)\,\omega
\label{3nome}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ arising from the nonrelativistic limit of Eq. , where the corresponding ladder operators $a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}$ and $a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}^\dag$ are annihilation and creation operators respectively.
In terms of the TT projector $P_{ijkl}$ [@Oniga2016a], the TT part of the stress-energy tensor follows from Eqs. , and to be $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{r}}, t)
&=&
P_{ijkl}
\big(
\phi_{,k}\phi_{,l}
-
\mu^2\omega^2 x^k x^l \phi^2
\big)
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where the second contribution proportional to $\phi^2$ arises from the second term in [Eq. ]{}, which is induced from metric fluctuations having no electromagnetic analogue as discussed in [Sec. \[sec:dec\]]{}. From this, by normal-ordering and neglecting particle nonconservation terms relevant only for higher energy scales, we then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}}, t)
&=&
F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}} e^{-i(\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}) t}
\label{3ht10a}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
&=&
\frac{\hbar}{\mu}
P_{ijkl}({\boldsymbol{k}})
\times
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&
\hspace{-35pt}
\int \!{\text{d}}^3 x\,
\big(
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}',k}
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}},l}
-
\mu^2\omega^2 x^k x^l
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
\big)
\label{d3hFun}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ using nonrelativistic approximation with $n_{\max}\omega \ll \mu$ as the kinetic energy is much less than the rest mass energy and related long transmitted gravitational wave length condition compared to the spatial extension of occupied harmonic modes.
To derive the gravitational analogue of the quantum optical master equation for the particle system from the general master equation , we carry out the Markov approximation [@Breuer2002] as follows. First, we substitute Eq. into an integral in Eq. to get $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\int_{0}^{t}{\text{d}}t'\,
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t')
e^{-i k (t-t')}
=
F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}})\,a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&\hspace{35pt}
\times\;
e^{-i(\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}) t}
\int_{0}^{t}{\text{d}}s\,
e^{-i (k-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}+\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}) s}.
\label{3ht10d}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ The nonlocality of this expression in time represents the non-Markov memory effect, which tends to fade away under environmental dissipation. We “forget” this memory by taking the limit $\int_{0}^{t} {\text{d}}s
\to
\int_{0}^{\infty} {\text{d}}s$, as it does not affect post-transient dynamics, and apply the Sokhotski-Plemelj theorem $$\int_0^\infty {\text{d}}s\, e^{-i \epsilon s}
= \pi \delta(\epsilon) - i \,\mathrm{P} \frac{1}{\epsilon}
\label{thm}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}$$ to Eq. , where $\mathrm{P}$ denotes the Cauchy principal value that gives rise to a nondissipative Hamiltonian $H^{\text{(env)}}_{\text{LS}}$ for the environmentally induced Lamb and Stark shifts of energy. By analogy with quantum optics [@Breuer2002], we capture the leading radiative mechanisms by adopting the rotating wave approximation, neglecting self-gravity $H^{\text{(sys)}}_{\text{I}}$ and Lamb and Stark shift $H^{\text{(env)}}_{\text{LS}}$ Hamiltonians, when substituting the resulting Eq. back into Eq. .
Although our general description covers both emission and absorption of gravitons, for a typical environment with a very low level of gravitational wave background, let us focus on the emission of gravitons in the following, leaving the absorption to a separate discussion[ [@Quinones2017]]{}. Thus we suppress the absorption of gravitons by setting their environmental distribution function ${N(\omega)=0}$, hence retaining merely zero-point fluctuations in the gravitational environment. The above considerations lead us to the gravitational quantum optical master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho
=
\frac{\Gamma}{2}
\big(
3\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}
-
\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}
\big)
\big(
A_{ij}
\rho
A^\dag_{kl}
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag_{ij}A_{kl},
\rho
\}
\big)
{\nonumber\\}\label{maseq}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ of the Lindblad form, with the transition rate coefficient $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma
&=&
\frac{32\,G\hbar\,\omega^3}{15\, c^5}
\label{Gamma0}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where the speed of light $c$ has been reinstated, and the associated Lindblad operators $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}
&=&
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}\sqrt{n_i (n_j -\delta_{ij})}\,
a^\dag_{{\boldsymbol{n}}-\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i-\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
\label{AAij}
{\rule{0pt}{17pt}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_1=(1,0,0), \hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_2=(0,1,0), \hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_3=(0,0,1)$. It is important to note that although time $t$ in the original non-Markovian master equation starts with an initially factored state untangled with the environment, the Markov assumption used in arriving at Eq. has effectively pushed that initial time back to the infinite past whose memory is lost [@Breuer2002], with time $t$ now reset to start from any new initial condition for the reduced matter state $\rho=\rho_{\text{M}}(t)$. The detailed derivation of [Eq. ]{} is given in [Appendix \[app:maseq\]]{}.
The justification of the above Markov assumption necessarily requires the evolution time scale $\Delta t$ for master equation[ ]{} to be much greater than the system time scale $\tau=2\pi/\omega$, i.e. over many circles of the system oscillations, for [Eq. ]{} to provide a good approximation to the last integral of [Eq. ]{}, where $k$ is fixed to be $2\omega$ by [Eq. ]{} as shown in [Appendix \[app:maseq\]]{}. Likewise, the rotating wave approximation requires $\Delta t \gg \tau$ for the evolution time scale $\Delta t$ to be long enough to average out oscillations on a faster time scale of $2\pi/\omega$. Therefore, for the system transition time scale using [Eq. ]{} to be validity we must require $1/\Gamma \gg \tau$ for a single particle system. This can be practically satisfied, thanks to the smallness of $\Gamma$ for conceivable oscillators. In a broad context of quantum Brownian motion[ [@Hu1992]]{}, non-Markovianity can arise even without an integrodifferential structure and the justification of the Markov assumption may require more than time-scale comparisons. Nonetheless, for a large class of open quantum oscillator models, Markovian master equations are shown to often provide good approximations at sufficiently high temperature and for sufficiently weak system-environment coupling at low or zero temperature[ [@Breuer2002; @Hu1992]]{}. The latter condition amounts to $1/\Gamma \gg \tau$ stated above in our case. However, for collectively amplified transitions with a particle number $N$ to be discussed below, the condition beyond which non-Markovian effects could start to occur may become more stringent, as the transition rate scales with $N^2$.
Under the Markovian evolution using Eq. at zero temperature, an excited state $\rho$ decoheres and decays towards the ground state. In the process, gravitons are spontaneous emitted that carry the same amount of energy as being reduced from the matter system. For example, let us take an arbitrary one-particle state $\rho$ with matrix elements $\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}'} = {\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}|}\rho{|{\boldsymbol{n}}'\rangle}$ with ${|{\boldsymbol{n}}'\rangle}$ as the state vector for the occupation of a harmonic mode ${\boldsymbol{n}}$ by one particle. Then we obtain from Eqs. and the dissipation power $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{{\text{d}}{\langleH^{\text{(sys)}}\rangle}}{{\text{d}}t}
&=&
\hbar\,\omega\,\Gamma
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
\big\{
\sum_{i}
2 n_i(n_i-1)\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&\hspace{-40pt}
+
\sum_{i\neq j}
\big[
3 n_i n_j\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
-
\sqrt{n_i n_j(n_i-1)(n_j-1)}\,
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&\hspace{-40pt}
\times\;
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}}-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
\big]\big\}.
\label{pqdis}\end{aligned}$$ This expression indeed agrees with the quadrupole radiation formula Eq. applied to the present configuration and quantized with consistent factor ordering described in Eq. where the role of $a_{ij}$ is played by the Lindblad operators $A_{ij}$ here. See [Appendix \[app:agr\]]{} for an explicit proof.
By virtue of its inherent Lindblad structure, the master equation is capable of generating new nonlinear collective quantum gravity phenomena transferred and inspired from more established quantum optics areas sharing similar dynamical structures.
One such novel effect is the collectively amplified spontaneous emission of gravitons by a matter system in a highly coherent state, akin to Dicke’s superradiance [@Dicke1954]. To illustrate this, let us consider the present harmonic potential containing many particles excited in one direction, say along the $x$-axis, with a modal occupation state vector denoted by ${|{\boldsymbol{N}}\rangle} = {|\{N_n\}\rangle} = {|N_0,N_1,\cdots\rangle}$, where $n=n_1=0,1,2\dots$ labels the harmonic mode in this direction. It follows that the master equation has the following matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{N}}|}\dot\rho{|{\boldsymbol{N}}'\rangle}
&=&
\frac{\Gamma}{2}\Big\{
{\mathcal{A}}_{n,n'}({\boldsymbol{N}},{\boldsymbol{N}}')
{\langle{\boldsymbol{N}}^{n'+}|}\rho{|{\boldsymbol{N}}'^{n+}\rangle}
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&\hspace{-45pt}
-
{\mathcal{B}}_{n,n'}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})
{\langle{\boldsymbol{N}}^{n-,n'+}|}\rho{|{\boldsymbol{N}}'\rangle}
\Big\}
+({\boldsymbol{N}}\leftrightarrow{\boldsymbol{N}}')^*
\label{Neq5}\end{aligned}$$ in terms of nonnegative coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_{n,n'}({\boldsymbol{N}},{\boldsymbol{N}}')
&=&
\big[N'_{n} N_{n'} (N'_{n+2}+1)(N_{n'+2}+1)
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&\hspace{-30pt}\times\;
(n+1)(n'+1)(n+2)(n'+2)\big]^{1/2}
\label{AN}
{\\[3pt]}{\mathcal{B}}_{n,n'}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})
&=&
\big[N_{n+2} N^{n-}_{n'} (N_n+1)(N^{n-}_{n'+2}+1)
{\nonumber\\[3pt]}&&\hspace{-30pt}\times\;
(n+1)(n'+1)(n+2)(n'+2)\big]^{1/2}
\label{BN}\end{aligned}$$ where $N^{n\pm}_{n'}=
N_{n'}\mp\delta_{n,n'}\pm\delta_{n+2,n'}$. In this case, even and odd harmonic modes are disjointly coupled within their own parities because of the quadrupole nature of the gravitational waves and symmetry of the potential.
![Plots (a)–(c) show the simulation of $|\rho_{p,p'}|(t)$. Here 5 scalar bosons in a harmonic trap are initially equally distributed along the diagonal of the density matrix for harmonic modes $n=0,2,4,6$ as a maximally mixed state. While releasing a continuously decreasing gravitational wave, they spontaneously decay towards the ground state in the bottom left corner, where all 5 particles occupy the $n=0$ mode. Plot (d) shows the average radiation power per particle for a similar initial state with different particle numbers.[]{data-label="fig2"}](case1.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
![Plots (a)–(c) show the simulation of $|\rho_{p,p'}|(t)$. Here 5 scalar bosons in a harmonic trap are initially equally distributed along the diagonal of the density matrix for harmonic modes $n=0,2,4,6$ as a maximally mixed state. While releasing a continuously decreasing gravitational wave, they spontaneously decay towards the ground state in the bottom left corner, where all 5 particles occupy the $n=0$ mode. Plot (d) shows the average radiation power per particle for a similar initial state with different particle numbers.[]{data-label="fig2"}](case2.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
Based on the master equation with components , we perform numerical simulations in nondimensional time $t \to \Gamma\, t$ initially excited and subsequently relaxed in the $x$-direction, with harmonic modes $n=n_1=0,2,4,6$, $n_2=n_3=0$ and a total particle number $N=1,2,3,4,5$ shown in Figs. \[fig1\]–\[fig3\]. The collective behaviour of the “superradiant” spontaneous emission of gravitons, due to the quadratic dependence of the particle occupations (of bosonic origin) as well as modal numbers (of quadrupole origin) in Eqs. and , is particularly evident in Fig. \[fig1\], using an initial single-mode Fock state. Milder amplification of emission power with particle numbers are also seen in Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\], where the initial states may be described as maximally mixed and maximally entangled respectively. The quantum states are enumerated with ${|p\rangle}$ for $p=1,2,\dots p_{\max}$ with ascending eigen energies and then the particle number occupations of higher harmonic modes. Thus, with $N=5$ there are $p_{\max}=56$ even-mode occupation states ${|N_0, N_1\dots,N_6\rangle}$ with $N_1=N_3=N_5=0$, starting from the ground state ${{|1\rangle}={|5,0,0,0,0,0,0\rangle}}$, then the first excited state ${{|2\rangle}={|4,0,1,0,0,0,0\rangle}}$ through ${{|28\rangle}={|2,0,1,0,0,0,2\rangle}}$ to the highest state ${{|56\rangle}={|0,0,0,0,0,0,5\rangle}}$.
While classical sources of gravitational waves are of astronomical scales, the mechanism of collectively enhanced quantum gravitational radiation considered above may open up a future prospect of a lab-sized gravitational wave transmitter. Based on the ongoing rapid development of high-$Q$ nanomechanical resonators demonstrated in the quantum regime[ [@Khalili2010; @Chan2011; @Safavi2012; @Cohen2015]]{}, one could envisage a high-density cluster of nanoresonators in such a correlated state that they behave like a system of $N$ identical harmonic oscillators with frequency $\omega$. Supposing these oscillators occupy around the $n$-th harmonic mode, then following discussions of [Eq. ]{}, the maximum spontaneous decay rate due to collective gravitational radiation is approximately given by $\Gamma_\text{max} = N^2 n^2 \Gamma$. For example, a future such microfabricated cluster consisting of up to $N=$ one mole of nanoresonators at $\omega/2\pi=$ 10 GHz excited with $n=1000$ could in principle have an observable peak decay rate of up to $\Gamma_\text{max} =$ 1 Hz via the superradiant spontaneous emissions of gravitons. Furthermore, such gravitons could also be detected using a similar cluster of nanoresonators instead of an ensemble of atoms as a gravitational radiation receiver described in [Ref. [@Quinones2017]]{}. The quantum nature of gravity could then be probed through the quantum properties of the nanoresonators imparted by the absorbed gravitons.
![ Plots (a)–(c) show the simulation of $|\rho_{p,p'}|(t)$. Here, 5 scalar bosons in a harmonic trap are initially equally and fully distributed in the density matrix for harmonic modes $n=0,2,4,6$ as a maximally entangled state. While releasing a continuously decreasing gravitational wave, they spontaneously decay towards the ground state in the bottom left corner, where all 5 particles occupy the $n=0$ mode. Plot (d) shows the average radiation power per particle for a similar initial state with different particle numbers. []{data-label="fig3"}](case3.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:con}
==========
Motivated by the need for a better understanding of the fundamental process for quantum matter to decohere and dissipate through spontaneous emission and exchange of gravitons with the ubiquitous fluctuating gravitational environment, we have extended a recently established theory of quantum gravitational decoherence [@Oniga2016a], now complete with the dynamical origin and consequence of gravitons mediating spacetime at large and matter, both bosons and fermions, of interest.
For physically common states subject to a potential, we have explicitly demonstrated that the abstract master equation describing the general non-Markovian gravitational decoherence of matter formulated in Ref. [@Oniga2016a] can indeed be reduced, free from UV-cutoff, to a more concrete Lindblad form, structurally identical to the family of quantum optical master equations widely applied in the quantum optics problems. This enables investigations of the theory and phenomenology of quantum gravity to benefit from a wealth of novel characteristics and solution strategies in the field of quantum optics [@Breuer2002; @Dicke1954; @HBT1956; @PPT1; @PPT2; @Metcalf2013]. One such possibility in terms of the newly identified superradiance of gravitational waves by a system of coherence particles has been theoretically described and numerically illustrated in Sec. \[sec:col\].
Our general framework may serve to clarify various conceptual issues encountered in the phenomenological approach to quantum gravity [@Amelino2000; @Schiller2004; @Lamine2006; @Wang2006; @Lamine2006; @Hu2013; @Amelino2013; @Ford2015], with first-principles insights, and to guide further analytical tools, mathematical techniques, and modelling methodologies for possible detections of quantum gravity effects in the laboratory [@Pfister2016] and observatory [@Vasileiou2015] on the ground or in space [@gauge2009]. In the context of the cosmological stochastic gravitational waves, since the universe is considered spatially flat with a low entropy on exit from inflation [@Wang2016], our theory may describe short-time graviton radiation and reception by a distribution of coherent states having potentially unexpected but important collective properties including quantum nonlinearity, nonlocality, and entanglement [@Oniga2016b; @Oniga2016c]. In this regard, the theoretical framework reported here has recently been applied and further extended to address the possible detection of stochastic gravitational waves using correlated atoms[ [@Quinones2017]]{} and potential observation of spacetime fluctuations through gravitational lensing[ [@Oniga2017]]{}.
Another future objective would be to go beyond the perturbative formulation so as to accommodate larger spacetime fluctuations and curved background or none. Extension in this direction could allow the quantum-to-classical transition in the early universe with graviton productions to be more accurately analyzed. This may be initiated by generalizing our non-Markovian master equation[ ]{} to accommodate cosmological perturbations[ [@Sasaki2012]]{}, in addition to its existing gravitational fluctuations in vacuum. A qualitative study of quantum-to-classical transition may follow from the resulting decoherence of the content of the early universe in the presence of cosmological perturbations. An additional rationale for this final remark is that the development of open quantum gravitational systems towards background independence [@AshtekarLoops1991; @Wang2005a; @Wang2005b; @Wang2006a; @Veraguth2017] might even help navigate the search for an ultimate full quantum theory of gravity with compatible and accessible low energy effects like gravitational decoherence and radiance.
This work was supported by the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland (T. O.) and by the EPSRC GG-Top Project and the Cruickshank Trust (C. W.).
Derivation of the gravitational quantum optical master equation {#app:maseq}
===============================================================
To derive [Eq. ]{}, we first introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
&=&
\int_{0}^{\infty}{\text{d}}s\,
\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t')
e^{-i k s}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
\pi\,\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}'}
F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
e^{-i(\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}) t}
\,\delta(k-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}+\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'})
\label{3ht10f}\end{aligned}$$ using [Eqs. and ]{}. Note that since $k\ge0$, we have nonzero $\delta(k-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}+\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'})=0$ only if $\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}} \ge \omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}$. The following relations then hold $$\begin{aligned}
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\,\rho\,
&=&
\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
\rho
\label{3haatt01}
{\\[1pt]}\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\,\rho\,
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
&=&
\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\label{3haatt02}
{\\[1pt]}\,\rho\,
\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
&=&
\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\label{3haatt03}
{\\[1pt]}\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\,\rho\,
\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
&=&
\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\label{3haatt04}\end{aligned}$$ summing over ${\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}}$ subject to $\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})=\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}})$ in terms of the operators $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
=
\sqrt{{\pi}} F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\, a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}}.
\label{3hAop}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. –, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-20pt}
[
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t),\,
\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t) \rho
]
=
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\rho
-
\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\rho
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}))
\big[
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
\rho
-
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\big]
\label{3haattr1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-20pt}
[
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t),\,
[
\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t),\,
\rho
]]
=
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)\rho
-
\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)\rho
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
+
\rho\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
-
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
\rho\tilde\tau_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t)
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}))
\big[
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
\rho
-
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\,
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
-
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\,\rho\,
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\big].
\label{3haattr2}\end{aligned}$$ From [Eqs. and ]{}, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-15pt}
\big[
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t),\,
\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t) \rho(t)
\big]
+
N(k)
\big[
\tau^\dag_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{k}},t),\,
\big[
\tilde{\tau}_{ij}({\boldsymbol{k}},t),\,
\rho(t)
\big]\big]
+{\text{H.c.}}{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
-\sum
\delta(k-\omega(\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}))\,
\Big[
(1+N(k))\big(
2A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
\rho
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
-
\{
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}}),
\rho
\}
\big)
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
N(k)\big(
2A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})\rho
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
-
\{
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{m}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}),
\rho\}
\big)
\Big].
\label{3hdisp0}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting [Eq. ]{} into [Eq. ]{} with negligible $H_{\text{I}}^{\text{(sys)}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho
&=&
\frac{G}{2\pi^2 \hbar}
\sum
\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})\,
\int\! {\text{d}}\Omega({\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
\Big[
(1+N(\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})))\big(
2A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
\rho
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
-
\{
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})),
\rho
\}
\big)
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
N(\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\big(
2A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
\rho
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
-
\{
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})),
\rho\}
\big)
\Big]
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}\label{3hmaseqtube}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})$ denotes ${\boldsymbol{k}}$ with $k=\omega(\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}})$. Furthermore, from [Eq. ]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
&=&
\sqrt{{\pi}} F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\,
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}A_{ij}^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
&=&
\sqrt{{\pi}} F_{ij}^*({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\,
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the operator $$\begin{aligned}
A({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}}.
\label{3hAa}\end{aligned}$$
We then substitute the above into [Eq. ]{} to isolate the solid angle integral as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho
&=&
\sum
F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')\Big[
(1+N(\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})))\big(
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
\rho
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}'),
\rho
\}
\big)
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&\hspace{30pt}
+
N(\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))\big(
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
\rho
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
-\frac12
\{
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})),
\rho\}
\big)
\Big]
\label{3hmaseqtube2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
&=&
\frac{G}{\pi\hbar}
\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})\,
\int\! {\text{d}}\Omega({\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
F_{ij}^*({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
\label{3hGtube0}\end{aligned}$$ subject to $\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})=\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')$. For $\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}) > 0$, we obtain from [Eq. ]{} that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
2\,\omega
\label{2om}\end{aligned}$$ which in turn requires $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}&=&
2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_1,\,2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_2,\,2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_3,\,
\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_1+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_2,\,
\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_1+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_3,\,
\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_2+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_3
\label{dndn2}\end{aligned}$$ and, furthermore, the expression $$\begin{aligned}
F_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{k}})
=
-{\hbar\,\omega}\,P_{ijkl}({\boldsymbol{k}})f_{kl}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
\label{3hFuna}\end{aligned}$$ in terms of $$\begin{aligned}
f_{11}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_1+2)}\,
\delta_{\Delta n_1,2}
\delta_{\Delta n_2,0}
\delta_{\Delta n_3,0}
\label{3hFun11a}
{\\[1pt]}f_{22}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
\sqrt{(n_2+1)(n_2+2)}\,
\delta_{\Delta n_1,0}
\delta_{\Delta n_2,2}
\delta_{\Delta n_3,0}
\label{3hFun22a}
{\\[1pt]}f_{33}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
\sqrt{(n_3+1)(n_3+2)}\,
\delta_{\Delta n_1,0}
\delta_{\Delta n_2,0}
\delta_{\Delta n_3,2}
\label{3hFun33a}
{\\[1pt]}f_{12}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_2+1)}\,
\delta_{\Delta n_1,1}
\delta_{\Delta n_2,1}
\delta_{\Delta n_3,0}
\label{3hFun12a}
{\\[1pt]}f_{13}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}))
&=&
\sqrt{(n_1+1)(n_3+1)}\,
\delta_{\Delta n_1,1}
\delta_{\Delta n_2,0}
\delta_{\Delta n_3,1}
\label{3hFun13a}
{\\[1pt]}f_{23}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
&=&
\sqrt{(n_2+1)(n_3+1)}\,
\delta_{\Delta n_1,0}
\delta_{\Delta n_2,1}
\delta_{\Delta n_3,1}.
\label{3hFun23a}\end{aligned}$$ Using the above relations, [Eq. ]{} then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
&=&
\frac{2\,G \hbar\,\omega^3}{\pi}\,
\int\! {\text{d}}\Omega({\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
P_{ijkl}({\boldsymbol{k}}(\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}))
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{kl}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}').
\label{3hGtube1}\end{aligned}$$ Through the identities $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ijkl}({\boldsymbol{k}})
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\Big[
\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}
+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}
-\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}
\Big]
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
\frac{1}{2k^2}
\Big[
\delta_{ij} k_k k_l
+ \delta_{kl} k_i k_j
- \delta_{jk} k_i k_l
- \delta_{ik} k_j k_l
- \delta_{il} k_j k_k
- \delta_{jl} k_i k_k
\Big]
+
\frac{k_i k_j k_k k_l}{2k^4}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int\! {\text{d}}\Omega({\boldsymbol{k}})\, k_i k_j
&=&
\frac{4\pi k^{2}}{3}\,\delta_{ij}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}\int\! {\text{d}}\Omega({\boldsymbol{k}})\, k_i k_j k_k k_l
&=&
\frac{4\pi k^{4}}{15}\,
\Big[
\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}
+\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}
+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}
\Big]\end{aligned}$$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\int\! {\text{d}}\Omega({\boldsymbol{k}}) P_{ijkl}({\boldsymbol{k}})
&=&
\frac{4\pi}{15}\,
\Big[
3\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}
+3\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}
-2\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}
\Big].
\label{iPijkl}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into , we have $$\begin{aligned}
F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
&=&
\frac{\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i,j,k,l}
\Big[
3\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}
+3\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}
-2\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}
\Big]
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{kl}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}')
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
\frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i,j}
\Big[
3\,f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}')
-
f_{ii}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{jj}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\Delta{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}')
\Big]
\label{3hGtube3}\end{aligned}$$ where $
\Gamma
$ is given by [Eq. ]{}. From [Eq. ]{} we have $$\begin{aligned}
F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i)
&=&
\Gamma\,
f_{ii}({\boldsymbol{n}}+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{ii}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}}'),\;
(i=1,2,3)
\label{3hGii}
{\\[1pt]}F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j)
&=&
-\frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
f_{ii}({\boldsymbol{n}}+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{jj}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}'),\;
(i \neq j)
\label{3hGij}
{\\[1pt]}F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j)
&=&
3\,\Gamma\,
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}'),\;
(i \neq j)
\label{3hGijij}
{\\[1pt]}F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
&=&
0,\;
(\text{for other } \Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}').
\label{a23}\end{aligned}$$ For $N(\omega)=0$, the master equation then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho
&=&
\sum
F({\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
\Big[
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}')
\rho
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}})
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\Delta {\boldsymbol{n}}'),
\rho
\}
\Big]
\label{3hmaseqt}\end{aligned}$$ which can be expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho
&=& \Gamma\,
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}'}\sum_{i}
f_{i}({\boldsymbol{n}}+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{i}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}}')
\Big[
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i)
\rho
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i)
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i)
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i),
\rho
\}
\Big]
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-\frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}'}\sum_{i\neq j}
f_{i}({\boldsymbol{n}}+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{j}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}')
\Big[
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j)
\rho
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i)
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i)
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j),
\rho
\}
\Big]
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
3\,\Gamma\,
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}'}\sum_{i < j}
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}})
f_{ij}({\boldsymbol{n}}'+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}')
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
\Big[
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j)
\rho
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j)
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag({\boldsymbol{n}},\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j)
A({\boldsymbol{n}}',\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j),
\rho
\}
\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore by using the above, [Eqs. ]{} and –, we arrive at the master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho
&=&
\Gamma\,
\sum_{i}
\Big[
A_{ii}
\rho
A^\dag_{ii}
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag_{ii}
A_{ii},
\rho
\}
\Big]
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-\frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\Big[
A_{jj}
\rho
A^\dag_{ii}
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag_{ii}
A_{jj},
\rho
\}
\Big]
+
\frac{3\,\Gamma}{2}\,\sum_{i \neq j}
\Big[
A_{ij}
\rho
A^\dag_{ij}
-
\frac12\{
A^\dag_{ij}
A_{ij},
\rho
\}
\Big]
\label{mseq}\end{aligned}$$ which simplifies to the form[ ]{} in terms of the Lindblad operators given by [Eq. ]{}.
Consistency between quantum gravitational emission dissipation power and quantum quadrupole radiation formula {#app:agr}
=============================================================================================================
Quantum emission power dissipation for one-particle states
----------------------------------------------------------
By construction of the Lindblad operators , we have the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ii}^\dag A_{ii}{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=&
m_i(m_i-1){|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
\label{AAa}
{\\[1pt]}A_{ii} A_{ii}^\dag{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=&
(m_i+1)(m_i+2){|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
{\\[1pt]}A_{ii}^\dag A_{jj}{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=&
\sqrt{m_j(m_j-1)(m_i+1)(m_i+2)}\, {|{\boldsymbol{m}}+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j\rangle}
{\\[1pt]}A_{ii} A_{jj}^\dag{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=&
\sqrt{m_i(m_i-1)(m_j+1)(m_j+2)}\, {|{\boldsymbol{m}}-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j\rangle}
{\\[1pt]}A_{ij}^\dag A_{ij}{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=&
m_i m_j{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
{\\[1pt]}A_{ij} A_{ij}^\dag{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=&
(m_i+1) (m_j+1){|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
\label{AAz}\end{aligned}$$ where $i\neq j$ and no sums are implied.
Applying the master equation[ ]{} or equivalently[ ]{} to the one-particle density matrix $\rho$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}'|} \dot\rho {|{\boldsymbol{n}}\rangle}
&=& \frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}'|}
\Big[
2A_{ii}
\rho
A^\dag_i
-
A^\dag_i A_{ii} \rho
-
\rho A_{ii}^\dag A_{ii}
\Big]
{|{\boldsymbol{n}}\rangle}
-
\frac{\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}'|}
\Big[
2A_{jj}
\rho
A_{ii}^\dag
-
A_{ii}^\dag A_{jj} \rho
-
\rho A_{ii}^\dag A_{jj}
\Big]
{|{\boldsymbol{n}}\rangle}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&& +
\frac{3\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}'|}
\Big[
2A_{ij}
\rho
A^\dag_{ij}
-
A^\dag_{ij} A_{ij} \rho
-
\rho A^\dag_{ij} A_{ij}
\Big]
{|{\boldsymbol{n}}\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Using [Eqs. ]{}–, the above yields the one-particle master equation $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}'|} \dot\rho {|{\boldsymbol{n}}\rangle}
&=& {\Gamma}\,
\sum_{i}
\sqrt{(n'_i+1)(n'_i+2)(n_i+1)(n_i+2)}\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}}+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i}
-\frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i}
\big[
n'_i(n'_i-1)+n_i(n_i-1)
\big]\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-
\frac{\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{(n'_j+1)(n'_j+2)(n_i+1)(n_i+2)}\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
\frac{\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{n'_i(n'_i-1)(n'_j+1)(n'_j+2)}
\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'-2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}}
+
\frac{\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{n_i(n_i-1)(n_j+1)(n_j+2)}
\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}-2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
\frac{3\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{(n'_i+1)(n'_j+1)(n_i+1)(n_j+1)}\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'+{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+{\boldsymbol{n}}_j,{\boldsymbol{n}}+{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
-
\frac{3\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\big[
n'_i n'_j + n_i n_j
\big]\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}',{\boldsymbol{n}}}.
\label{drhn}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the power dissipation for one-particle states, we first use the system Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_S
&=&
\hbar\,\omega
\sum_{i}
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
n_i\,a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
\label{Hsys}\end{aligned}$$ derived from $T^{00}$ of the scalar field $\phi$ in the nonrelativistic limit and master equation . This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}t}{\langleH_S\rangle}
&=&
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'} {\langle{\boldsymbol{n}}'|} (H_S\dot\rho) {|{\boldsymbol{n}}'\rangle}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
{\hbar\,\omega\Gamma}\,
\sum_{i,k}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
(n_k-2\delta_{ik})n_i(n_i-1)\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
-
\hbar\,\omega\Gamma\,
\sum_{i,k}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
n_kn_i(n_i-1)\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
\frac{3\hbar\,\omega\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i\neq j,k}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
(n_k-\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jk})n_i n_j\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
-
\frac{3\hbar\,\omega\Gamma}{2}\,
\sum_{i\neq j,k}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
n_k n_i n_j\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-
\frac{\hbar\,\omega\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j,k}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
(n_k-2\delta_{ik}-2\delta_{jk})\sqrt{n_i(n_i-1)(n_j+1)(n_j+2)}
\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}-2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+
\frac{\hbar\,\omega\Gamma}{4}\,
\sum_{i\neq j,k}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
n_k\sqrt{n_i(n_i-1)(n_j+1)(n_j+2)}
\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}-2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+2{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
\label{pqdis0}\end{aligned}$$ yielding the quantum dissipation power through spontaneous emission of gravitons $$\begin{aligned}
P^{\text{(se)}}
&=&
-\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}t}{\langleH_S\rangle}
\label{pqh}\end{aligned}$$ given by [Eq. ]{}. Note that the last cross term in [Eq. ]{} involving $\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}-2{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}}-2{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}$ represents a quantum correction of the gravitational wave emission process.
Quantum quadrupole radiation formula for one-particle states
------------------------------------------------------------
In the nonrelativistic limit, using [Eq. ]{} we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ij}
&=&
\int{\text{d}}^3x\,x^i x^j
T^{00}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
\frac{m}{2}
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}'}
\Big[
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}^\dag
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}
e^{-i(\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}) t}
+
a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}^\dag a_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}
e^{i(\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}-\omega_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}) t}
\Big]
\int{\text{d}}^3x\,
x^i x^j
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}({\boldsymbol{r}})
\psi_{{\boldsymbol{n}}'}({\boldsymbol{r}})
$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\dddot{I}_{ij}
&=&
4 i \hbar\,\omega^2\,
\Big[
A_{ij}\,e^{-2i\omega t}
-
A_{ij}^\dag\,e^{2i\omega t}
\Big].\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the traceless part $
\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}
=
\dddot{I}_{ij}-\frac13\,\delta_{ij}\dddot{I}_{kk}
$ of the above we obtain and the time averaged product $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\rangle}_\text{time av}
&=& 16 \hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\Big[
A_{ij}^\dag A_{ij}
+
A_{ij}A_{ij}^\dag
\Big]
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-\frac{16}{3}
\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\Big[
A_{i}^\dag A_{j}
+
A_{i}A_{j}^\dag
\Big]
+\frac{32}{3}
\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i}
\Big[
A_{i}^\dag A_{i}
+
A_{i}A_{i}^\dag
\Big].
\label{qijqij}\end{aligned}$$ The one-particle matrix elements of [Eq. ]{} can be evaluated using [Eqs. ]{}– and applying consistent factor ordering described in Eq. with respect to the Lindblad operators $A_{ij}$ and $A_{ij}^\dag$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle{\boldsymbol{m}}'|}\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}{|{\boldsymbol{m}}\rangle}
&=& \frac{32}{3}
\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i}
\Big[
m_i(m_i-1)
+
(m_i+1)(m_i+2)
\Big]\,
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{m}}',{\boldsymbol{m}}}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
+16 \hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\Big[
m_i m_j
+
(m_i+1) (m_j+1)
\Big]\,
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{m}}',{\boldsymbol{m}}}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-\frac{16}{3}
\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{m_j(m_j-1)(m_i+1)(m_i+2)}\,
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{m}}',{\boldsymbol{m}}+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-\frac{16}{3}
\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{m_i(m_i-1)(m_j+1)(m_j+2)}\,
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{m}}',{\boldsymbol{m}}-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i+2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}.
\label{mqqm}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, by using [Eqs. ]{}, , – and we obtain the quantum quadrupole radiation formula $$\begin{aligned}
P^\text{(qr)}
&=&
\frac{G}{5}{\langle\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\dddot{{I\hspace{-4.6pt}\raisebox{1.5pt}{-\hspace{-2pt}-}}}_{ij}\rangle}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&=&
\frac{32}{15}
G\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}\sum_{i}
\Big[
n_i(n_i-1)
+
(n_i+1)(n_i+2)
\Big]\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
+
\frac{16}{5} G\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}\sum_{i\neq j}
\Big[
n_i n_j
+
(n_i+1) (n_j+1)
\Big]\,
\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}},{\boldsymbol{n}}}
{\nonumber\\[1pt]}&&
-\frac{32}{15} G\hbar^2\omega^4\,
\sum_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}\sum_{i\neq j}
\sqrt{n_i n_j(n_i-1)(n_j-1)}\,\rho_{{\boldsymbol{n}}-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_i,{\boldsymbol{n}}-2\hat{\boldsymbol{n}}_j}
\label{pqr}\end{aligned}$$ which, after rearranging terms, is identical to the quantum emission dissipation power $P^\text{(se)}$ given by [Eq. ]{}. Therefore we have established the agreement between [Eqs. and ]{}.
[99]{}
B. P. Abbott [[*et al*]{}.]{}, (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 061102 (2016).
B. F. Schutz, Gravitational wave astronomy, Classical Quantum Gravity [**16**]{}, A131 (1999).
A. Sesana, Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 231102 (2016).
G. Amelino-Camelia [[*et al*]{}.]{}, GAUGE: The GrAnd Unification Gravity Explorer, Experimental Astronomy [**23**]{}, 549 (2009), and references therein.
A. Ashtekar, C. Rovelli, and L. Smolin, Gravitons and loops, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 1740 (1991).
C. H.-T. Wang, Conformal geometrodynamics: True degrees of freedom in a truly canonical structure, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 124026 (2005).
C. H.-T. Wang, Unambiguous spin-gauge formulation of canonical general relativity with conformorphism invariance, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 087501 (2005).
C. H.-T. Wang, New “phase” of quantum gravity, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**364**]{}, 3375 (2006).
C. Kiefer, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky, Entropy of gravitons produced in the early universe, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043518 (2000).
E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I.-O. Stamatescu, [*Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
M. Schlosshauer, [*Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
C. Kiefer, Emergence of a classical Universe from quantum gravity and cosmology, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**370**]{}, 4566 (2012).
E. A. Lim, Quantum information of cosmological correlations, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 083522 (2015).
B. P. Abbott [[*et al*]{}.]{}, (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GW150914: Implications for the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Binary Black Hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 131102 (2016).
LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, An upper limit on the stochastic gravitational-wave background of cosmological origin, Nature (London) [**460**]{}, 990 (2009).
T. Oniga and C. H.-T. Wang, Quantum gravitational decoherence of light and matter, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 044027 (2016).
T. Oniga and C. H.-T. Wang, Spacetime foam induced collective bundling of intense fields, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, 061501(R) (2016).
T. Oniga and C. H.-T. Wang, Quantum dynamics of bound states under spacetime fluctuations, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**845**]{}, 012020 (2017).
H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, [*The Theory of Open Quantum Systems*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002).
R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev. [**93**]{}, 99 (1954).
C.P. Burgess, Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory, Living Rev. Relativ. [**7**]{}, 5 (2004), and references therein.
D. Arteaga, R. Parentani, and E. Verdaguer, Propagation in a thermal graviton background, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 044019 (2004).
M. P. Blencowe, Effective Field Theory Approach to Gravitationally Induced Decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 021302 (2013).
, edited by A. Ashtekar and J. Pullin, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017).
C. J. Isham, Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time, arXiv:gr-qc/9210011.
C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu, A master equation for gravitational decoherence: Probing the textures of spacetime, Classical Quantum Gravity [**30**]{}, 165007 (2013), and references therein.
A. Bassi, A. Gro[ß]{}ardt, and H. Ulbricht, Gravitational decoherence, Classical Quantum Gravity [**34**]{}, 193002 (2017), and references therein.
R. Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, Gen. Relativ. Grav. [**28**]{}, 581 (1996)
I. M. Benn and R. W. Tucker, [*An Introduction to Spinors and Geometry with Applications in Physics*]{} (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1987).
R. W. Tucker and C. H.-T. Wang, Black holes with Weyl charge and non-Riemannian waves, Classical Quantum Gravity [**12**]{}, 2587 (1995).
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, New York, 1973).
R. Arnowitt, R. Deser and C. W. Misner, in [*Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research*]{}, edited by L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1962).
M. Maggiore, [*Gravitational Waves, Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 2008).
P. A. M. Dirac, [*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Yeshiva University, New York, 1964).
I. Antoniadis, P. O. Mazur, and E. Mottola, Quantum diffeomorphisms and conformal symmetry, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 4756 (1997).
C. H. Fleming and B. L. Hu, Non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems: Stochastic equations and their perturbative solutions, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**327**]{}, 1238 (2012), and references therein.
G. Schäfer and H. Dehnen, On the gravitational radiation formula, J. Phys. A [**13**]{}, 2703 (1980), and references therein.
G. Schäfer, Gravitational radiation resistance, radiation damping and field fluctuations, J. Phys. A [**14**]{}, 677 (1981).
R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Jr., The theory of a general quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**24**]{}, 118 (1963).
B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz, and Y. Zhang, Quantum Brownian motion in a general environment; Exact master equation with nonlocal dissipation and colored noise, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 2843 (1992)
J. R. Ackerhalt, P. L. Knight, and J. H. Eberly, Radiation Reaction and Radiative Frequency Shifts, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 456 (1973).
J. Dalibard, J. Dupont-Roc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Vacuum fluctuations and radiation reaction: Identification of tlieir respective contributions, J. Physique [**43**]{}, 1617 (1982).
J. Dalibard, J. Dupont-Roc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Dynamics of a small system coupled to a reservoir: Reservoir fluctuations and self-reaction, J. Physique [**45**]{}, 637 (1984).
J. Gea-Banacloche, M. O. Scully, and M. S. Zubairyz, Vacuum fluctuations and spontaneous emission in quantum optics, Physica Scripta [**T21**]{}, 81 (1988).
G. Menezes and N. F. Svaiter, Vacuum fluctuations and radiation reaction in radiative processes of entangled states, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062131 (2015), and references therein.
D. A. Quiñones, T. Oniga, B. T. H. Varcoe, and C. H.-T. Wang, Quantum principle of sensing gravitational waves: From the zero-point fluctuations to the cosmological stochastic background of spacetime, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, 044018 (2017). F. Khalili, S. Danilishin, H. Miao, H. Müller-Ebhardt, H. Yang, and Y. Chen, Preparing a Mechanical Oscillator in Non-Gaussian Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 070403 (2010).
J. Chan [[*et al*]{}.]{}, Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscillator into its quantum ground state Nature (London) [**478**]{}, 89 (2011).
Amir H. Safavi-Naein [[*et al*]{}.]{}, Observation of Quantum Motion of a Nanomechanical Resonator Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 033602 (2012).
J. D. Cohen [[*et al*]{}.]{}, Phonon counting and intensity interferometry of a nanomechanical resonator, Nature (London) [**520**]{}, 522 (2015).
A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of Mixed states: Necessary and sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A [**223**]{}, 1 (1996).
R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between photons in two coherent beams of light, Nature (London) [**177**]{}, 27 (1956).
H. J. Metcalf, [*Laser Cooling and Trapping*]{} (Springer, New York, 2013), and references therein.
G. Amelino-Camelia, Gravity-wave interferometers as probes of a low-energy effective quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024015 (2000).
S. Schiller, C. Lammerzahl, H. Muller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, and A. Peters, Experimental limits for low-frequency space-time fluctuations from ultrastable optical resonators, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 027504 (2004).
C. H.-T. Wang, R. Bingham, and J. T. Mendonca, Quantum gravitational decoherence of matter waves, Classical Quantum Gravity [**23**]{}, L59 (2006).
B. Lamine, R. Herve, A. Lambrecht, and S. Reynaud, Ultimate Decoherence Border for Matter-Wave Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 050405 (2006).
G. Amelino-Camelia, Quantum-spacetime phenomenology, Living Rev. Relativ. [**16**]{}, 5 (2013), and references therein.
V. A. De Lorenci and L. H. Ford, Decoherence induced by long wavelength gravitons, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 044038 (2015).
C. Pfister [[*et al*]{}.]{}, A universal test for gravitational decoherence, Nat. Comms. [**7**]{}, 13022 (2016).
V. Vasileiou, J. Granot, T. Piran, and G. Amelino-Camelia, A Planck-scale limit on spacetime fuzziness, Nat. Phys. [**11**]{}, 344 (2015).
C. H.-T. Wang, J. A. Reid, A. St.J. Murphy, D. Rodrigues, M. Al Alawi, R. Bingham, J. T. Mendonça, and T. B. Davies, A consistent scalar-tensor cosmology for inflation, dark energy and the Hubble parameter, Phys. Lett. A [**380**]{}, 3761 (2016), and references therein.
T. Oniga, E. Mansfield, and C. H.-T. Wang, Cosmic quantum optical probing of quantum gravity through a gravitational lens, arXiv:1703.01272.
M. Sasaki, Inflation and Birth of Cosmological Perturbations, Fundam. Theor. Phys. [**177**]{}, 305 (2014). O. J. Veraguth and C. H.-T. Wang, Immirzi parameter without Immirzi ambiguity: Conformal loop quantization of scalar-tensor gravity, arXiv:1705.09141 \[Phys. Rev. D (to be published)\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the thermodynamics of the two-dimensional Hubbard model within the dynamical cluster approximation. We use continuous time quantum Monte Carlo as a cluster solver to avoid the systematic error which complicates the calculation of the entropy and potential energy (double occupancy). We find that at a critical filling, there is a pronounced peak in the entropy divided by temperature, $S/T$, and in the normalized double occupancy as a function of doping. At this filling, we find that specific heat divided by temperature, $C/T$, increases strongly with decreasing temperature and kinetic and potential energies vary like $T^2\ln T$. These are all characteristics of quantum critical behavior.'
address: |
$^{1}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803, USA\
$^{2}$Department of Physics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA\
$^{3}$Fermilab, P. O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois, 60510, USA
author:
- 'K. Mikelsons$^{1,2}$, E. Khatami$^{1,2}$, D. Galanakis$^{1}$, A. Macridin$^{3}$, J. Moreno$^{1}$, and M. Jarrell$^{1}$'
title: 'Thermodynamics of the Quantum Critical Point at Finite Doping in the 2D Hubbard Model: A Dynamical Cluster Approximation Study'
---
#### Introduction- {#introduction- .unnumbered}
The properties of the hole-doped cuprate phase diagram, including a pseudogap (PG) at low doping and unusual metallic behavior at higher doping, have led many investigators to propose that there is a quantum critical point (QCP) in the cuprate phase diagram at optimal doping [@sachdev_92]. Some of the most compelling evidence for the QCP is from various thermodynamic experiments [@tallon].
In the previous work [@raja] employing the dynamical cluster quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method [@hettler:dca; @jarrell:dca] to calculate the quasiparticle fraction for the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard model, we found evidence for a QCP separating a region of Fermi liquid (FL) character at high doping from a region of non-Fermi liquid PG character at low doping. At the critical doping, we found marginal Fermi liquid (MFL) character [@Varma] which is also seen above the FL and PG temperatures.
In this paper, we provide further evidence for a QCP in the thermodynamic properties, including the energies, the specific heat and entropy. At the critical filling, both the kinetic and potential energy data show a $T^2\ln T$ low-temperature dependence, leading to a $T\ln T$ specific heat. The entropy divided by temperature, $S/T$, is strongly peaked at the critical point. In contrast to the results of the previous study [@raja], these quantities are independent of the location and character of the Fermi surface and thus avoid ambiguity in their interpretation.
#### Formalism- {#sec:formalism .unnumbered}
We start with the 2D Hubbard Hamiltonian $$H=H_k+H_p=\sum_{\k\sigma}\epsilon_{\k}^{0}c_{{\k}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\k}\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}+U\sum_{i}n_{{i}\uparrow}n_{{i}\downarrow} \,,
\label{eq:hubbard}$$ where $c_{{\k}\sigma}^{\dagger}(c_{{\k}\sigma})$ is the creation (annihilation) operator for electrons of wavevector ${\k}$ and spin $\sigma$, $n_{i\sigma} =c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\sigma}$ is the number operator, $\epsilon_{\k}^{0}=-2t\left(\cos(k_{x})+\cos(k_{y})-2\right)$ with $t$ being the hopping amplitude between nearest neighbor sites, and $U$ is the on-site Coulomb repulsion. The primary focus of this Rapid Communication is the behavior of the energies. For lack of a better term, we will refer to the quadratic part of $H_k$ as the kinetic energy and the interaction part as the potential energy. The corresponding energies per site are [@FetterandWalecka] $$\begin{aligned}
E_{k}&=&\frac{\left\langle H_k\right\rangle}{N} =\frac{T}{N}\sum_{\omega_{n},\k,\sigma}\epsilon_{\k}^{0}G_{\sigma}(\k,i\omega_{n})\label{eq:KE}\\
E_{p}&=&\frac{\left\langle H_p\right\rangle}{N} =\frac{T}{2N}\sum_{\omega_{n},\k,\sigma}\Sigma_{\sigma}(\k,i\omega_{n})G_{\sigma}(\k,i\omega_{n})\,, \label{eq:PE}\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\sigma}(\k,i\omega_{n})$ and $\Sigma_{\sigma}(\k,i\omega_{n})$ are the single-particle Green function and self-energy respectively, with $\omega_{n}=(2n+1)\pi T$ and $N$ represents the number of sites.
Aside from the numerical calculations, we obtained analytically the leading low-$T$ behavior for $E_k$ and $E_p$ for each of the regions around the QCP starting from the corresponding forms for the self-energy. In the FL region, the imaginary part of the self-energy has the form $$\Sigma_{FL}^{\prime\prime}\left(\omega\right)=-\alpha_{FL}\max\left(\omega^{2},T^{2}\right),\left|\omega\right|<\omega_{X},\label{eq:SigmaFL}$$ where $\omega_{X}$ is a cutoff frequency and $\alpha_{FL}>0$. In the MFL region, this quantity becomes [@Varma] $$\Sigma_{MFL}^{\prime\prime}\left(\omega\right)=-\alpha_{MFL}\max\left(\left|\omega\right|,T\right),\left|\omega\right|<\omega_{c}\,\label{eq:SigmaMFL}$$ where $\alpha_{MFL}>0$, and $\omega_{c}$ is a frequency cutoff. Finally in the PG region, we consider the following Ansatz [@k_yang_06] for the imaginary part of the self-energy: $$\Sigma_{PG}^{\prime\prime}\left(\omega\right)=-\pi\Delta^{2}({\bf k})\delta\left(\omega-\epsilon_{{\bf k}}^{0}\right),\left|\omega\right|<\omega_{c}^{*},\label{eq:SigmaPG}$$ where $\omega_{c}^{*}$ is a cutoff frequency and $\Delta\left({\bf k}\right)=\Delta_{0}\left(\cos k_{x}-\cos k_{y}\right)$ with the constant $\Delta_{0}$ being the PG magnitude.
Inserting the forms (\[eq:SigmaFL\]), (\[eq:SigmaMFL\]) and (\[eq:SigmaPG\]) in (\[eq:KE\]) and (\[eq:PE\]) and performing a low-$T$ expansion in the resulting integrals, we obtained that both $E_p$ and $E_k$ exhibit a leading $T^{2}$ low temperature behavior in the PG and FL regions. Both energies display a $T^{2}\ln T$ behavior consistent with a $T^{2}\ln T$ total energy [@crisan] in the MFL region.
#### Methodology- {#methodology- .unnumbered}
We solve the Hubbard model within the dynamical cluster approximation (DCA) [@hettler:dca]. The DCA is a cluster mean-field theory which maps the original lattice model onto a periodic cluster of size $N_c=L_c^2$ embedded in a self-consistent host. Spatial correlations up to a range $L_c$ are treated explicitly, while those at longer length scales are described at the mean-field level. However the correlations in time, essential for quantum criticality, are treated explicitly for all cluster sizes. To solve the cluster problem we use weak coupling expansion continuous time QMC (CTQMC) method [@rombouts99; @rubtsov05] with highly optimized blocked and delayed updates [@karlis]. In the previous work [@raja], a Hirsch-Fye QMC (HFQMC) algorithm was used. However, the Trotter error intrinsic to HFQMC, which is particularly large for the potential energy (double occupancy), prevented us from calculating $S$ since systematic errors from multiple temperatures tend to accumulate [@a_dare_07]. The CTQMC algorithm eliminates the systematic error, and generally has a lower overall computational cost than HFQMC, making it a better choice for these calculations. Unless otherwise displayed, the statistical error bars in these calculations are smaller than the plotting symbols or line widths used.
Here, we study the normal state on a $N_c = 4\times4$ site cluster for $U=6t$. We confirmed that increasing the cluster size to $N_c=24$ sites does not significantly alter our results. We obtain the energies from Eqs. (\[eq:KE\]) and (\[eq:PE\]), and, following Ref. , the entropy from $$S(\beta,n) = S(0,n) + \beta E(\beta,n) - \int_0^{\beta} E(\beta', n) d \beta' \,,
\label{eq:S}$$ where $S(0,n)=- n \ln\frac{n}{2} - (2-n)\ln\left(1-\frac{n}{2}\right)$, $n$ is the filling and $\beta=1/T$. Finally, since the DCA preserves thermodynamic consistency [@maier:rev], our results obey the Maxwell relation $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial n} \right)_{T,U} &=&
-\left( \frac{ \partial \mu }{\partial T} \right)_{U,n} \,,
\label{eq:smu}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is the chemical potential.
#### Results- {#results- .unnumbered}
![(color online) Temperature dependence of normalized double occupancy $4D/n^2$. For a range of temperatures and values of filling, $D(T)$ fits well the MFL form (dotted lines): $D(T) = D_0 + \alpha T^2 \ln(T/\omega_c)$ ($D_0$, $\alpha$ and $\omega_c$ are fitting parameters). At low temperatures, $D(T)$ shows FL behavior (dashed line) for $n=0.70$ ($D(T) = D_0 + \alpha T^2$, $\alpha < 0$) and PG behavior for $n>0.85$. Indicated by arrows is the crossover temperature $T^*=0.13t$ for $n=0.70$ along with the crossover temperatures $T_{FL}=0.24t$ and $T_{FL}=0.3t$ for $n=0.95$ and $n=1.00$ respectively. For $n=0.85$, marginal Fermi liquid behavior persists down to lowest temperatures accessible with QMC. Inset: Normalized double occupancy versus filling for $T=0.077t$, showing a peak at the critical filling $n=0.85$. []{data-label="fig:potential_energy"}](Fig1.eps){width="3.3in"}
Fig. \[fig:potential\_energy\] shows the normalized double occupancy, $4D/n^2$, as a function of temperature at fillings $n=1.00,\ 0.95,\ 0.85$ and $0.70$ together with fits to the MFL form for $n=0.95,\ 0.85$ and $0.70$, and the FL form for $n=0.70$. For $n=0.95$ and in a low temperature window, the $E_{p}$ first increases with decreasing temperature and then reaches a maximum at a temperature which coincides with the PG temperature ($T^*$) found in a previous study [@raja]. Further decreasing the temperature into the PG phase, $E_{p}$ deviates from the MFL character and begins to decrease. This indicates that close to half-filling, where the interactions are more relevant, the system tries to gain energy by lowering the $E_{p}$. A more pronounced decrease in the $E_{p}$ can be seen below the PG temperature in the half-filled case. At the critical filling, $n=0.85$, $E_{p}$ fits the MFL analytic form very well down to the lowest temperature reached. At this temperature, we find that the normalized double occupancy is maximal at the critical filling (see the inset of Fig. \[fig:potential\_energy\]). For $n=0.70$, the $E_{p}$ increases with decreasing temperature as in the MFL region. However, we find that below the FL characteristic temperature ($T_{FL}$) (see Ref. ), it deviates from the MFL form and fits better to a quadratic function in $T$. Note that at intermediate temperatures ($T^*$ or $T_{FL}<T<0.6t$), the MFL form fits the $E_{p}$ very well in all three doping regions.
In Fig. \[fig:kinetic\_energy\], we show $E_{k}$ versus temperature at the same fillings. $T_{FL}$ and $T^*$ in Fig. \[fig:kinetic\_energy\] represent the onset of FL and PG regions obtained from $E_{k}$ fits, and they have the same value as those shown in Fig. \[fig:potential\_energy\] for the $E_{p}$. At low temperatures, while the $E_{k}$ deviates from its MFL fit for $n=1.00,\ 0.95$ and $0.70$, one sees no sign of a characteristic temperature scale at the critical filling.
We note that the low-$T$ behavior of both $E_{p}$ and $E_{k}$ follows the analytical forms in the FL and MFL regions but slightly deviates from the predicted $T^2$ form in the PG region at low $T$. Also the energy scales below which the data deviate from the MFL $T^2\log T$ behavior vanishes at a critical filling, $n_c=0.85$, where it persists down to the lowest temperature accessible, consistent with the existence of a QCP between FL and PG regions.
![(color online) Temperature dependence of kinetic energy. MFL form fits data for a range of intermediate temperatures (dashed lines). For $n=0.70$, crossover to FL behavior is indicated as $T_{FL}$, while for $n=0.95$ and $n=1.00$, crossover to PG region at $T^*$ is evident by strong departure of kinetic energy from MFL fit, which for $n=1.00$ even results in noticeable increase of kinetic energy with lowering temperature.[]{data-label="fig:kinetic_energy"}](Fig2.eps){width="3.3in"}
The kinetic and potential energy data, together with the analytic forms of Eqs. (\[eq:PE\]) and (\[eq:KE\]) suggest that the total energy away from the half filling may be fit to the form $$E(T) = E(0) + A f(T) T^2 + B\left(1-f(T) \right) T^2\ln\frac{T}{\Omega}\,,
\label{eq:Etot}$$ where $f(T) = 1/\left( \exp\left( (T-T_X)/\theta\right) +1 \right)$ describes the crossover from the MFL to the quadratic behavior, characteristic of a FL or presumably PG region. $A$, $B$, $\theta$, $T_X$ and $\Omega$ are the fitting parameters of the QMC energy data, as shown in Fig. \[fig:Etot\]. At low $T$, the fit is indistinguishable from the data for all fillings. The values of $T_X$ determined from the fit are indicated as $T_{FL}\approx 0.15t$ for $n=0.70$ and $T^*\approx0.24t$ for $n=0.95$ in agreement with the $E_{p}$ and $E_{k}$ fits. The calculation of the specific heat is a notoriously difficult problem and usually involves a fit of $E(T)$ to a regularized (smooth) functional form [@carey_C; @Andy_C]. Here, we already have an excellent fit, so we obtain $C/T$ from a derivative of the fit divided by temperature. The result is shown in the inset. As expected for $n=0.70$, at low temperatures, $C/T$ is flat in $T$ consistent with FL formation. This behavior is also seen for the data in the PG region, $n=0.95$, but the data at the critical filling $n=0.85$, shows a weak divergence at low $T$ consistent with quantum critical behavior.
![(color online) Total energy per site $E$ versus temperature for different fillings. The data are fit to a crossover form of the energy, Eq. (\[eq:Etot\]) (dashed lines). The values of $T_X$ determined from the fit are indicated as $T_{FL}$ for $n=0.70$ and $T^*$ for $n=0.95$. In the inset, the specific heat calculated from the fit is plotted versus temperature. []{data-label="fig:Etot"}](Fig3.eps){width="3.3in"}
The entropy per site exhibits intriguing behavior near the critical filling as the system is cooled, confirming much of the physics seen in $C/T$ without the need for a fit or a numerical derivative. It is more strongly quenched in the FL and PG regions than in the MFL region with decreasing $T$, resulting in a maximum in $S/T$ versus filling at $n=0.85$ at the lowest accessible temperature (see Fig. \[fig:S\_vs\_fill\] (a)). The fact that $S/T$ continues to rise at the critical doping as $T\to 0$ is consistent with the increase in $C/T$. Similarly, the low temperature $S/T$ curves at different temperatures nearly overlap for $n<0.85$ in agreement with a constant $C/T$ and indicative of a FL. One can see the strong decrease in $S/T$ with decreasing temperature when the system crosses over to the PG phase around $T^*$ at large fillings (e.g. at half-filling). In fact in the PG region, $n>0.85$, $S/T$ coincide for different temperatures only at one filling, roughly $n=0.95$. The flat low-T $C/T$ seen at this filling is accidental, and for higher filling one would expect $C/T$ to be strongly suppressed at low $T$ [^1].
According to Eq. (\[eq:smu\]), a local maximum in $S/T$ versus $n$ corresponds to a flat chemical potential as a function of temperature. Therefore, at low $T$, the critical filling can be identified from the temperature dependence of $\mu$ for different fillings. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:S\_vs\_fill\] (b) where, one can see that the near temperature independence of $\mu$ at $n=0.90$ for $0.25t<T<0.50t$ evolves into a broad maximum centered around $T=0.15t$ for $n=0.87$ which presumably moves to $n=0.85$ at low enough temperatures. These observations are consistent with the evolution of the maximum in $S/T$ versus $n$ as the temperature is lowered from $0.50t$ to $0.08t$ (see Fig. \[fig:S\_vs\_fill\] (a)). In analogy to the half-filled case, a stationary chemical potential can be the signature of local particle-hole symmetry. This is consistent with the observation of near particle-hole symmetry in the cuprates in the proximity of optimal doping [@s_chakraborty_08]. It is also in agreement with previous results showing that at $n\approx 0.85$ and for the same model parameters, the low energy density of states displays particle-hole symmetry [@raja].
![(color online) Left panel: $S/T$ filling dependence showing emergence of a peak at $n=0.85$ at low temperatures. Right panel: Chemical potential temperature dependence for a range of fillings with PG and FL energy scales shown as $T^*$ and $T_{FL}$ for $n=0.95$ and $n=0.70$, respectively. Note that the position of the maximum of entropy in the left panel corresponds to $\partial \mu / \partial T = 0$ in the right panel. As temperature is lowered, the maximum of entropy shifts towards lower $n$, causing local particle-hole symmetry for $n=0.85$ at low $T$ (see text).[]{data-label="fig:S_vs_fill"}](Fig4.eps){width="3.3in"}
#### Discussion- {#discussion- .unnumbered}
The results presented here strongly favor an interpretation involving a QCP as opposed to a simple crossover from a FL to a non-Fermi liquid as the filling increases towards one. The $T^2\ln T$ behavior of the kinetic and potential energies, the peak in $S/T$ which sharpens as $T$ falls, and the logarithmic behavior of the specific heat $C/T \sim \ln T$ at $n=0.85$ together with the wide range of temperatures and fillings influenced by the critical point are clear signatures of quantum criticality.
The peak in the low temperature normalized double occupancy observed at the critical filling is also interesting. Near half filling $4D/n^2$ is suppressed by strong correlations. As the temperature is lowered $(T<T^*)$, it is suppressed further to allow the system to gain the most magnetic exchange energy. As the filling decreases towards zero, the Fermi energy will become smaller than $U$, and again $4D/n^2$ is suppressed. So for any finite $U$ we expect a peak in $4D/n^2$ at some finite doping.
At the critical filling, in addition to the enhanced $C/T$, we find a peak in the charge susceptibility (not shown). These charge fluctuations may be responsible for the location of the peak $4D/n^2$ near the critical doping. The peak in the charge susceptibility becomes sharper as the temperature is lowered, or when we include a next-near neighbor hopping $t'>0$. This behavior suggests the possibility that the QCP may be associated with a charge instability seen previously [@alex_PS]. This topic, as well as relation of the QPC and charge fluctuations to superconductivity, will be explored in an upcoming publication.
#### Conclusion- {#conclusion- .unnumbered}
We study the thermodynamics of the 2D Hubbard model using the dynamical cluster approximation with CTQMC as a cluster solver. The latter eliminates the Trotter error which complicates the calculation of the entropy and potential energy. At the critical doping we find that $C/T$, obtained from a fit of $E(T)$, increases strongly with decreasing temperature and the kinetic and potential energies are consistent with $T^2\ln T$. Near the critical filling, we find a pronounced peak in $S/T$ which grows as the temperature falls, consistent with the growth of $C/T$. We also find a peak in the normalized double occupancy as a function of doping. These are all characteristics of quantum criticality.
#### Acknowledgments- {#acknowledgments- .unnumbered}
We would like to thank P. Phillips, S. Kivelson, D. J. Scalapino, A. M. Tremblay, and C. Varma, for useful conversations. This research was supported by NSF DMR-0706379. JM and MJ are also supported by the NSF PIRE project OISE-0730290. This research used resources of the National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725.
[99]{}
S. Sachdev, J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2411 (1992).
C. Bernhard, J. L. Tallon, Th. Blasius, A. Golnik, and Ch. Niedermayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[86]{}**]{}, 1614 (2001), and references therein.
N. S. Vidhyadhiraja, A. Macridin, C. Sen, M. Jarrell, and M. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 206407 (2009).
M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B [**[58]{}**]{}, R7475 (1998); M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B [**[61]{}**]{}, 12739 (2000).
M. Jarrell, Th. Maier, C. Huscroft, and S. Moukouri, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 195130 (2001).
C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[83]{}**]{}, 3538 (1999); C.M. Varma, Z. Nussinov and Wim van Saarloos, Phys. Rep. [**[361]{}**]{}, 267 (2002).
A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
K.-Y. Yang, T. M. Rice, and F.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 174501 (2006).
M. Crisan and C.P. Moca, J. of Supercond., [**[9]{}**]{}, 49, (1996).
S. M. A. Rombouts, K. Heyde, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4155 (1999).
A. N. Rubtsov, V. V. Savkin, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 035122 (2005).
K. Mikelsons, A. Macridin, E. D’Azevedo, K. Tomko, and M. Jarrell, [*unpublished*]{}.
F. Werner, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and S. R. Hassan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 056401 (2005).
A.-M. Dar[é]{}, L. Raymond, G. Albinet, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 064402 (2007).
Th. Maier, M. Jarrell, Th. Pruschke, and M. H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 1027 (2005).
C. Huscroft, R. Gass, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 9300 (2000).
A. K. McMahan, C. Huscroft, R. T. Scalettar and E. L. Pollock, J. of Computer-Aided Materials Design [**5**]{}, 131 (1998).
Sh. Chakraborty, D. Galanakis, and Ph. Phillips, [*preprint*]{}, arXiv:0807.2854.
A. Macridin, M. Jarrell, and Th. Maier, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 085104 (2006).
[^1]: This behavior in $S(T)$ at $n=1$ is likely an artifact of the DCA used here where the self energy is not interpolated. An interpolated self energy, as used in e.g., Ref. \[\], would preserve the d-wave character of the PG and the $T^2$ character of $E(T)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a framework for the study of $q$-difference equations satisfied by $q$-semi-classical orthogonal systems. As an example, we identify the $q$-difference equation satisfied by a deformed version of the little $q$-Jacobi polynomials as a gauge transformation of a special case of the associated linear problem for $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$. We obtain a parameterization of the associated linear problem in terms of orthogonal polynomial variables and find the relation between this parameterization and that of Jimbo and Sakai.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics. The University of Melbourne Parkville VIC 3010 Australia'
author:
- 'Christopher M. Ormerod, N. S. Witte and Peter J. Forrester'
title: 'Connection preserving deformations and $q$-semi-classical orthogonal polynomials'
---
Introduction
============
Monodromy representations have been a central element in the study of integrable systems [@ClassicalIntegrability]. A pioneering step was the parameterization of the condition that a linear second order differential equation with four regular singularities $\{0,t,1,\infty\}$ has monodromy independent of $t$, in terms of the sixth Painlevé equation $\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ [@Fuchs1907; @Fuchs1914]. This theory was elaborated upon by Garnier [@Ga_1917] and Schlesinger [@Schlesinger], and culminated in the 1980’s with the studies of the Kyoto School [@JimboMiwa1; @JimboMiwa2; @JimboMiwa3]. A contemporary perspective of the theory can be found in the monographs [@IKSY_1991] and [@FIKN_2006]. For a matrix linear differential equation of the form $$\label{eq0:linear}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}Y(x) = A(x) Y(x),$$ where $$A(x) = \sum_i \frac{A_i}{x-\alpha_i},$$ one expects the general solution to be multivalued with branch points located at $\alpha = \{\alpha_i\}$. By evaluating a solution on any element of the homotopy classes of closed loops, $[\gamma]$, in some manner around a selection of the poles, one obtains the equation $$Y(\gamma(1)) = Y(\gamma(0)) M_{[\gamma]}.$$ This relates solutions on different sheets of a Riemann surface. The set $\{ M_{[\gamma]} : \gamma:[0,1]\to \mathbb{C}\}$ is a representation of the fundamental group of the compliment of the poles, $\Gamma = \pi_1\left( \mathbb{CP}_1 \setminus \{ \alpha \} \right)$. The aim is to deform the linear system with respect to a chosen deformation parameter, $t$, so that the representation of $\Gamma$ does not depend on $t$. In the theory of monodromy preserving deformations, a natural choice of parameters are the poles of $A$. This leads to the classical Schlesinger’s equations [@Schlesinger] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial A_i}{\partial \alpha_j} =& \frac{[A_i, A_j]}{\alpha_i - \alpha_j},\qquad i \neq j,\\
\frac{\partial A_i}{\partial \alpha_i} =& -\sum_{j \neq i} \frac{[A_i, A_j]}{\alpha_i - \alpha_j}.\end{aligned}$$ Given a $2\times 2$ linear system with four poles, $\{0,t,1,\infty\}$, and zero of $A_{12}(x)$ at $y$, imposing the isomonodromic property in the variable $t$ requires that $y$ satisfies $\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ [@Fuchs1907].
The relationship of the theory of monodromy preserving deformations to orthogonal polynomials arises because under certain conditions on the orthogonality measure the polynomials and their associated functions form an isomonodromic system, albeit one with a particular restriction. Under fairly general conditions the derivative of each polynomial in the system is expressible in terms of linear combinations of other members of the orthogonal polynomial system, an observation first made by Laguerre [@Laguerre]. The conditions for when this is the case have been given in some generality by Bonan and Clark[@BC_1990], and by Bauldry [@Ba_1990]. In particular, a semi-classical weight will satisfy these conditions and the three term recurrence tells us that we may express the derivative of the polynomial in the system of orthogonal polynomials as a rational linear combination of the polynomial itself and the previous polynomial in the system. The rationality of this linear problem means that such orthogonal polynomial systems satisfy a linear problem of the form .
The notion of a semi-classical weight or linear functional was introduced by Maroni [@Ma_1985] as an attempt to characterize the classical orthogonal polynomials in a coherent framework and guide the quest of looking for systems beyond this class. By appropriately extending the work of Laguerre, Magnus [@Magnus1995] was able to show that a semi-classical, deformed orthogonal polynomial system parameterized a special case of the monodromy preserving deformation considered by Fuchs [@Fuchs1907]. This allows one to express special solutions of $\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ in terms of coefficients of orthogonal polynomial systems. Conversely, this also allows key quantities relating to orthogonal polynomials to be expressed in terms of solutions of $\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$. In addition to the various determinantal solutions of integrable systems provided by the theory of orthogonal polynomials, the application of integrable systems to orthogonal polynomials have resulted in advances in the calculation of various statistics of interest in random matrix theory (see e.g. [@Forrester2007]).
For $q$-difference equations, an analogue of the theory of monodromy preserving deformations is the theory of connection preserving deformations [@Sakai:qP6]. The linear problem of interest is given by the $n\times n$ matrix equation $$\label{eq0:qlinear}
Y(qx) = A(x) Y(x),$$ where $$A(x) = A_0 + A_1x + \ldots + A_mx^m.$$ Instead of the basic information being contained in the relation between the value of solutions on different sheets of the Riemann surface, the variables of interest are associated with the relation between two fundamental solutions, $Y_0$ and $Y_\infty$, which are holomorphic functions at $0$ and $\infty$ respectively. Much of the theory concerning the existence of these solutions has remained relatively unchanged since the pioneering days of Birkhoff and his followers [@Adams:General; @Birkhoff:General; @Carmichael:General]. If these solutions exist, then one may meromorphically continue these solutions on $\mathbb{C}$, and furthermore form the connection matrix, $P(x)$, specified by $$Y_0(x) = Y_\infty(x) P(x),$$ which is quasi-periodic in $x$ [@Birkhoff:General]. From the Galois theory of $q$-difference equations, which primarily considers a classification of problems of the form , we know that the entries of $P(x)$ are expressible in terms of elliptic theta functions [@Sauloy:Galois].
In the same manner as monodromy preserving deformations, one may consider a deformation of that preserves the connection matrix. An appropriate choice of deformation parameter turns out to be the roots of the determinant of $A$ and the eigenvalues of $A_0$ and $A_m$. By considering a $2\times 2$ linear system with $m = 2$ and choosing the deformation parameter to be proportional to two of the roots of the determinant and the two eigenvalues of $A_0$, Jimbo and Sakai [@Sakai:qP6] showed that the connection preserving deformation was equivalent to a second order $q$-difference equation admitting the sixth Painlevé equation as a continuum limit.
We have remarked that semi-classical orthogonal polynomial systems give rise to monodromy preserving deformations relating to Painlevé equations. A natural problem then is to investigate the relationship between $q$-semi-classical orthogonal polynomial systems, connection preserving deformations, and the $q$-Painlevé equations. A number of different approaches to constructing isomonodromic analogues for the difference, $q$-difference and elliptic equations of the Sakai Scheme [@Sakai] have been proposed recently [@AB06; @AB07; @Rains; @Yamada], which differ in varying degrees from what we offer here. One other work which is close to the spirit of the present work is that of Biane [@Biane:qP6]. However there is a history of studies into $q$-semi-classical orthogonal polynomial systems which was not motivated by the above considerations. Shortly after the introduction of the semi-classical concepts Magnus extended this to the $q$-difference systems and in fact to the most general type of divided difference operators on non-uniform lattices in a pioneering study [@Magnus88]. In addition Maroni and his co-workers have made extensions to difference and $q$-difference systems in a series of works [@KM_2002; @MM_2002; @Kh_2003; @Me_2009; @GK_2009]. These later authors have successfully reproduced parts of the classical Askey Tableaux (which was achieved most fully by Magnus at the level of the Askey-Wilson polynomials) however the application of their theoretical tools beyond the classical cases have invariably been made to specialised or degenerate cases and failed to make contact with the discrete and $q$-Painlevé equations. A slightly different methodology has been the approach of Ismail and collaborators [@IW_2001; @Is_2003; @Chen:qladder; @IS_2009], who have derived difference and $q$-difference equations for orthogonal polynomials with respect to weights more general than the semi-classical class, much in the spirit of the Bonan and Clark and Bauldry studies, and so the matrix $ A(x) $ is no longer rational. This approach has not been applied to systems beyond the classical Askey Tableaux, and consequently not made contact with the discrete Painlevé systems. The most recent work of Biane [@Biane:qP6], and of Van Assche and co-workers [@VanAssche; @BSvA_2008] has addressed some of the shortcomings discussed above, however while these authors have uncovered the spectral structures of the theory they have yet to elucidate the deformation structures required. It is our intention to complete this task by laying out the deformation structures.
Our contributions in this paper are to first formulate an extension of the classical work of Laguerre for finding differential equations satisfied by orthogonal polynomials, when the differential operator is the $q$-difference $$\label{eq0:Dqdef}
D_{q,x_i} f(x_1, \ldots, x_n) = \frac{ f(x_1,\ldots, x_n) - f(x_1, \ldots, qx_i, \ldots x_n)}{x_i(1-q)}.$$ This is done in Section 4, after first having introduced preliminary material from orthogonal polynomial theory, and connection preserving deformations in Sections 2 and 3 respectively. In Section 5 we apply this extension to the specific case of a deformation of the little $q$-Jacobi polynomials [@Andrews:orthogonal]. We give a parameterization of the associated linear problem in terms of variables relating to the orthogonal polynomial system. However, this contains redundant variables, and in fact a set of three natural coordinates can be identified which suffice to parameterize the linear problem. When written in terms of the natural coordinates, the linear problem implies the $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ equations
\[eq0:qP6\] $$\begin{gathered}
y_1\hat{y}_1 = \frac{a_7a_8 (y_2 - a_1t)(y_2 - a_2t)}{(y_2 - a_3)(y_2-a_4)},\\
y_2\hat{y}_2 = \frac{a_3a_4 (\hat{y}_1 - a_5t)(\hat{y}_1 - a_6t)}{(\hat{y}_1 - a_7)(\hat{y}_1-a_8)},\end{gathered}$$
where $y_i = y_i(t)$ and $\hat{y}_i = y_i(qt)$. We show that this has the consequence of implying the $\tau$–functions have determinantal solutions in terms of Hankel determinants of the moments of the little $q$-Jacobi weight. Also we show that the three term recurrence, written in terms of the natural coordinates, manifests itself as a Bäcklund transformation which relate to a translational component of the extended affine Weyl group of type $D_5^{(1)}$. Throughout we shall assume that $q$ is a fixed complex number such that $0 < |q| < 1$.
Orthogonal polynomials
======================
Our starting point is a sequence of moments, $\{\mu_k \}_{k=0}^{\infty}$. From this we define a linear functional, $L$, on the space of polynomials, where $L(x^k) = \mu_k$. An orthogonal polynomial system is a sequence of polynomials, $\{ p_n \}_{n= 0}^{\infty}$, such that $p_m$ is a polynomial of exact degree $m$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1:LinearForm}
L(p_ip_j) = \delta_{ij}.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, these polynomials are orthonormal with respect to the given linear functional. This condition defines the coefficients of $p_n$ for all $n$ so long as the Hankel determinants consisting of the moments $\mu_0, \ldots, \mu_{2n}$, given in , do not vanish [@Chihara; @Szego].
In the case of the classical continuous orthogonal polynomials, this linear functional, $L$, is typically some integral of the multiplication of the argument with some weight function over some support. Linear functionals associated with discrete orthogonal polynomials are specified by a weighted sum, such as Jackson’s $q$-integral [@Hahn; @Jackson:integral; @Thomae1; @Thomae2]. Any orthogonal polynomial system where holds satisfies the classical three term recurrence relation, given by $$\label{eq1:3termrecurrence}
a_{n+1}p_{n+1} = (x-b_n)p_n - a_n p_{n-1}.$$ We parameterize the coefficients of these polynomials by $$p_n(x) = \gamma_n x^n + \gamma_{n,1} x^{n-1} + \gamma_{n,2} x^{n-2} + \ldots + \gamma_{n,n}.$$ It is possible to determine all the coefficients, and hence the $a_n$ and $b_n$, in terms of the $\mu_k$’s [@Chihara; @Szego]. We set $$\label{eq2:Delta}
\Delta_n = \det
\begin{pmatrix}
\mu_0 & \mu_1 & \ldots & \mu_{n-1} \\
\mu_1 & \mu_2 & \ldots & \mu_n \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
\mu_{n-2} & \mu_{n-1} & & \vdots \\
\mu_{n-1} & \mu_n & \ldots & \mu_{2n-2}
\end{pmatrix},$$ for $n \geq 1$, with $\Delta_0 = 1$, and $$\label{eq2:Sigma}
\Sigma_n = \det\begin{pmatrix} \mu_0 & \mu_1 & \ldots & \mu_{n-2} & \mu_{n} \\
\mu_1 & \mu_2 & \ldots & \mu_{n-1} & \mu_{n+1} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\mu_{n-1} & \mu_n & \ldots & \mu_{2n-3} & \mu_{2n-1}
\end{pmatrix} ,$$ for $n\geq 1$, where $\Sigma_0 = 0$. Then we have
\[eq1:anandbndets\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2:detgamma}\gamma_n^2 =& \frac{\Delta_n}{\Delta_{n+1}},\\
\label{eq2:deta}a_n^2 =& \frac{\Delta_{n-1}\Delta_{n+1}}{\Delta_n^2},\\
\label{eq2:detb}b_n =& \frac{\Sigma_{n+1}}{\Delta_{n+1}} - \frac{\Sigma_n}{\Delta_n},\end{aligned}$$
as given in [@Chihara; @Szego].
Given a sequence of valid moments, one may define the Stieltjes function $$f = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \mu_n x^{-n-1}.$$ We define the associated polynomials and associated functions by the formula $$f p_n = \phi_{n-1} + \epsilon_n,$$ where $\phi_{n-1}$ is a polynomial and $\epsilon_n$ is the remainder. The orthogonality condition implies that $\epsilon_n \sim \gamma_n^{-1} x^{-n-1} + O(x^{-n-2})$. In fact, by using , it is possible to find the large $x$ expansions for these polynomials in terms of the $a_n$ and $b_n$, giving
\[eq1:largexexpansion\] $$\begin{aligned}
p_n =& \gamma_n\left(x^n - x^{n-1}\sum_{i =0}^{n-1} b_i + x^{n-2}\left(\sum_{i =0}^{n-2} \sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} b_i b_j - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}a_i^2\right) + O(x^{n-3}) \right),\\
\epsilon_n =& \gamma_n^{-1}\left(x^{-n-1} + x^{-n-2}\sum_{i =0}^n b_i + x^{-n-3}\left(\sum_{i =0}^{n} \sum_{j=0}^{i} b_i
b_j + \sum_{i=1}^{n+1}a_i^2\right) + O(x^{-n-4}) \right),\end{aligned}$$
where in the second equation use has been made of the large $x$ expansion of $\gamma_n\epsilon_n = (x-b_n)^{-1} \gamma_{n-1} \epsilon_{n-1} + (x-b_n)^{-1} a_{n+1}^2 \gamma_{n+1} \epsilon_{n+1}$ [@Ismail:Book; @Chihara; @Szego; @Magnus1995]. Utilising this we can write some explicit relations between the coefficients, $\gamma_n$ and $\gamma_{n,k}$’s, and the $a_n$ and $b_n$,
$$\begin{aligned}
a_n =& \frac{\gamma_{n-1}}{\gamma_n},\\
b_{n-1} =& \frac{\gamma_{n-1,1}}{\gamma_{n-1}}- \frac{\gamma_{n,1}}{\gamma_n},\end{aligned}$$
which hold for $n \geq 1$. By equating $(fp_n)p_{n-1}$ with $(fp_{n-1})p_n$ we have the relation $$\label{eq3:anpnen}
\phi_{n-1}p_{n-1} - \phi_{n-2}p_n = \epsilon_{n-1}p_n - \epsilon_np_{n-1} = \frac{1}{a_n},$$ which is polynomial by the left hand side and where the final equality follows from .
It is clear that the sequence of functions, $\{ \epsilon_n \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$, is a solution of that is independent of $\{p_n\}$. We find it convenient to introduce the matrix $$\label{eq2:system}
Y_n = \begin{pmatrix}
p_n & \epsilon_n/w \\
p_{n-1} & \epsilon_{n-1}/w
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The three term recursion relation is equivalent to the relation $$\label{eq1:linearn}
Y_{n+1} = M_n Y_n,$$ where $$M_n = \begin{pmatrix}
{\displaystyle \frac{(x-b_n)}{a_{n+1}}} & - {\displaystyle \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}}} \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Connection preserving deformations
==================================
In this section we revise the established classical theory of systems of linear $q$-difference equations [@Adams:General; @Birkhoff:General; @Carmichael:General]. The general theory concerns the $m \times m$ matrix system $$\label{eq2:linear}
Y(qx) = A(x)Y(x),$$ where $A(x)$ is rational in $x$. We call $A$ the coefficient matrix of the linear $q$-difference equation. One may easily verify that such an equation possesses two symbolic solutions, namely, the infinite products
\[eq4:symbolicsols\] $$\begin{aligned}
&A(x/q) A(x/q^2) A(x/q^3) \ldots, \\
&A(x)^{-1} A(xq)^{-1} A(xq^2)^{-1} \ldots, \end{aligned}$$
which do not converge in general. We may suitably transform the problem so that $A(x)$ is polynomial, which we parameterize by writing $$A(x) = A_0 + A_1x + \ldots +A_nx^n.$$ The matrices $A_0$ and $A_n$ are assumed to be semisimple with eigenvalues $\rho_1, \ldots , \rho_m$ and $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_m$ respectively. Regarding the solutions of , we present the following theorem due to Carmichael [@Carmichael:General].
Suppose the eigenvalues of $A_0$ and $A_n$ satisfy the condition $$\frac{\rho_i}{\rho_j} , \frac{\lambda_i}{\lambda_j} \notin \{q , q^2 , q^3, \ldots\},$$ then there exists two solutions, called the fundamental solutions, of the form $$\begin{aligned}
Y_0 =& \widehat{Y}_0 x^{D_0}, \\
Y_\infty =& \widehat{Y}_{\infty} q^{\frac{nu(u-1)}{2}} x^{D_\infty},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{Y}_0$ and $\widehat{Y}_{\infty}$ are holomorphic functions in neighbourhoods of $x=0$ and $x=\infty$ respectively and $D_0$ and $D_\infty$ are $\mathrm{diag}(\log_q \rho_i)$ and $\mathrm{diag}(\log_q \lambda_i)$ respectively and $u = \log_q x$.
We may use to continue both solutions meromorphically over $\mathbb{C}\setminus 0$. From these solutions, we define the connection matrix to be $$\label{eq2:connectiondef}
P(x) = Y_\infty(x)^{-1} Y_{0}(x).$$ The evolution of $ P9x) $ in $x$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8.1}
P(qx) =& Y_\infty(qx)^{-1} Y_{0}(qx)\nonumber,\\
=& Y_\infty(x)^{-1}A(x)^{-1}A(x) Y_{0}(x)\nonumber,\\
=& P(x).\end{aligned}$$ Hence this function is $q$-periodic in $x$.
These fundamental solutions may be related to via a conjugation of transformations of such that the solutions given by converge. Hence gives us information regarding the roots of the determinant of the connection matrix. If the $z_i$ are the zeros of $\det A(x)$, then $Y_{\infty}^{-1}$ and $Y_0$ are possibly singular at $\{ q^{n+1} z_i : n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ and $\{q^{-n} z_i : n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ respectively. Therefore we expect the poles and zeros of the determinant of $P(x)$ to be $q$-power multiples of the $z_i$.
In the situation of monodromy preserving deformations we introduce a parameter, $t$, into $A$ and consider what conditions on the evolution of $t$ are required so that the monodromy representation is preserved. It was the innovation of Jimbo and Sakai [@Sakai:qP6] to introduce a parameter $t$ in a manner that preserves the connection matrix, $P(x)$, through the evolution $t \to q t$. By the observation noted in the above paragraph regarding the poles and roots of the determinant of $P(x)$, we may infer that the latter are preserved in the shift $z_j \to qz_j$. However, in doing this, we must also consider the eigenvalues of $A_0$ and $A_n$ to be parameters. This suggests that the zeros of the determinant of $A$ and eigenvalues of $A_0$ and $A_n$ are appropriate choices of parameter for the connection matrix preserving deformation.
We parameterize $\rho_A = \det A$ by letting a subset of the roots be constant in $t$, while the other roots are simply proportional to $t$. By supposing $P(x,t) = P(x,qt)$ we arrive at the implication $$P(x,qt) = Y_\infty(x,qt)^{-1} Y_{0}(x,qt) = Y_\infty(x,t)^{-1} Y_{0}(x,t) = P(x,t),$$ which defines a matrix, $B$, via $$Y_0(x,qt)Y_0(x,t)^{-1} = Y_{\infty}(x,qt) Y_\infty(x,t)^{-1} = B(x,t).$$ Since both $Y_0$ and $Y_\infty$ are independent solutions this leads to the necessary condition that the evolution of $Y$ must be governed by a second linear equation, $$\label{eq2:qlineart}
Y(x,qt) = B(x,t)Y(x,t).$$ Conversely, it is easy to see that if $Y$ satisfies , then the evolution $t\to q t$ defines a connection preserving deformation.
Since $Y$ satisfies an equation in $x$ and an equation in $t$ this imposes the necessary compatibility condition $$\label{eq3:Lax}
A(x,qt)B(x,t) = B(qx,t)A(x,t).$$ This compatibility condition implies a $q$-difference equation satisfied by $\rho_B = \det B$, $$\rho_{B}(qx,t) = \frac{\rho_{A}(x,qt)}{\rho_{A}(x,t)}\rho_B(x,t),$$ which may be solved up to a factor of a function of $t$. We shall assume that $\rho_B$ is rational in $x$. Other information regarding asymptotic behavior of $A$ gives us specific information regarding the form of $B$. Furthermore the compatibility condition and the determinantal constraints often results in an overdetermined system allowing us to construct a representation of $B$ in terms of the entries of $A$ and hence, find $q$-difference equations in $t$ for the entries of $A$.
We do not pursue this line explicitly. Rather, in the following sections we will show how the $q$-difference equations satisfied by a particular deformed $q$-semiclassical orthogonal polynomial system leads linear systems satisfying and .
$q$-difference equations satisfied by orthogonal polynomials
============================================================
The $q$-difference calculus and $q$-special functions
-----------------------------------------------------
A reference for the $q$-difference calculus and also the $h$-differential calculus is a book by Kac [@QuantumCalc]. We first recall some of the basic properties in relation to $q$-difference equations. The first property is the $q$-analog of the product and quotient rule, given by
\[eq2:prodquot\] $$\begin{aligned}
D_{q,x} (f g) =& \overline{f}D_{q,x}g + g D_{q,x}f, \\
=& fD_{q,x}g + \overline{g}D_{q,x}f\nonumber, \\
D_{q,x} \left( \frac{f}{g}\right) =& \frac{gD_{q,x}f - fD_{q,x}g}{g\overline{g}},\end{aligned}$$
where $\overline{f} = \overline{f(x)} = f(qx)$. Associated with the $q$-difference operator is the antiderivative, known as Jackson’s $q$-integral, as defined by Thomae and Jackson [@Jackson:integral; @Thomae1; @Thomae2]. We express the definite integral of Thomae [@Thomae1; @Thomae2] by $$\label{eq2:Tomae}
\int_0^1 f(x)\mathrm{d}_q x = (1-q)\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} q^k f(q^k).$$ This was subsequently generalized by Jackson [@Jackson:integral] to $$\label{eq2:Jacksons}
\int_a^b f(x)\mathrm{d}_q x = \int_0^b f(x)\mathrm{d}_q x - \int_0^a f(x)\mathrm{d}_q x,$$ where $$\int_0^a f(x)\mathrm{d}_q x = a(1-q)\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} q^k f(aq^k).$$ If $f$ is continuous, then $$\lim_{q\to 1} \int_0^a f(t)\mathrm{d}_q t = \int_0^a f(t)\mathrm{d}t.$$ We introduce the $q$-Pochhammer symbol $$(a;q)_n = (1-a)(1-aq) \ldots (1-aq^{n-1}),$$ and $$(a;q)_\infty = (1-a)(1-aq)\ldots.$$ We also adopt the notation $$(a_1,a_2, \ldots, a_m;q)_n = (a_1;q)_n (a_2;q)_n \ldots (a_m;q)_n.$$ The symbol $(a;q)_\infty$ is often called the $q$-exponential as $$D_{q,x} \left(ax;q \right)_\infty = \frac{-a(aqx;q)_\infty }{(1-q)}.$$ We are now able to express Heine’s basic hypergeometric function [@Heine:Hyper1], as it was re-written by Thomae [@Thomae1; @GasperRahman:Hypergeometric], $$\label{eq2:Hypergeometricsum}
{}_2\phi_1 \left(\left.\begin{array}{c} a,b \\ c \end{array}\right|q;t\right) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} t^m \frac{(a,b;q)_m}{(c,q;q)_m}.$$ Also relevant is the integral formula for the basic hypergeometric function [@GasperRahman:Hypergeometric] $$\label{eq2:Hypergeometricintegral}
{}_2\phi_1 \left(\left.\begin{array}{c} a,b \\ c \end{array}\right|q;t\right) = \frac{\left(b,\frac{c}{b};q\right)_\infty}{(1-q)(c,q;q)_\infty}\int_0^1 x^{\frac{\log b}{\log q}-1} \frac{(xta,xq;q)_\infty}{\left(xt,\frac{xc}{b};q\right)_\infty} \mathrm{d}_q x.$$
Jacobi’s elliptic multiplicative theta function, as defined by Jacobi’s triple product formula, may be expressed as $$\theta_q(z) = \left( q,-qz,-\frac{1}{z};q\right)_{\infty}.$$ This satisfies the equation $$\theta_q(qz) = qz\theta_q(z).$$ Of importance is the $q$-character, $$e_{q,c}(x) = \frac{\theta_q (x)\theta_q(1/c)}{\theta_q(x/c)},$$ satisfying $$\label{eq4:eprops}
e_{q,c}(qx) = c e_{q,c} (x), \qquad e_{q,qc}(x) = xe_{q,c}(x).$$
$q$-difference equation in $x$
------------------------------
We shall henceforth assume that the log $q$-derivative of the weight specifying the linear form of the $q$-orthogonal polynomial system is rational, parameterizing its $q$-derivative via the equation $$\label{eq2:qdifofweight}
W(x) D_{q,x} w(x) = 2V(x) w(x),$$ where $W(x)$ and $V(x)$ are polynomials in $x$. This is the $q$-analogue of the notion of semi-classical weight functions familiar in the theory of classical orthogonal polynomials [@Ma_1985] and which was proposed by Magnus[@Magnus88] and subsequently by others [@MM_2002; @KM_2002]. Henceforth we regard systems satisfying these conditions as $q$-semi-classical orthogonal polynomial systems.
\[lem:Dqxf\] Assuming $w$ satisfies , the Stieltjes function, $f$, satisfies the $q$-difference equation $$\label{eq2:StiltjerqDiffx}
W(x)D_{q,x}f(x) = 2V(x)f(x)+ U(x),$$ where $U$ is polynomial such that $\deg U < \deg V$.
We call the polynomials $W$, $V$ and $U$ the spectral data polynomials. We will use as the basis for our derivation of the $x$-evolution for the $q$-semi-classical orthogonal systems. Using different methods, this has been derived in [@IW_2001; @Chen:qladder; @Is_2003; @IS_2009] for general (i.e. beyond semi-classical) $q$-orthogonal polynomials.
[@Magnus88; @Kh_2003]\[thm:Dqxpn\] The matrix $Y_n$ satisfies $$\label{eq2:linearx}
D_{q,x}Y_n = A_n Y_n,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:Aform}
A_n &= \frac{1}{(W(x)-2x(1-q)V(x))}\begin{pmatrix}
\Omega_n - V & -a_n \Theta_n \\
a_n \Theta_{n-1} & \Omega_{n-1} - V - (x-b_{n-1})\Theta_{n-1}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and $\Theta_n$ and $\Omega_n$ are polynomials specified by
\[eq2:defThetaOmega\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2:defTheta}\Theta_n =& W (\epsilon_n D_{q,x} p_n - p_n D_{q,x} \epsilon_n) + 2V\epsilon_n\overline{p}_n,\\
\label{eq2:defOmega}\Omega_n =& a_n W (\epsilon_{n-1} D_{q,x} p_n - p_{n-1} D_{q,x} \epsilon_n) \\
& \hspace{.5cm} + a_nV (p_n\epsilon_{n-1} + p_{n-1}\epsilon_n) - 2V x(1-q) a_n \epsilon_{n-1} D_{q,x} p_n. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Using and $$f = \frac{\phi_{n-1}}{p_n} + \frac{\epsilon_n}{p_n},$$ we find $$W D_{q,x} \left(\frac{\phi_{n-1}}{p_n}\right) - \frac{2V\phi_{n-1}}{p_n} - U = -W D_{q,x}\left( \frac{\epsilon_n}{p_n} \right) + \frac{2V\epsilon_n}{p_n}.$$ This may be expanded to give $$\frac{ W(p_n D_{q,x}\phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-1} D_{q,x} p_n) - 2V\phi_{n-1} \overline{p}_n - Up_n\overline{p}_n}{p_n\overline{p}_n} = \frac{W (\epsilon_n D_{q,x} p_n - p_n D_{q,x} \epsilon_n) + 2V\epsilon_n\overline{p}_n}{p_n\overline{p}_n}.$$ Setting this equal to $\Theta_n/(p_n \overline{p}_n)$ defines $\Theta_n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:thetapolyform}\Theta_n =& W(p_n D_{q,x}\phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-1}D_{q,x} p_n ) - 2V \phi_{n-1}\overline{p}_n - Up_n\overline{p}_n,\\
=& W (\epsilon_n D_{q,x} p_n - p_n D_{q,x} \epsilon_n) + 2V\epsilon_n\overline{p}_n\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ The first expression is a linear combination of polynomials which verifies that $\Theta_n$ is a polynomial for all $n$. The second expression is one in which every occurrence of a $p_n$ or its derivative is multiplied by a factor of $\epsilon_n$ or its derivative. Hence, by , there exists an upper bound for the degree of the polynomial $\Theta_n$ in $x$ that is independent of $n$.
Using the fact that $\Theta_n$ is polynomial and $$\label{eq4:anpnrelation}
a_n\phi_{n-1}p_{n-1} - a_n\phi_{n-2}p_n = 1,$$ we have $$(a_n\phi_{n-1}p_{n-1} - a_n\phi_{n-2}p_n)\Theta_n = W(p_n D_{q,x}\phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-1}D_{q,x} p_n ) - 2V \phi_{n-1}\overline{p}_n - Up_n\overline{p}_n.$$ By appropriately equating factors divisible by $\phi_{n-1}$ on one side and factors divisible by $p_n$ on the other side, we let $\Omega_n$ be the common factor by writing $$\begin{aligned}
p_n \phi_{n-1} \Omega_n =& \phi_{n-1}\left( a_n\Theta_n p_{n-1} + (W - 2Vx(1-q))D_{q,x} p_n + Vp_n \right),\\
=& p_n \left( a_n \phi_{n-2} \Theta_n + WD_{q,x} \phi_{n-1} - V \phi_{n-1} - U \overline{p}_n\right).\end{aligned}$$ The first equality is a rearrangement of the required $q$-difference equation for $p_n$. The second expression for $\Omega_n$ is equivalent to $$\label{eq3:diffphi}
\Omega_n = \frac{a_n\phi_{n-2}\Theta_n}{\phi_{n-1}} + \frac{W D_{q,x} \phi_{n-1}}{\phi_{n-1}} - V - \frac{U\overline{p}_n}{\phi_{n-1}}.$$ We use the expression for $\Theta_n$ in terms of $\phi_{n-1}$ and $p_n$ to give $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_n =& \frac{ W a_n\phi_{n-2}p_n D_{q,x} \phi_{n-1} }{\phi_{n-1}} - \frac{ W a_n\phi_{n-2}\phi_{n-1}D_{q,x} p_n }{\phi_{n-1}} - \frac{ 2V a_n\phi_{n-2} \phi_{n-1}\overline{p}_n }{\phi_{n-1}}\\
& - \frac{ U a_n\phi_{n-2}p_n\overline{p}_n }{\phi_{n-1}} + \frac{W D_{q,x} \phi_{n-1}}{\phi_{n-1}} - V - \frac{U\overline{p}_n}{\phi_{n-1}},\end{aligned}$$ which, by using the equality $a_n p_n\phi_{n-2} = a_n p_{n-1} \phi_{n-1}-1$ to eliminate occurrences of $\phi_{n-2}$, is equivalent to $$\Omega_n = a_n W (p_{n-1} D_{q,x} \phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-2} D_{q,x} p_n) - V( 2a_n\phi_{n-2} \overline{p}_n + 1) - U a_n p_{n-1}\overline{p}_n.$$ This expresses $\Omega_n$ as a linear combination of polynomials and hence $\Omega_n$ is a polynomial. To obtain the large $x$ expansion, by dividing the first expression for $\Omega_n$ by $\phi_{n-1}p_n$ we have $$\label{eq3:omegaworking}
\Omega_n = \frac{a_np_{n-1}\Theta_n}{p_n} + \frac{WD_{q,x} p_n}{p_n} + V - \frac{2x(1-q)VD_{q,x}p_n}{p_n}.$$ Using , we find that $\Omega_n$ may be written as $$\Omega_n = \frac{a_np_{n-1}W\epsilon_n D_{q,x} p_n}{p_n}- \frac{a_n
Wp_{n-1}p_n D_{q,x}\epsilon_n}{p_n} + \frac{2a_np_{n-1}V \epsilon_n \overline{p}_n}{p_n}+
\frac{WD_{q,x} p_n}{p_n} + V - \frac{2x(1-q)VD_{q,x}p_n}{p_n}.$$ Using to cancel the factors of $p_{n-1}$ gives .
A rearrangement of is $$(W - 2x(1-q)V)D_{q,x} p_n = (\Omega_{n}-V)p_n - a_n \Theta_n p_{n-1},$$ where $\Omega_n$ and $\Theta_n$ are given by and . Mapping $ n \to n-1 $ in this relation and expressing $p_{n-2}$ in terms of $p_n$ and $p_{n-1}$ gives $$(W - 2x(1-q)V)D_{q,x} p_{n-1} = a_n\Theta_{n-1}p_n + (\Omega_{n-1} - V - (x-b_{n-1})\Theta_{n-1}) p_{n-1},$$ showing that the orthogonal polynomials form a column vector solution of .
To see that $\epsilon_n/w$ satisfies the same $q$-difference equation, we consider $W D_{q,x} \phi_{n-1} + WD_{q,x}\epsilon_n= WD_{q,x}(fp_n)$, which we reformulate as $$\begin{aligned}
WD_{q,x}\phi_{n-1} + WD_{q,x} \epsilon_n =& W\overline{p}_n D_{q,x} f + W f D_{q,x} p_n, \\
=& 2Vf\overline{p}_n + U\overline{p}_n + f\left( (\Omega_n-V)p_n - a_n\Theta_np_{n-1} + 2Vp_n - 2V\overline{p}_n\right), \\
=& \left[ U\overline{p}_n + (\Omega_n + V) \phi_{n-1} - a_n\Theta_n\phi_{n-2}\right] + \left[ (\Omega_n + V) \epsilon_n - a_n\Theta_n \epsilon_{n-1} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Hence by subtracting $WD_{q,x}\phi_{n-1}$, defined by , we find $$W D_{q,x} \epsilon_n = (\Omega_n+V)\epsilon_n - a_n\Theta_n \epsilon_{n-1},$$ and from this $$\begin{aligned}
D_{q,x}\left( \frac{\epsilon_n}{w}\right) =& \frac{wD_{q,x}\epsilon_n - \epsilon_n D_{q,x} w}{w \overline{w}},\\
=& \frac{ \frac{\displaystyle (\Omega_n+V)\epsilon_n - a_n\Theta_n \epsilon_{n-1}}{\displaystyle W}
- \frac{\displaystyle 2V\epsilon_n}{\displaystyle W}}{w\left(1-2x(1-q)\frac{\displaystyle 2V}{\displaystyle W}\right)},\\
=& \frac{(\Omega_n - V) \frac{\displaystyle \epsilon_n}{\displaystyle w}
- a_n\Theta_n \frac{\displaystyle \epsilon_{n-1}}{\displaystyle w}}{W - 2x(1-q)V},\end{aligned}$$ while the shift $n \to n-1$ and gives the compatible evolution equation for $\epsilon_{n-1}/w$.
Since $p_n$ is of degree $n$ and the leading order term of $\epsilon_n$ about $ x=\infty $ is $x^{-n-1}$, we immediately obtain upper bounds for the degrees of $\Theta_n$ and $\Omega_n$ [@Magnus88]
\[eq3:degthetaomega\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3:degtheta}\deg{\Theta_n} \leq& \max(\deg W-1, \deg V -2 ,0),\\
\label{eq3:degomega}\deg{\Omega_n} \leq& \max(\deg W, \deg V -1 ,0).\end{aligned}$$
It follows that knowledge of $W$ and $V$ may be used in conjunction with to determine $\Omega_n$ and $\Theta_n$ in terms of sums and products of the $a_i$ and $b_i$.
We remark that can be rewritten in a manner more familiar in the context of connection matrices where $Y_n$ is a solution of the linear $q$-difference equation $$\label{eq4:altdiffx}
Y_n(qx) = (I - x(1-q)A_n)Y_n(x) = \tilde{A}_nY_n(x).$$ As revised in Section 3, under appropriate conditions on $\tilde{A}_n$ established by Carmichael [@Carmichael:General], or the more general conditions of Adams [@Adams:General], this equation permits two fundamental solutions: $Y_{\infty,n}$ and $Y_{0,n}$. We form the connection matrix by using the fundamental solutions of in $$\label{eq4:orthconnection}
P_n(x) = (Y_{\infty,n}(x))^{-1} Y_{0,n}(x).$$ Solutions of also satisfy and so the transformation $n \to n+1$ is a connection preserving deformation. This also implies that the connection matrix is independent of the consecutive polynomials chosen in the orthogonal system. Therefore the connection matrix is an invariant of the orthogonal polynomial system.
In further specifying the evolution in $x$ for $Y_n$, we have a compatibility relation between the evolution in $x$ and the evolution in $n$. This compatibility relation, defined by equating the two ways of evaluating $D_{q,x}Y_{n+1}$, namely $D_{q,x} M_n Y_n = A_{n+1} M_n Y_n$, results in the condition $$\label{eq3:compxn}
M_n(qx)A_n(x) + D_{q,x}M_n(x) = A_{n+1}(x)M_n(x).$$ The entries of the first row are equivalent to the recurrence relations of Magnus [@Magnus88; @Kh_2003]
\[eq3:Fruedx\] $$\begin{aligned}
(x-b_n)(\Omega_{n+1} - \Omega_n) =& W - x(1-q)(\Omega_n+V) - a_n^2 \Theta_{n-1} + a_{n+1}^2 \Theta_{n+1}, \\
\Omega_{n-1} - \Omega_{n+1} =& (x-b_{n-1})\Theta_{n-1} - (qx-b_n)\Theta_n.\end{aligned}$$
Using the relation we find $$\label{eq3:determinantofYn}
\det Y_n = \frac{p_n\epsilon_{n-1} - p_{n-1}\epsilon_n}{w}= \frac{1}{a_nw}.$$ From this we may deduce $$\label{eq3:detAntilde}
\det(I - x(1-q)A_n) = \frac{\det Y_n(qx)}{\det Y_n(x)} = \frac{w(x)}{w(qx)} = \frac{W(x)}{W(x) - 2x(1-q)V(x)},$$ or equivalently $$x(1-q)\det A_n - \mathrm{Tr} A_n = \frac{2V}{W-2x(1-q)V},$$ and these in turn imply the additional recurrence relation $$\label{eq3:detrelinomega}
x(1-q)\left(\Omega_n^2 - V^2 - a_n^2 \Theta_n \Theta_{n-1}\right) = ((x-b_{n-1})\Theta_{n-1} - \Omega_{n-1} - \Omega_n)(W - x(1-q)(\Omega_n+V)).$$
The compatibility between the evolution in $x$ and $n$ for more general orthogonal polynomials has given rise to associated linear problems for discrete Painlevé equations [@Nijhoff; @VanAssche]. Many of these associated linear problems are differential-difference systems [@Its]. That is to say that the evolution in $x$ is defined by a differential equation, while the evolution of $n$ is discrete. The first occurrence of a discrete Painlevé equation in the literature is thought to have been deduced in this manner [@Shohat:Orth].
The $2\times 2$ linear problem derived for orthogonal polynomials is one in which the coefficient matrix, $\tilde{A}_n(x)$, is rational. If we follow the theory of connection matrices, we apply a transformation that relates the linear problem in which $\tilde{A}_n$ is rational to another linear problem in which the coefficient matrix is polynomial. With respect to Birkhoff theory and , the coefficient matrix obeys the proportionality constraint $$\det{A} \propto W(W - 2x(1-q)V).$$ That is to say that when referring to the connection matrix for orthogonal polynomial systems, we do not distinguish between the roots and the poles of the determinant of the linear problem.
$q$-difference equation in $t$
------------------------------
We now turn to the new direction that we wish to present. It is at this point we let $w(x) = w(x,t)$, and hence consider polynomials which are both functions of $x$ and $t$. For functions $f(x,t)$ with two independent parameters we will adopt the notation $$\begin{gathered}
\overline{f} = \overline{f(x,t)} = f(qx,t),\\
\hat{f} = \widehat{f(x,t)} = f(x,qt).\end{gathered}$$ We distinguish a base case in which $\deg \Theta_n = 0$ and $\deg \Omega_n = 1$, corresponding to $\deg V = 1$ and $\deg W = 2$, as being completely solvable and a case in which the connection matrix is known [@LeCaine1943]. However by suitably adjoining $q$-exponential factors that depend simply on $t$ to the numerator or denominator of $w(x)$ we introduce roots or poles into $w(qx)/w(x)$. This has the effect of increasing up the degree of $W(x)$ and $V(x)$. Furthermore it imposes a rational character on the logarithmic $q$-derivative of $w$ with respect to $t$ : $$\label{eq3:weightrationaltderive}
R(x,t) D_{q,t} w(x,t) = 2 S(x,t) w(x,t),$$ where $R(x,t)$ and $S(x,t)$ are polynomials in $x$. These cannot be arbitrary polynomials in $x$ as there is an implied compatibility condition. This arises because there are two ways of calculating the mixed derivatives of $w$, namely $D_{q,x}D_{q,t}w(x,t)$ and $D_{q,t}D_{q,x} w(x,t)$, the equality of which imposes the constraint $$\label{eq3:compWVRS}
\frac{2\hat{V}}{\hat{W}} \frac{2S}{R} - \frac{2\overline{S}}{\overline{R}}\frac{2V}{W} = D_{q,x} \frac{2S}{R} - D_{q,t} \frac{2V}{W}.$$ A consequence of is the following companion result to Lemma \[lem:Dqxf\].
\[lem:Dqtf\] The Stieltjes function, $f$, satisfies the $q$-difference equation $$\label{eq2:StiltjerqDifft}
RD_{q,t}f = 2Sf+ T,$$ where $T(x,t)$ is polynomial such that $\deg_x T < \deg_x S$.
Another compatibility relation is implied by $D_{q,t}D_{q,x} f = D_{q,x}D_{q,t} f$ in conjunction with and . This relation can be stated as $$\label{eq4:Tcomp}
\frac{2\hat{V}}{\hat{W}}\frac{T}{R} - \frac{2\overline{S}}{\overline{R}}\frac{U}{W} = D_{q,x} \frac{T}{R} - D_{q,t} \frac{U}{W}.$$ When and are satisfied a companion result to Theorem \[thm:Dqxpn\] can be stated.
\[thm:Dqtpn\] The matrix $Y_n$ is a solution to $$\label{eq2:lineart}
D_{q,t}Y_n = B_n Y_n,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:Bform}
B_n =\frac{1}{(R - 2t(1-q)S)} \begin{pmatrix}
\Psi_n - S & -a_n \Phi_n \\
a_n \Phi_{n-1} & \Psi_{n-1} - S - (x-b_{n-1})\Phi_{n-1}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$ polynomials in $x$ specified by
\[eq2:defPhiPsi\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2:defPhi}\Phi_n =& R\left( \epsilon_n D_{q,t} p_n - p_n D_{q,t} \epsilon_n \right) + 2S \epsilon_n \hat{p}_n ,\\
\label{eq2:defPsi}\Psi_n =& a_n R_n ( \epsilon_{n-1} D_{q,t} p_n - p_{n-1} D_{q,t} \epsilon_n ) + S ( 2a_n\epsilon_{n-1} \hat{p}_n - 1).\end{aligned}$$
Our strategy is to adapt the proof of Theorem \[thm:Dqxpn\] to the $D_{q,t}$ operator. Using $R D_{q,t} f = 2 S f + T$ and $f = \frac{\phi_{n-1}}{p_n} + \frac{\epsilon_n}{p_n}$ we have $$R D_{q,t} f = R D_{q,t}\left( \frac{\phi_{n-1}}{p_n} + \frac{\epsilon_n}{p_n}\right) = 2S \frac{\phi_{n-1} + \epsilon_n}{p_n} + T.$$ This suggests that we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:Phipolyform}\Phi_n =& R\left( p_n D_{q,t} \phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-1} D_{q,t} p_n \right) - 2S\phi_{n-1} \hat{p}_n - T p_n \hat{p}_n, \\
=& R\left( \epsilon_n D_{q,t} p_n - p_n D_{q,t} \epsilon_n \right) + 2S \epsilon_n \hat{p}_n. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Expression tells us $\Phi_n$ is a polynomial in $x$ while implies a bound on the degree.
Using and we arrive at $$a_n(p_{n-1}\phi_{n-1} - p_n \phi_{n-2})\Phi_n = R\left( p_n D_{q,t} \phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-1} D_{q,t} p_n \right) - 2S\phi_{n-1} \hat{p}_n - T p_n \hat{p}_n.$$ By splitting this expression into terms divisible by $\phi_{n-1}$ and $p_n$, we arrive at an equality that defines $\Psi_n$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{n-1}p_n \Psi_n =& \phi_{n-1}\left( a_n p_{n-1} \Phi_n + (R - 2t(1-q)S)D_{q,t} p_n + S p_n \right), \\
=& p_n \left( a_n \phi_{n-2} \Phi_n + RD_{q,t} \phi_{n-1} - S \phi_{n-1} - T \hat{p}_n \right).\end{aligned}$$ The first line is just a rearrangement of the required $q$-difference equation, in $t$, for $p_n$. The second expression is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_n =& \frac{a_n \phi_{n-2} \Phi_n}{\phi_{n-1}} + \frac{RD_{q,t} \phi_{n-1}}{\phi_{n-1}} - S - \frac{T \hat{p}_n}{\phi_{n-1}},\\
=& \frac{Ra_n \phi_{n-2}p_nD_{q,t} \phi_{n-1}}{\phi_{n-1}} - \frac{Ra_n \phi_{n-2}\phi_{n-1}D_{q,t}p_n}{\phi_{n-1}} - \frac{2Sa_n \phi_{n-2}\phi_{n-1}\hat{p}_n}{\phi_{n-1}}\\
& - \frac{Ta_n \phi_{n-2}p_n \hat{p}_n }{\phi_{n-1}} + \frac{RD_{q,t}\phi_{n-1}}{\phi_{n-1}} - S - \frac{T \hat{p}_n}{\phi_{n-1}},\\
=& a_nR(p_{n-1} D_{q,t}\phi_{n-1} - \phi_{n-2}D_{q,t}p_n) - S(2a_n\phi_{n-2} \hat{p}_n - 1) - a_nT p_{n-1} \hat{p}_n.\end{aligned}$$ We remark that this, being a linear combination of polynomials, implies $\Psi_n$ is a polynomial in $x$. Using in the first expression for $\Psi_n$ allows us to write $$\Psi_n = \frac{R a_n p_{n-1}\epsilon_n D_{q,t} p_n}{p_n} - R a_n p_{n-1} D_{q,t} \epsilon_n +
\frac{2S a_n p_{n-1}\epsilon_n \hat{p}_n}{p_n} + \frac{RD_{q,t}p_n}{p_n} - \frac{2t(1-q)S D_{q,t} p_n}{p_n} + S ,$$ which upon noting $a_np_{n-1}\epsilon_n = a_n p_n \epsilon_{n-1} - 1$ implies .
The working to date shows $$(R- 2t(1-q)S)D_{q,t}p_n = (\Psi_n - S)p_n - a_n\Phi_n p_{n-1}.$$ Replacing $n$ by $n-1$ in this expression, then using to express $p_{n-2}$ in terms of $p_n$ and $p_{n-1}$, establishes that $p_n$ and $p_{n-1}$ form a column vector solution of .
The derivation of the $q$-difference equation in $t$ for $\epsilon_n / w$ may also be derived in an analogous manner to the proof of Theorem \[thm:Dqxpn\], so we refrain from the giving the details.
We note that $D_{q,t}$ does not necessarily alter the degree in $x$, hence, the upper bounds for the degrees of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are given by
\[eq3:degPhiPsi\] $$\begin{aligned}
\deg_x \Phi_n \leq& \max(\deg_x S-1, \deg_x R-1,0 ), \\
\deg_x \Psi_n \leq& \max(\deg_x S, \deg_x R,0 ).\end{aligned}$$
Further to this, we may use to determine coefficients in terms of the $a_i$ and $b_i$.
Equation may be rewritten in the context of connection preserving deformations to read $$\label{eq4:altdifft}
Y_n(x,qt) = (I - t(1-q)B_n(x,t))Y_n = \tilde{B}_n(x,t) Y_n(x,t).$$ We use this relation and to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
P_n(x,q t) =& (Y_{\infty,n}(x,q t))^{-1} Y_{0,n}(x,qt),\\
=& (Y_{\infty,n}(x,t))\tilde{B}_n(x,t)^{-1} \tilde{B}_n(x,t) Y_{0,n}(x,t),\\
=& P_n(x,t),\end{aligned}$$ which shows us that the connection is preserved under deformations in $t$.
Since $Y_n$ satisfies and we have a compatibility condition, which follows from a consideration of $D_{q,t}Y_{n+1}$, $$\label{eq3:comptn}
M_n(x,qt)B_n(x,t) + D_{q,t}M_n(x,t) = B_{n+1}(x,t)M_n(x,t).$$ The first row of is equivalent to
\[eq3:Fruedt\] $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{x-b_n}{a_{n+1}} \left[R-(1-q)t(S+\Psi_{n+1})\right] + (1-q)ta_{n+1}\Phi_{n+1} = \\
\hspace{1cm} \frac{x-\hat{b}_n}{\hat{a}_{n+1}}\left[R-(1-q)t(S+\Psi_n)\right] +
\frac{(1-q)ta_n\hat{a}_n\Phi_{n-1}}{\hat{a}_{n+1}}\nonumber, \\
\frac{a_n}{\hat{a}_{n+1}} \left[(1-q)t(x-\hat{b}_n)\Phi_n\right] + \frac{a_n}{a_{n+1}} \left[R-(1-q)t(S+\Psi_{n+1})\right]= \\
\hspace{1cm} \frac{\hat{a}_n}{\hat{a}_{n+1}}\left[R-(1-q)t(S + \Psi_{n-1} - (x-b_{n-1})\Phi_{n-1})\right] \nonumber.\end{gathered}$$
We have an additional relation $$\label{eq3:detBntilde}
\det(I - t(1-q)B_n) = \frac{\det \hat{Y}_n}{\det Y_n} = \frac{a_n w}{\hat{a}_n \hat{w}} = \frac{a_nR}{\hat{a}_n(R - 2t(1-q)S)}.$$ A consequence of this relation is the first order recurrence relation in $n$, given by $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{a}_n \left((q-1) t \left(\Psi _n+S\right)+R\right) \left((q-1)t
\left(\Phi_{n-1}\left(b_{n-1}-x\right)+\Psi_{n-1}+S\right)+R\right)\\
+(q-1)^2 t^2 a_n^2 \Phi _{n-1} \Phi _n \hat{a}_n-R a_n (2 (q-1) S t+R)= 0 . \nonumber \end{gathered}$$
The compatibility condition is naturally paired with . Thus, rewriting these read
\[eq3:compxnttilde\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3:compxntilde} \tilde{A}_{n+1}(x,t) M_n(x,t) =& M_n(qx,t)\tilde{A}_n(x,t),\\
\label{eq3:comptntilde} \tilde{B}_{n+1}(x,t) M_n(x,t) =& M_n(x,qt)\tilde{B}_n(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ A further identity which can be grouped with these follows from the compatibility imposed by the requirement that $D_{q,t}D_{q,x} Y_n = D_{q,x} D_{q,t} Y_n$. One computes $$\label{eq3:compxttilde} \tilde{A}_n(x,qt) \tilde{B}_n(x,t) = \tilde{B}_n(qx,t)\tilde{A}_n(x,t),$$
which is equivalent to (\[eq3:Lax\]).
Deformed little $q$-Jacobi Polynomials
======================================
The little $q$-Jacobi polynomials were introduced by Hahn [@Hahn]. This family of polynomials possesses the orthogonality relation [@askey] $$\int_0^1 \frac{x^{\sigma}(qxb;q)_{\infty}}{(qx;q)_{\infty}} p_i(x) p_j(x)\mathrm{d}_qx = \delta_{ij}.$$ This ratio of two exponential factors may be scaled and chosen appropriately so that the root and pole is at $a_3$ and $a_4$ respectively. We now adjoin two roots that are proportional to $t$, $a_1t$ and $a_2t$, to give the deformed weight $$\label{eq5:weight}
w(x,t) = \frac{x^\sigma\left( \frac{x}{a_1t}, \frac{x}{a_3} ;q\right)_\infty}{\left( \frac{x}{ta_2}, \frac{x}{a_4} ;q\right)_\infty}.$$ In keeping with the notation of [@Sakai:qP6], we trust there is no ambiguity between the terms in the three term recursion relation, $a_n$, and the roots of the determinant, $a_i$. The deformed polynomials associated with satisfy $$L(p_ip_j) = \int_S w(x,t) p_i(x,t)p_j(x,t)d_q x = \delta_{ij}.$$ The set $S$, also called the support of the weight, may begin and end at distinct roots of $w(x,t)$. These include $a_3$, $a_1t$ and $0$. Choosing $a_3$ and $a_1t$ and using allows the moments to be expressed in terms of Heine’s basic hypergeometric function, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_k =& \int_{qa_3}^{qa_1t} \frac{x^{\sigma+k} \left( \frac{x}{a_1t}, \frac{x}{a_3} ;q\right)_\infty}{\left( \frac{x}{ta_2}, \frac{x}{a_4} ;q\right)_\infty} d_q x, \\
=& \frac{(qa_1t)^{\sigma+k+1} (1-q)\left( \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+k+2}}{a_2},q;q\right)_\infty}{\left(q^{\sigma+k+1},\frac{qa_1}{a_2};q\right)_{\infty}} {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+k+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+k+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_1t}{a_4} \right) \\
&+ \frac{(qa_3)^{\sigma+k+1} (1-q)\left( \frac{a_3q^{\sigma+k+2}}{a_4},q;q\right)_\infty}{\left(q^{\sigma+k+1},\frac{qa_3}{a_4};q\right)_{\infty}} {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_2}{a_1} , q^{\sigma+k+1} \\ \frac{a_3q^{\sigma+k+2}}{a_4} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_3}{a_2t} \right). \end{aligned}$$ This allows us to use to express $a_n$ and $b_n$ in terms of determinants of basic hypergeometric functions.
This weight (\[eq5:weight\]) satisfies the equation $$D_{q,x} w(x,t) = \left(\frac{a_2a_4 (x- a_1t)(x- a_3) - q^\sigma a_1a_3(x- a_2t)(x- a_4)}{a_2a_4 (x- a_1t)(x- a_3)x(1-q)}\right)w(x,t).$$ A comparison with reveals that the spectral data polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
W =& a_2a_4(x- a_1t)(x- a_3)x(1-q),\\
2V =& a_2a_4(x- a_1t)(x- a_3) - q^\sigma a_1a_3(x- a_2t)(x- a_4).\end{aligned}$$ Recalling Theorem \[thm:Dqxpn\], it follows that the poles of the linear $q$-difference equation in $x$ satisfied by these polynomials is determined by the polynomial $$W-2x(1-q)V = q^\sigma a_1a_3(x- a_2t)(x- a_4)x(1-q).$$ In the $t$ direction, $w$ satisfies the equation $$D_{q,t}w(x,t) =\left( \frac{a_1(x-qa_2t) - a_2(x-qa_1t)}{a_1(x-qa_2t)t(1-q)}\right) w(x,t).$$ Comparing this expression with shows $$\begin{aligned}
R(x,t) =& a_1(x-qa_2t)t(1-q),\\
2S(x,t) =& a_1(x-qa_2t) - a_2(x-qa_1t).\end{aligned}$$ The appropriate poles of the linear $q$-difference equation in $t$ satisfied by these polynomials is therefore determined by the polynomial $$R- 2t(1-q)S = t(1-q)(x-qa_1t).$$ We remark these explicit forms for $W,V,R$ and $S$ satisfy as they must.
Linear problem
--------------
Since we have an upper bound for $\deg_x\Theta_n, \deg_x\Omega_n, \deg_x\Phi_n$ and $\deg_x\Psi_n$ from and , we parameterize $\Theta_n$, $\Omega_n$, $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$ by
\[eq5:omthphipsdeg\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_n &= \theta_{0,n} + \theta_{1,n} x, \\
\Omega_n &= \omega_{0,n} + \omega_{1,n} x + \omega_{2,n}x^2, \\
\Phi_n &= \phi_{0,n}, \\
\Psi_n &= \psi_{0,n} + \psi_{1,n} x.\end{aligned}$$
This bounds the degree of the relevant polynomial component of the linear $q$-difference equations in $x$ and $t$. Hence the linear $q$-difference equations satisfied by the polynomials may be written in the form and where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}_n = I - x(1-q)A_n &= \frac{\tilde{A}_{0,n} + \tilde{A}_{1,n}x + \tilde{A}_{2,n} x^2}{(x- a_2t)(x- a_4)},\\
\tilde{B}_n = I - t(1-q)B_n &= \frac{\tilde{B}_{0,n} + \tilde{B}_{1,n}x}{(x-qa_1t)},\end{aligned}$$ for some set of $\tilde{A}_{i,n}$ and $\tilde{B}_{i,n}$. According to and , the determinants of these matrices are $$\begin{aligned}
\det \tilde{A}_n &= \frac{a_2a_4(x- a_1t)(x- a_3)}{a_1a_3q^\sigma (x- a_2t)(x- a_4)},\\
\det \tilde{B}_n &= \frac{a_1 a_n \left(x-a_2 q t\right)}{a_2 \left(x-a_1 q t\right) \hat{a}_n}.\end{aligned}$$
At this point, the associated linear $q$-difference equation satisfied by the orthogonal polynomials is one in which the coefficient matrix, $\tilde{A}_n$, is rational rather than polynomial. To relate this formulation to the classical theory of Birkhoff [@Birkhoff:General], or more precisely, Jimbo and Sakai [@Sakai:qP6], we require a gauge transformation that will relate the linear $q$-difference equation in which the coefficient matrix is rational to a linear $q$-difference equation in which the coefficient matrix is polynomial. By considering the associated $q$-difference equation for $Y_n^* = Z_n Y_n$, we note that $Y_n^*$ satisfies the trio of equations
\[eq5:ynstarevol\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5:ynstarevolx}Y_n^*(qx,t) &= \left( \overline{Z}_n(I - x(1-q)A_n) Z_n^{-1} \right) Y_n^* = A_n^* Y_n^*,\\
\label{eq5:ynstarevolt}Y_n^*(x,qt) &= \left( \hat{Z}_n (I - t(1-q)B_n) Z_n^{-1} \right) Y_n^* = B_n^* Y_n^*,\\
\label{eq5:ynstarevoln}Y_{n+1}^* (x,t) &= \left( Z_{n+1} M_n Z_n^{-1} \right) Y_n^* = M_n^* Y_n^*.\end{aligned}$$
By letting $Z_n$ to be proportional to appropriate $q$-exponential factors allows $A_n^*$ to be polynomial. We may also choose $Z_n$ carefully so that $A_n^*$ possesses some desirable properties, such as certain asymptotic characteristics in $x$ and/or $t$, and doing so makes the correspondence to the work of Jimbo and Sakai [@Sakai:qP6] more apparent. Specifically, by choosing $$Z_n(x,t) = \frac{e_{q,a_1a_2a_3a_4tq^\sigma}(x)}{\left( \frac{x}{a_2t},\frac{x}{a_4}; q\right)_\infty } \begin{pmatrix} {\displaystyle \frac{a_2a_4q^{-n}}{e_{q,qa_2}(t)\gamma_n}} & 0 \\ 0 &{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma_{n-1}}{e_{q,qa_1}(t)}} \end{pmatrix},$$ we have that $Y_n^*$ satisfies the $q$-difference equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5:linearAstar} Y_n^*(qx,t) =& (A_{0,n}^* + A_{1,n}^*x + A_{2,n}^* x^2 )Y_n^* = A_n^* Y_n^*, \\
\label{eq5:linearBstar} Y_n^*(x,qt) =& \frac{x(B_{0,n}^* + B_{1,n}^*x)}{(x-qa_1t)(x-qa_2t)}Y_n^* = B_n^* Y_n^*.\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding determinants are given by , and
\[eq5:determinants\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5:detAnstar}\det(A_n^*) =& a_1a_2a_3a_4q^\sigma(x-a_1t)(x-a_2t)(x-a_3)(x-a_4),\\
\label{eq5:detBnstar}\det(B_n^*) =& \frac{t^2x^2}{ (x-q t a_1)(x-qta_2)}.\end{aligned}$$
It will transpire that the form of the coefficient matrices of and is well suited for the purpose of parameterizing the linear problem satisfied by the orthogonal polynomials.
Although specifies a $2\times 2$ linear $q$-difference system in which the determinant of coefficient matrix, given by , has roots that coincide with those found in [@Sakai:qP6], we require two additional properties; firstly that $A_{2,n}^*$ is a constant diagonal matrix and secondly, that $A_{0,n}^*$ is semisimple with eigenvalues proportional to $t$.
An asymptotic expansion of $\Omega_n$ and $\Theta_n$ around $x=\infty$ reveals $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{2,n} =& \frac{a_2a_4 - q^\sigma(2q^n - 1)a_1a_3}{2}, \\
\theta_{1,n} =& \frac{a_2a_4}{q^{n+1}} - q^{n+\sigma} a_1a_3, \\\end{aligned}$$ giving $$\label{eq5:A2nstar}
A_{2,n}^* = \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_1 & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa_2 \end{pmatrix},$$ where $$\kappa_1 = q^{n+\sigma}a_1 a_3,\qquad
\kappa_2 = a_2a_4q^{-n}.$$ This shows that the linear problem possesses the first required property.
To show that $A_{0,n}^*$ has eigenvalues that are proportional to $t$, we first write $A_{0,n}^*$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5:A0nstar1}
A_{0,n}^* = \begin{pmatrix} {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa_1\kappa_2t+ a_1a_2a_3a_4t}{2} -\omega_{0,n}}& {\displaystyle \frac{q \kappa_2 w_n\theta_{0,n}}{\kappa_2-q\kappa_1} }\\
{\displaystyle \frac{a_n^2( q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2)\theta_{0,n-1}}{q\kappa_2w_n} } & {\displaystyle \frac{t\kappa_1\kappa_2+ a_1a_2a_3a_4t}{2} - b_{n-1}\theta_{0,n-1} - \omega_{0,n-1}}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notation $$\label{eq5:wndef}
w_n = \frac{ e_{q,qa_1}(t)(\kappa_2- q\kappa_1)}{qe_{q,qa_2}(t)\gamma_n^2}.$$ We let $\lambda_{1,n}$ and $\lambda_{2,n}$ be the eigenvalues of $A_{0,n}^*$. Utilizing and that $\det(A_n^*(0,t)) = \lambda_{1,n} \lambda_{2,n}$ gives us $$\lambda_{1,n} \lambda_{2,n} = \kappa_1\kappa_2 a_1a_2a_3a_4t^2,$$ revealing that $\hat{\lambda}_{1,n} \hat{\lambda}_{2,n} = q^2\lambda_{1,n} \lambda_{2,n}$. Adding $B_{0,n}^*$ to both sides of the residue of at $x = 0$, namely the relation $$\hat{A}_{0,n}^* B_{0,n}^* = q B_{0,n}^* A_{0,n}^*,$$ and then taking determinants shows $$\det(I+\hat{A}_{0,n}^*) = \det(I+q A_{0,n}^*),$$ revealing $$1 + \hat{\lambda}_{1,n} + \hat{\lambda}_{2,n} + \hat{\lambda}_{1,n}\hat{\lambda}_{2,n} = 1 + q \lambda_{1,n} + q \lambda_{2,n} + q^2 \lambda_{1,n} \lambda_{2,n}.$$ This shows that $\lambda_{1,n} \lambda_{2,n} \propto t^2$ and $\lambda_{1,n} + \lambda_{2,n} \propto t$, hence $\lambda_{1,n}$ and $\lambda_{2,n}$ are proportional to $t$.
A further property of $\lambda_{1,n}$ and $\lambda_{2,n}$, that will be useful later on, is their independence of $n$. The independence of $\kappa_1\kappa_2$’s on $n$ indicates that $\lambda_{1,n}\lambda_{2,n}$ is independent of $n$. However the trace of $A_{0,n}^*$ is $$\kappa_1\kappa_2t\left(1+ \frac{1}{q^{\sigma}}\right) - (\omega_{0,n} + \omega_{0,n-1} + b_{n-1}\theta_{0,n-1}) = \lambda_{1,n} + \lambda_{2,n},$$ which indicates that the constant coefficient of may be expressed in terms of $\lambda_{1,n}$ and $\lambda_{2,n}$ as $$\lambda_{1,n} + \lambda_{2,n} - \lambda_{1,n+1} - \lambda_{2,n+1} = 0.$$ This proves $\lambda_{1,n} + \lambda_{2,n}$ is independent of $n$, hence $\lambda_{1,n}$ and $\lambda_{2,n}$ are independent of $n$. We may now write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5:eigenvalues}
\{\lambda_{1,n},\lambda_{2,n}\} = \{ \theta_1 t,\theta_2 t \},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are constant in $t$ and $n$. These eigenvalues are not free, with an implicit dependence on the $a_i$’s and $\kappa_i$’s and the support chosen.
The additional properties mean that can be cast in a form equivalent to the linear problem studied in [@Sakai:qP6]. Technical achievements in [@Sakai:qP6] are to identify the parameterization of the linear problem which leads to the $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ system. The present orthogonal polynomial setting allows us to perform these steps in a more detailed, and perhaps more systematic manner.
Orthogonal polynomial parameterization
--------------------------------------
Our pathway toward the parameterization of the problem is to make use of the orthogonal polynomial variables. Parameterizations of this sort can be found in previous works [@B03; @B94; @F08; @F98]. However, these works do not provide a systematic way to link up with co-ordinates that specify Painlevé systems.
To begin, using the expansions of $\Omega_n$ and $\Theta_n$, we find
\[eq5:coefficientthetaomega\] $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{1,n} =& \frac{(1-q) \kappa _1}{q}\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i+\kappa _1 \left(a_2 t+a_4\right)-\frac{\kappa _1 \kappa _2 \left(a_2 t+a_4\right)}{2 a_2 a_4}-\frac{1}{2} a_2
a_4 \left(a_1 t+a_3\right),\\
\label{eq5:theta0n} \theta_{0,n} =& \frac{\kappa _1 \left(a_2 q t+a_4 q- q \sum _{i=0}^n b_i+\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i\right)}{q} -\frac{\kappa _2 \left(a_1 q t+a_3 q + q \sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i-\sum _{i=0}^n
b_i\right)}{q^2},\\
\label{eq5:omega0n} \omega_{0,n} =& a_2 t \kappa _1 \left(\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i\right)+ a_4 \kappa _1 \left(\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i\right)- \frac{\kappa _1a_2 t}{q} \left(\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}
b_i\right)- \frac{a_4 \kappa _1}{q} \left(\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i\right) \nonumber \\ & - \kappa _1 \left(\sum _{i=1}^n a_i^2\right)+ \frac{ \kappa _1}{q^2} \sum _{i=1}^{n-1} a_i^2
- \frac{\kappa_1}{q^2} \sum _{i=0}^{n-2} \sum _{j=i+1}^{n-1} b_i b_j - \frac{\kappa _1}{q^2} \sum _{i=0}^{n-1} \sum _{j=i}^{n-1} b_i b_j \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\kappa_1}{q} \left(\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i\right)^2+
\frac{\kappa_2}{q} a_n^2- a_2 a_4 t \kappa _1+\frac{a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 t}{2} +\frac{ t \kappa _1 \kappa _2}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The expansions of $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$ give
\[eq5:phisivals\] $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{1,n} =& \frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+a_2\right) -\frac{a_2 \hat{\gamma}_n}{\gamma_n},\\
\psi_{0,n} =& \frac{a_2 \hat{\gamma}_n \left(\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} \hat{b}_i-\sum _{i=0}^{n-1} b_i+a_1 q t\right)}{\gamma_n}-a_1 a_2 q t,\\
\phi_{0,n} =& \frac{a_1 \gamma_n^2-a_2 \hat{\gamma}_n^2}{\gamma_n \hat{\gamma}_n }.\end{aligned}$$
This specifies a parameterization of the linear problem for $Y_n^*$ in terms of orthogonal polynomial variables. We use the notation $$\label{eq5:Gammadef}
\Gamma_n = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} b_i,$$ which is proportional to the coefficient of $x^{n-1}$ in $p_n$. By combining , , and , $$\label{eq5:A1nstar}
A_{1,n}^* = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{(q-1) \kappa _1\Gamma_n }{q} -\kappa _1 \left(a_2 t+a_4\right) }& \kappa _2 w_n \\
{\displaystyle \frac{a_n^2 \left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) \left(q \kappa _2-\kappa _1\right)}{q^2 \kappa _2 w_n} } &
{\displaystyle -\frac{(q-1) \kappa _2\Gamma_n }{q}-\kappa _2 \left(a_1 t+a_3 \right)}
\end{array}
\right).$$ We make use of the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{trace} A_{0,n}^* =& \theta_1t + \theta_2t,\\
\det A_{0,n}^* =& \theta_1 \theta_2t^2,\end{aligned}$$ which allows to be simplified to $$\label{eq5:preA0nstar}
A_{0,n}^* = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{t\left(a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 + \kappa _1 \kappa _2\right)}{2}}-\omega_{0,n} & {\displaystyle -\frac{q \kappa _2 w_n \theta _{0,n}}{q \kappa _1-\kappa_2}} \\
{ \displaystyle \frac{\left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) a_n^2 \theta _{0,n-1}}{q \kappa _2 w_n} }& \omega _{0,n}-{\displaystyle \frac{ t \left(a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4-2 \left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)+\kappa _1 \kappa _2\right)}{2}}
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $$\theta_{0,n-1} = \frac{\left(a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 t-2 t \theta _1+t \kappa _1 \kappa_2 -2 \omega _{0,n} \right) \left(a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 t-2 t \theta _2+t \kappa _1 \kappa_2-2 \omega _{0,n} \right)}{4 a_n^2 \theta _{0,n}}.$$ We simplify the expression for $A_{0,n}^*$ by introducing the variable $r_n$ so that we may write $A_{0,n}^*$ as $$\label{eq5:A0nstar}
A_{0,n}^* = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\theta _1t+r_n & {\displaystyle -\frac{q \kappa _2 w_n \theta _{0,n}}{q \kappa _1-\kappa _2} } \\
{\displaystyle \frac{\left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) r_n \left(r_n+ \theta _1t- \theta _2t\right)}{q \kappa _2 w_n \theta_{0,n}} } & \theta_2 t - r_n
\end{array}
\right).$$ In relating the coefficient of $x^2$ in $\det A_n^*$ with , we express $r_n$ as $$\begin{gathered}
r_n = -\frac{(q-1) \kappa _1 \kappa _2 \left(a_1 t-a_2 t+a_3-a_4\right)\Gamma_n }{q \left(\kappa _1-\kappa _2\right)}-\frac{(1-q)^2 \kappa _1 \kappa _2
\Gamma_n^2}{q^2 \left(\kappa _1-\kappa _2\right)}\\
-\frac{a_n^2 \left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) \left(q \kappa _2-\kappa
_1\right)}{q^2 \left(\kappa _1-\kappa _2\right)}+\frac{t \left(\theta _2 \kappa _1+\theta _1 \kappa
_2-a_1 a_3 \kappa _2 \kappa _1-a_2 a_4 \kappa _2 \kappa _1\right)}{\kappa _1-\kappa _2}.\end{gathered}$$ Equating with gives an alternate representation of $\omega_{0,n}$ to that of . The equations , and are explicit parameterizations of the linear problem using orthogonal polynomial variables combined with knowledge of the structures and .
We now turn our attention to the parameterization of the linear problem, , involving $B_n^*$. First, upon recalling , it follows from the large $x$ expansion of $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$, as implied by , that $$B_{1,n}^* = -t I.$$ Direct substitution of the values of $\Psi_n$ and $\Phi_n$ from gives $$\label{eq5:B0nstar}
B_{0,n}^* = t\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n+a_1 q t & {\displaystyle \frac{q \kappa _2 \left(\hat{w}_n-w_n\right)}{q \kappa _1-\kappa _2} } \\
{\displaystyle \frac{ \left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) \left(w_n \hat{a}_n^2-a_n^2 \hat{w}_n\right)}{q \kappa _2 w_n \hat{w}_n}} & {\displaystyle \Gamma_n- \hat{\Gamma}_n+ q a_2 t}
\end{array}
\right).$$ This gives us enough information to deduce the evolution of the variables $\gamma_n^2$, $a_n^2$ and $\Gamma_n$, which completes the parameterization of the linear problem in terms of the orthogonal polynomial variables.
Use will be made of , , and as we now proceed to make the correspondence between the above discrete dynamical system and $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ by making a correspondence between the linear systems.
Jimbo-Sakai parameterization
----------------------------
Our primary task is to find expressions for $w_n$, $y_n$ and $z_n$ in terms of $\gamma_n^2$, $a_n^2$ and $b_n$ and vise versa. We have chosen $w_n$ in the previous parameterization, as it is related to $\gamma_n^2$ via , to be the variable that reflects the gauge freedom in both parameterizations of the linear problem. In keeping with earlier remarks, we deduce $$\label{eq5:yztheta}
\theta_{0,n} = \frac{y_n(q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2)}{q},$$ and define variables $z_1$ and $z_2$ according to $$\label{eq5:Aynform}
A_n^*(y_n,t) = \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_1 z_{1} & 0 \\ \ast & \kappa_2z_{2} \end{pmatrix}.$$ Evaluating the determinant at $x=y_n$ reveals $$\label{eq5:zfactors}
z_{1}z_{2} = (y_n- a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)(y_n-a_3)(y_n-a_4).$$ We factorize this into the factors
\[eq3:zvals\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3:zval1}z_{1} =& \frac{(y_n-ta_1)(y_n-ta_2)}{q\kappa_1z_n},\\
\label{eq3:zval2}z_{2} =& (y_n-a_3)(y_n-a_4)q\kappa_1z_n.\end{aligned}$$
The benefit of this particular factorization reveals itself in the proof of Theorem \[thm:qP6\]. It follows from , and that $z_{1}$ and $z_{2}$ may be expressed in terms of $a_n^2$ and $\Gamma_n$ via the expressions
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:z1n}\kappa_1 z_{1} =& -\frac{\kappa _1 \theta _{0,n} \left((q-1) \Gamma_n -q \left(a_2 t+a_4\right)\right)}{\kappa _2-q \kappa _1}+\frac{q^2 \kappa _1 \theta_{0,n}^2}{\left(\kappa _2-q \kappa
_1\right){}^2}+r_n +t \theta _1, \\
\label{eq4:z2n} \kappa_2z_{2} =& \frac{\kappa _2 \theta _{0,n} \left((q-1) \Gamma_n +a_1 q t+a_3 q\right)}{\kappa _2-q \kappa _1}+\frac{q^2 \kappa _2 \theta _{0,n}^2}{\left(\kappa _2-q \kappa
_1\right)^2}-r_n+t \theta _2,\end{aligned}$$
which specifies $z_n$. To be consistent with , the matrix in permits the parameterization [@Sakai:qP6] $$\label{eq5:AS}
A_n^* = \begin{pmatrix}
\kappa_1((x-y_n)(x-\alpha) + z_{1}) & \kappa_2 w_n (x-y_n) \\
{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa_1 (\gamma x + \delta)}{w_n}} & \kappa_2 ((x-y_n)(x-\beta)+z_{2})
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are to be determined. Comparing the upper left entry of with , and shows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:sumbnalpha} \Gamma_n =&\frac{q \left(a_2 t+a_4-y_n-\alpha \right)}{q-1},\\
r_n =& \kappa _1 y_n \alpha +\kappa _1 z_{1}-t \theta _1\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ These substituted into reveal $$\label{eq3:alphaval}
\alpha = \frac{1}{\kappa_1- \kappa_2} \left(\frac{1}{y_n} (( \theta_1 + \theta_2)t - \kappa_1 z_{1} - \kappa_2z_{2}) - \kappa_2((a_1+a_2)t + a_3 + a_4- 2y_n) \right).$$ Conversely, comparing coefficients of the lower-left entry of with , and gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4:sumbnbeta} \Gamma_n =&-\frac{q \left(a_1 t+a_3-y_n-\beta\right)}{q-1},\\
r_n =& -\kappa _2 y_n \beta -\kappa _2 z_{2}+t \theta _2\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ These substituted into show $$\label{eq3:betaval}
\beta = \frac{1}{\kappa_1- \kappa_2} \left(- \frac{1}{y_n} (( \theta_1 + \theta_2)t - \kappa_1 z_{1} - \kappa_2z_{2}) + \kappa_1((a_1+a_2)t + a_3 + a_4- 2y_n) \right).$$ The strategy to be used to specify $\gamma$ and $\delta$ makes use of . By equating the coefficient of $x^2$ of $\det A_n^*$ from with , we have $$\label{eq3:gammaval}
\gamma = z_{1} + z_{2} + (y_n+\alpha)(y_n+\beta) + (\alpha+\beta)y_n - a_1a_2t^2 - (a_1+a_2)(a_3+a_4)t-a_3a_4.$$ A comparison between the coefficient of $x$ in with that of shows $$\label{eq3:deltaval}
\delta = \frac{1}{y_n}\left(a_1a_2a_3a_4t^2 - (\alpha y_n+z_{1})(\beta y_n + z_{2})\right).$$ This concludes our task of parameterizing the linear problem associated with the orthogonal polynomial system with the weight and its correspondence with the parameterization of [@Sakai:qP6]. After completing the task of parameterization of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$, Jimbo and Sakai proceeded to give the coupled equations referred to as $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$. However few details were given there. We shall provide details by making use of a structured form of the $B$ matrix following from the orthogonal polynomial viewpoint. The structured form of the $B$ matrix follows by using the substitutions of and in , giving $$\label{eq4:B0matrix}
B_{0,n}^* = \begin{pmatrix} {\displaystyle qt^2 \left( a_1 + a_2 - D_{q,t}(y_n + \alpha) \right)} & -{\displaystyle \frac{qt\kappa_2(w_n - \hat{w}_n)}{q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2} } \\
{\displaystyle \frac{qt\kappa_1(\hat{w}_n\gamma - w_n \hat{\gamma})}{(\kappa_1-q\kappa_2)w_n\hat{w}_n} } & {\displaystyle qt^2\left( a_1 + a_2 - D_{q,t}(y_n + \beta) \right)} \end{pmatrix}.$$ In addition to (\[eq4:B0matrix\]) a crucial ingredient in our derivation of $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$ are the compatibility conditions . After making the transformation $Y_n^{*} = Z_n Y_n$ these latter conditions read
\[eq5:compxtn\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq5:compxt}A_n^*(x,qt) B_n^*(x,t) = B_n^*(q x,t) A_n^*(x,t),\\
\label{eq5:compxn}A_{n+1}^*(x,t) M_n^*(x,t) = M_n^*(q x,t) A_n^*(x,t),\\
\label{eq5:comptn}B_{n+1}^*(x,t) M_n^*(x,t) = M_n^*(x,q t) B_n^*(x,t).\end{gathered}$$
By evaluating the residue of at $x = a_1t, a_2t, qa_1t,qa_2t$, we obtain the expressions
\[eq5:CompRes1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Res1}(qa_1t B_{1,n}^* + B_{0,n}^*)A_n^*(a_1t,t) =& 0, \\
\label{Res2}(qa_2t B_{1,n}^* + B_{0,n}^*)A_n^*(a_2t,t) =& 0, \end{aligned}$$
\[eq5:CompRes2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Res3} A_n^*(qa_1t,qt)(qa_1t B_{1,n}^* + B_{0,n}^*) =& 0, \\
\label{Res4} A_n^*(qa_2t,qt)(qa_2t B_{1,n}^* + B_{0,n}^*) =& 0 .\end{aligned}$$
By looking at the residue of at $x = 0$, we obtain the additional relation $$\label{eq5:CompRes0}
\hat{A}_{0,n}^* B_{0,n}^* = q B_{0,n}^* A_{0,n}^* .$$
\[thm:qP6\] The compatibility condition, , is equivalent to the evolution equations for $y_n$, $z_n$ and $w_n$ specified by
\[eq5:qP6theta\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5:what}\hat{w}_n &= w_n \frac{(q\kappa_1\hat{z}_n-1)}{\kappa_2\hat{z}_n-1},\\
\label{eq5:zhat}\hat{z}_n z_n &= \frac{(y_n - a_1t)(y_n-ta_2)}{q\kappa_1\kappa_2(y_n-a_3)(y_n-a_4)},\\
\label{eq5:yhat}\hat{y}_n y_n &= \frac{q(\theta_1\hat{z}_n - ta_1a_2)(\theta_2\hat{z}_n - ta_1 a_2)}{a_1a_2(q\kappa_1\hat{z}_n - 1)(\kappa_2 \hat{z}_n - 1)}.\end{aligned}$$
For brevity, we let the parameterization of $B_{0,n}^*$ of be given by $B_{0,n}^* = (b_{ij})_{i,j=1,2}$. The upper right entries of compatibility condition and read $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_2\hat{w}_n(\hat{y}_n- qta_1)(b_{22} - qa_1t^2) &= \kappa_1b_{12} ((qta_1-\hat{y}_n)(qta_1-\hat{\alpha})+\hat{z}_1),\\
\kappa_2\hat{w}_n(\hat{y}_n- qta_2)(b_{22} - qa_2t^2) &= \kappa_1b_{12} ((qta_2-\hat{y}_n)(qta_2-\hat{\alpha})+\hat{z}_1),\end{aligned}$$ which gives us an expression for $b_{12}$ and $b_{22}$. We only require $b_{12}$, which is given by $$b_{12} = \frac{t\kappa_2 \hat{w}_n (\hat{y}_n - qa_1t)(\hat{y}_n - qa_2t)}{\kappa_1((\hat{y}_n - qa_1t)(\hat{y}_n - qa_2t)- \hat{z}_{1})}.$$ Equating this with the upper right element of gives $$-\frac{q(\hat{w}_n-w_n)}{q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2} = \frac{\hat{w}_n (\hat{y}_n - qa_1t)(\hat{y}_n - qa_2t)}{\kappa_1(\hat{z}_{1} - (\hat{y}_n - qa_1t)(\hat{y}_n - qa_2t))}.$$ This evolution equation is simplified using the particular factorization . The structure of the right hand side of the above relation justifies, [*a posteri*]{}, the factorization . The particular form of means the evolution of $w_n$ is equivalent to .
The upper right entries of compatibility condition and read $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_2w_n(y_n-a_1t)(b_{11} - qa_1t^2) &= \kappa_2b_{12} ((ta_1-y_n)(ta_1-\beta)+z_2),\\
\kappa_2w_n(y_n-a_2t)(b_{11} - qa_2t^2) &= \kappa_2b_{12} ((ta_2-y_n)(ta_2-\beta)+z_2),\end{aligned}$$ which we solve in terms of $b_{11}$ and $b_{12}$ to give $$\begin{aligned}
b_{12} =& \frac{qtw_n(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)}{(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)-z_2},\\
\label{b11} b_{11} =& \frac{q t \left(z_2 \left(y_n-\left(a_1+a_2\right) t\right)+\beta \left(a_1 t-y_n\right) \left(a_2 t-y_n\right)\right)}{\left(a_1 t-y_n\right) \left(a_2 t-y_n\right)-z_2}.\end{aligned}$$ We deduce $$\frac{\kappa_2(\hat{w}_n-w_n)}{q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2} = \frac{w_n(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)}{(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)-z_2},$$ which is equivalent to knowing . Comparing with yields $$t \left( a_1 + a_2 + D_{q,t}(y_n + \alpha) \right) = \frac{z_2 \left(y_n-\left(a_1+a_2\right) t\right)+\beta \left(a_1 t-y_n\right) \left(a_2 t-y_n\right)}{\left(a_1 t-y_n\right) \left(a_2 t-y_n\right)-z_2},$$ which is equivalent to knowing and , or the particular Riccati solutions $$\hat{y}_n = \frac{qy_n(1-\kappa_2\hat{z}_n)}{1-q\kappa_2\hat{z}_n},$$ the latter not being satisfied in general. The derivation of the evolution equations is complete.
Full correspondence with the Jimbo and Sakai form is obtained by letting $$a_5 = \frac{a_1a_2}{\theta_1}, \qquad a_6 = \frac{a_1a_2}{\theta_2}, \qquad a_7 = \frac{1}{q\kappa_1}, \qquad a_8 = \frac{1}{\kappa_2},$$ where become $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{z}_n z_n =& \frac{a_7a_8(y_n - a_1t)(y_n-ta_2)}{(y_n-a_3)(y_n-a_4)},\\
\hat{y}_n y_n =& \frac{a_3a_4(\hat{z}_n - a_5t)(\hat{z}_n - a_6t)}{(\hat{z}_n-a_7)(\hat{z}_n - a_8)},\end{aligned}$$ under conditions that $$\frac{a_5a_6}{a_7a_8} = \frac{qa_1a_2}{a_3a_4},$$ as given in [@Sakai:qP6].
We now return to the orthogonal polynomial context for these results. In addition to the three term recursion relation, , in the orthogonal polynomial context gives us another linear problem. The representation of $M_n^*$ following from and is $$\label{eq5:Mnstar}
M_n^* = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{x-b_n}{q}} & {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2 w_n}{q \kappa _1-\kappa _2} }\\
{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2-q \kappa _1}{q \kappa _2 w_n}} & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ This can be used to express the orthogonal polynomial quantity $b_n$ in terms of the natural variables. Considering the coefficient of $x^2$ and $x$ in the upper left and right entries of respectively results in the expression $$\label{eq5:bn}
b_n = \frac{q \left(q \kappa _1 \alpha-\kappa _2 \beta\right)}{q^2 \kappa _1-\kappa _2}.$$ For the orthogonal polynomial quantity $a_n^2$ a comparison of the lower left component of $A_{1,n}^*$ given by and shows $$\label{eq3:antrans}
a_n^2 = \frac{q^2\kappa_1\kappa_2 \gamma}{(q\kappa_1-\kappa_2)(q\kappa_2-\kappa_1)}.$$
One important consequence from this perspective is that the natural variables may be expressed in terms of determinants of the moments. Using and we have $$\label{eq5:detwn}
w_n = \frac{ e_{q,qa_1}(t)(\kappa_2- q\kappa_1)\Delta_{n+1}}{qe_{q,qa_2}(t)\Delta_n}.$$ Using and gives $$\label{eq5:detyn}
y_n = \frac{q\kappa_1 (a_2t+a_4) - \kappa_2(a_1t+a_3)}{q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2} + \frac{\kappa_1-\kappa_2}{q\kappa_1-\kappa_2} \frac{\Sigma_n}{\Delta_n} - \frac{q\kappa_1 - \frac{\kappa_2}{q}}{q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2} \frac{\Sigma_{n+1}}{\Delta_{n+1}}.$$ The simplest determinantal form for $z_n$ comes from the substitution of into the inversion of , which reveals $$\label{eq5:detzn}
z_n = \frac{a_1 \Delta_{n+1} {\underset{\widehat{}}{\Delta}}{}_n - a_2
\Delta_n {\underset{\widehat{}}{\Delta}}{}_{n+1}}{a_1 \kappa _2 \Delta_{n+1} {\underset{\widehat{}}{\Delta}}{}_n -q a_2 \kappa _1 \Delta_n {\underset{\widehat{}}{\Delta}}{}_{n+1}}.$$ These may correspond to known determinantal solutions, such as the Casorati determinants of Sakai [@Sakai:DetSolsqP6], although we are yet to investigate this point.
Bäcklund transformations
------------------------
The linear problem equivalent to the orthogonal polynomials three term recursion, , may be expressed in terms of the natural variables appearing in . Substitution of into gives $$M_n^* = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{q^2 \kappa _1 (x-\alpha)+\kappa _2 (q \beta-x)}{q^3 \kappa _1-q \kappa _2}} & {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2 w_n}{q \kappa _1-\kappa _2} } \\
{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2-q \kappa _1}{q \kappa _2 w_n}} & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ In the context of orthogonal polynomial theory the system of equations describing the evolution of this system in the $n$ direction are known the Laguerre-Freud equations. Moreover, these very recurrence relations in the transformation $n \to n-1$ and $n \to n+1$ represent elements in the group of Bäcklund transformations. Since the group of Bäcklund transformations are of affine Weyl type, the Laguerre-Freud equations are equivalent to a translational component of the extended affine Weyl group of type $D_5^{(1)}$. We represent the $n \to n-1$ translation as $$\label{5.41a}
\left\{ \begin{array}{c c c c} a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & a_4 \\
a_5 & a_6 & a_7 & a_8 \end{array} : y_n \,\, z_n\right\} \to \left\{ \begin{array}{c c c c} a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & a_4 \\
a_5 & a_6 & qa_7 & \frac{a_8}{q} \end{array} : y_{n-1} \,\, z_{n-1}\right\}.$$ The derivation of its explicit form relies on . The lower right entry of shifted $n \to n-1$ at $x = y_{n-1}$ yields the relation $$\label{eq4:yn-1}
y_{n-1} = -\frac{\delta}{\gamma}.$$ By evaluating the upper right entry of shifted by $n \to n-1$ at $x = y_{n-1}$ we obtain $$z_{n-1}=-\frac{(y_{n-1}-y_n) (y_{n-1}-\alpha)+z_{1}}{q \kappa _2 \left(a_4-y_{n-1}\right) \left(y_{n-1}-a_3\right)}.$$ Finally, using to find $w_{n-1}/w_n$ reveals $$w_{n-1} = \frac{w_n(\kappa_1- q\kappa_2)}{a_n^2(q\kappa_1 - \kappa_2)},$$ which expresses $y_{n-1}$, $z_{n-1}$ and $w_{n-1}$ in terms of $y_{n}$, $z_n$ and $w_n$.
A more canonical transformation from the orthogonal polynomial perspective is the transformation corresponding to the shift $n \to n+1$, which is represented by $$\left\{ \begin{array}{c c c c} a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & a_4 \\
a_5 & a_6 & a_7 & a_8 \end{array} : y_n \,\, z_n\right\} \to \left\{ \begin{array}{c c c c} a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & a_4 \\
a_5 & a_6 & \frac{a_7}{q} & q a_8 \end{array} : y_{n+1} \,\, z_{n+1}\right\} .$$ Another viewpoint is that this shift is a $q$-difference analogue of a Schlesinger transformation of the linear system, which induces a Bäcklund transformation of the Painlevé equation[@JimboMiwa2]. The Schlesinger transformation is induced by multiplication on the left by a rational matrix, this rational matrix coincides with $M_n(x)$ for this particular solution of the linear system.
The shift $(y_n, z_n) \to (y_{n+1},z_{n+1})$ is given by
$$\label{znp1} z_{n+1} = \frac{\kappa _2 z_n \left[y_n(a_1 t -y_n)+\zeta_n\right] \left[y_n(a_2 t-y_n)+\zeta_n\right]}{q^2 \kappa _1 \left[\kappa _2 y_n z_n \left(a_3-y_n\right)+\zeta_n\right] \left[\kappa _2 y_n z_n \left(a_4-y_n\right)+\zeta_n\right]},$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ynp1} y_{n+1}&= \frac{\kappa _2 y_n \left(1-\kappa _2 z_n\right)}{q^2 \kappa _1 \left(1-q^2 \kappa
_1 z_{n+1}\right)} \\ \times &\left[ \frac{ \zeta_n -(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)+ {\displaystyle \frac{ z_n(q\theta_1t-\kappa_2a_1a_2t^2)}{1-\kappa_2z_n}}}{\kappa _2 y_n z_n \left(a_3-y_n\right)+\zeta _n }\right]
\left[ \frac{ \zeta_n -(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)+ {\displaystyle \frac{z_n(q\theta_2t-\kappa_2a_1a_2t^2)}{1-\kappa_2z_n}}}{\kappa _2 y_n z_n \left(a_4-y_n\right)+\zeta _n} \right],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{gathered}
(\kappa_2 - q^2\kappa_1)\zeta_n = \kappa_2(y_n-a_1t)(y_n-a_2t)- q^2 \kappa_1\kappa_2(y_n-a_3)(y_n-a_4)z_n\\ + \frac{\kappa_2z_n}{1-\kappa_2z_n} \frac{(t\theta_1 - q\kappa_1a_3a_4)(t\theta_2 - q\kappa_1a_3a_4)}{\kappa_1a_3a_4} .\end{gathered}$$
Using , we note that an alternate way of writing $A_{n+1}^*$ is given by $$\label{2reps}
A_{n+1}^*(x,t) = M_n^*(qx,t)A_n^*(x,t)\left(M_n^*(x,t)\right)^{-1}.$$ Using to represent the top row, and the right hand side of to express the bottom row, we have $$A_{n+1}^* = \begin{pmatrix} q\kappa_1((x-y_{n+1})(x-\tilde{\alpha}) + \tilde{z}_1) & q^{-1}\kappa_2 w_{n+1}(x-y_{n+1})\\
{\displaystyle -\frac{\left(\kappa _2-q \kappa _1\right){}^2 (x-y_n)}{q \kappa _2 w_n}} & \left(x-y_n\right) \left(b_n \left( \kappa _1-q^{-1}\kappa _2\right)- \kappa _1 \alpha +q^{-1}x \kappa _2\right)+ z_1 \kappa _1
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\tilde{z}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}$ denotes $z_1$ and $\alpha$ at $n + 1$. The determinant of $A_{n+1}^*$ at $x = a_1t$ is zero. However, using this representation of $A_{n+1}^*$, the top row is divisible by $(y_{n+1} - a_1t)$ and the bottom row is divisible by $(y_n - a_1t)$. This also applies to the case for $x= a_2t$, hence by equating the determinant of $A_{n+1}^*$ with zero gives two expressions for $w_{n+1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T1}-\left(\frac{y_{n+1}-a_2 t}{z_{n+1}}-q^2 \kappa _1 \left(a_1 t-\tilde{\alpha}\right)\right)\left( \frac{y_n-a_2 t}{ z_n}-\left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) b_n+q \kappa _1 \alpha -a_1 t \kappa _2\right) = \frac{\left(\kappa _2-q \kappa _1\right){}^2 w_{n+1}}{w_n},\\
\label{T2}-\left(\frac{y_{n+1}-a_1 t}{z_{n+1}}-q^2 \kappa _1 \left(a_2 t-\tilde{\alpha}\right)\right)\left( \frac{y_n-a_1 t}{ z_n}-\left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) b_n+q \kappa _1 \alpha-a_2 t \kappa _2\right) = \frac{\left(\kappa _2-q \kappa _1\right){}^2 w_{n+1}}{w_n}.\end{aligned}$$ In a similar manner, we consider the matrix representation of $A_{n+1}^*$ given by $$A_{n+1}^* = \begin{pmatrix} (x-y_n) \left(\kappa _1 (q x-b_n)+q^{-1}\kappa _2 (b_n-q \beta)\right)+\kappa _2 z_2 & q^{-1}\kappa_2 w_{n+1}(x-y_{n+1})\\
{\displaystyle -\frac{\left(\kappa _2-q \kappa _1\right){}^2 (x-y_n)}{q \kappa _2 w_n}} & {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa_2}{q}((x-y_{n+1})(x-\tilde{\beta}) + \tilde{z}_2)}
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has been obtained by using the left hand side of to represent the left column of $A_{n+1}^*$ and the right hand side of to represent the right column of $A_{n+1}^*$. The left and right columns are divisible by $y_n- a_3$ and $y_{n+1}-a_3$ respectively at $x= a_3$. This applies also in the case of $x= a_4$. Hence equating the determinant of this representation of $A_{n+1}^*$ at $x=a_3$ and $x=a_4$ with zero gives two additional equations for $w_{n+1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T3}-\left( z_n(a_4 - y_n) + \frac{b_n}{q}\left(\frac{1}{q\kappa_1}- \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\right)- \frac{\beta}{q\kappa_1} + \frac{a_3}{\kappa_2} \right)\left(z_{n+1} \left(a_4-y_{n+1}\right)+\frac{ a_3-\tilde{\beta}}{q^2\kappa_1}\right) = \frac{1}{q^2}\left(\frac{1}{q\kappa_1} - \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\right)^2 \frac{w_{n+1}}{w_n},\\
\label{T4}-\left(z_n(a_3 - y_n) + \frac{b_n}{q}\left(\frac{1}{q\kappa_1}- \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\right)- \frac{\beta}{q\kappa_1} + \frac{a_4}{\kappa_2} \right) \left(z_{n+1} \left(a_3-y_{n+1}\right)+\frac{ a_4-\tilde{\beta}}{q^2\kappa_1}\right) = \frac{1}{q^2}\left(\frac{1}{q\kappa_1} - \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\right)^2 \frac{w_{n+1}}{w_n}.\end{aligned}$$ Equating the coefficient of $x$ in the upper right entry of with zero reveals $$\tilde{\alpha} + y_{n+1} = \frac{\left(q \kappa _1-\kappa _2\right) b_n+q \left(q \kappa _1 y_n+\kappa _2 \beta\right)}{q^2 \kappa _1},$$ which reduces (\[T1\]-\[T4\]) to expressions for $w_{n+1}$ that are all of degree one in $y_{n+1}$ and $z_{n+1}$. The compatibility between and is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ynp1p} y_{n+1}z_n \left(\kappa _2-q^2 \kappa _1\right)\left(q^2 \kappa _1 z_{n+1}-1\right) =& \frac{a_3 a_4 \kappa _1 \kappa _2 \left(\kappa _2 z_n-q^2 \kappa _1 z_{n+1}\right) \left(a_1 a_2 t-q \theta _1 z_n\right) \left(a_1 a_2 t-q \theta _2 z_n\right)}{\theta _1 \theta _2 y_n
\left(\kappa _2 z_n-1\right)} \\
& - q^2 \kappa _1 \left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right) \left(\left(a_3+a_4\right)
\kappa _2 z_n-\left(a_1+a_2\right) t\right)\nonumber \\ & +q^2 y_n \kappa _1 \left(\kappa _2 z_n-1\right)
\left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as is that of and . Substituting into the equation resulting from the comparison of and the yields . To obtain , we substitute the expressions for $z_{n+1}$, given by , into the right hand side of .
As a preliminary check of the recurrence relations, we may consider the special case in which the support is chosen to be between $0$ and $qa_1t$. In this special case the moments are $$\mu_k = \frac{(qa_1t)^{\sigma+k+1} (1-q)\left( \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+k+2}}{a_2},q;q\right)_\infty}{\left(q^{\sigma+k+1},\frac{qa_1}{a_2};q\right)_{\infty}} {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+k+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+k+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_1t}{a_4} \right).$$ We explicitly compute the eigenvalues of $A_0^*$ to be $$\theta_1 = q^\sigma a_1a_2a_3a_4, \,\, \theta_2 = a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4.$$
Substituting these values of $\mu_k$ into , , and for the $n=0$ case gives us the seed solution $$\begin{aligned}
y_0 &= \frac{a_2 a_4 \left(a_1 t+a_3\right)-a_1 a_3 \left(a_2 t+a_4\right) q^{\sigma +1}}{a_2 a_4-a_1 a_3 q^{\sigma +1}}-\frac{a_1 a_2 t \left(q^{\sigma +1}-1\right)
\left(a_1 a_3 q^{\sigma +2}-a_2 a_4\right) {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+2} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+3}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_1t}{a_4} \right) }{\left(a_1 q^{\sigma
+2}-a_2\right) \left(a_1 a_3 q^{\sigma +1}-a_2 a_4\right){}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_1t}{a_4} \right) },\\
z_0 &= \frac{a_2 q^{-\sigma -1} {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{a_1t}{a_4} \right) -a_1\,\, {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_1t}{a_4} \right) }{a_1 a_2 a_3\,\, {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{a_1t}{a_4} \right) -a_1 a_2 a_4 \,\, {}_2\phi_1 \left(\begin{array}{c |} \frac{a_4}{a_3} , q^{\sigma+1} \\ \frac{a_1q^{\sigma+2}}{a_2} \end{array} \hspace{.1cm} q; \frac{qa_1t}{a_4} \right) }.\end{aligned}$$
As an illustration of the computation content of the recurrence relations and as a check on their veracity, we may compare numerical values of $y_{n+1}$ and $z_{n+1}$ using , , and found by using and from $y_n$ and $z_n$ for generic values of the parameters, $t$ and small values of $n$. Numerical evidence has been obtained to verify that $(y_1,z_1)$, found using , , and , coincides with the values of $(y_1,z_1)$ found by using and from the values of $(y_0,z_0)$ and , , and . In a similar manner, we were also able to test the relationship between $(y_1,z_1)$ and $(y_2,z_2)$ using and compared with values obtained by using , , and .
We remark that the evolution $n \to n+1$ of the linear system corresponding to a deformed version of the Pastro weight supported on the unit circle, which is the circular analogue of the little $q$-Jacobi weight, has recently been obtained by Biane [@Biane:qP6]. The structure of the iterations in $n$ should have a similar structure to other translational components of the affine Weyl group, such as the translational component that coincides with the evolution of $q$-$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{VI}}$. This multiplicative structure is of and is similar to the Bäcklund transformation of Biane [@Biane:qP6]. In the work of Biane [@Biane:qP6], the Bäcklund transformation, representing the shift $n \to n+1$, simultaneously changes one of the eigenvalues of $A_{0,n}^*$ and $A_{2,n}^*$, whereas in our transformation, the eigenvalues of $A_{0,n}^*$ are independent of $n$. The little $q$-Jacobi case has also been studied in [@GK_2009], although in a truncated way. It is clear from this work that the authors have treated a specialized, in the sense that $ t $ is fixed by the parameters, and a degenerate case, whereby the parameters are related by $ a_1a_4 = a_2a_3 $, and consequently have recovered elementary function expressions for the three-term recurrence coefficients.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research was supported in part by the Australian Research Council grant \#DP0881415.
[0]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We formulate a generalized mean-field theory of a mixture of fermionic and bosonic atoms, in which the fermion-boson interaction can be controlled by a Feshbach resonance. The theory correctly accounts for molecular binding energies of the molecules in the two-body limit, in contrast to the most straightforward mean-field theory. Using this theory, we discuss the equilibrium properties of fermionic molecules created from atom pairs in the gas. We also address the formation of molecules when the magnetic field is ramped across the resonance, and present a simple Landau-Zener result for this process.'
author:
- 'D.C.E. Bortolotti'
- 'A.V. Avdeenkov'
- 'J.L. Bohn'
title: 'Generalized Mean Field Approach to a Resonant Bose-Fermi Mixture'
---
introduction
============
The use of magnetic Feshbach resonances to manipulate the interactions in ultracold quantum gases has greatly enriched the study of many-body physics. Notable examples include the crossover between BCS (Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer [@BCS1957]) and BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate [@bose1924; @einstein1924]) superfluidity in ultracold Fermi gases [@regal2003nature_sup; @bartenstein2004cmb; @zwierlein2004cpf], and the “Bose Nova” collapse in Bose gases [@donley2002nature]. Recent experimental developments, [@olsen2004prl_rbk; @zaccanti2006pra_rbk; @stan2004ofr; @ospelkaus:120402; @jin2008; @ketterle2008] have enabled the creation of an ultracold mixture of bosons and fermions, where an interspecies Feshbach resonance may introduce a rich source of new phenomena. From the theoretical point of view, studies of Bose-Fermi mixtures to date have been mostly limited to non resonant physics, focusing mainly on mean field effects in trapped systems [@roth2002mfi; @roth2002sas; @modugno2002cdf; @hu2003ttb; @liu2003fte; @salasnich2007sbd; @pedri2005tdb; @adhikari:043617; @buchler2004psa; @kanamoto2006psf; @adhikari2005fbs], phases in optical lattices [@albus2003mba; @lewenstein2004abf; @roth2004qpa; @sanpera2004afb; @gunter2006bfm; @tit2008],or equilibrium studies of homogeneous gases, focusing mainly on phonon induced superfluidity or beyond-mean-field effects [@bijlsma2000ped; @heiselberg2000iii; @efremov2002pwc; @viverit2002bis; @matera2003fpb; @albus2002qft; @wang2006sct]. Pioneering theoretical work on the resonant gas include Ref. [@powell2005prb], in which a mean-field equilibrium study of the gas is supplemented with a beyond-mean-field analysis of the bosonic depletion; and Ref. [@storozhenko2005pra], where an equilibrium theory is developed using a separable-potentials model.
The aim of this article is to develop and solve a mean-field theory describing an ultracold atomic Bose-Fermi mixture in the presence of an interspecies Feshbach resonance. This goal appears innocuous enough at first sight, since mean-field theories for resonant Bose-Bose [@Timmermans1999prl; @holland2002prl_ramsey] and Fermi-Fermi [@milstein2002pra; @griffin2002prl; @stoof2003joptb] gases exist, and have been studied extensively. In both of these theories, the mean-field approximation consists of considering the bosonic Feshbach molecules as being fully condensed, and this greatly simplifies the treatment, since the Hamiltonian reduces to a standard Bogoliubov-like integrable form [@landau9].
The fundamental difference between these examples and the Bose-Fermi mixtures is that in the latter the Feshbach molecules are fermions, and therefore their center of mass-momentum must be included explicitly. The most obvious mean-field approach consists in considering the atomic Bose gas to be fully condensed. However, as we will show below, resonant molecules are really composed of two bound atoms, which spend their time together vibrating around their center of mass. It follows that outright omission of the bosonic fluctuations of the atoms, disallows the bosonic constituents to oscillate (i.e. fluctuate) at all, and therefore this leads to an improper description of the physics of atom pairs.
This article is organized as follows. In section \[ch3\] we introduce the field theory model used to study Feshbach resonances, describing briefly the parametrization used, and outlining the exact solution of this model in the two-body limit. The section ends with a test of this two-body theory, by comparing the binding and resonance energies predicted by the model and the virtually-exact analogues obtained from two-body close coupling calculations. Section \[ch4\] introduces the simplest mean-field many-body theory of the gas, obtained by disregarding all bosonic fluctuations. The solution of the theory is outlined, and its limitations highlighted. In spite of these limitations, mean-field theory provides a useful language for dealing with the problem, the utility of which will persist even beyond the limits of applicability of the theory itself.
Finally in section \[ch5\] we introduce our generalized mean-field theory, which is, in short, similar to the mean-field theory described in section \[ch4\], but with the notable improvement of using properly renormalized molecules as building blocks, instead of their bare counterparts. This approach is not trivially described in the Hamiltonian formalism, where substituting dressed molecules for free ones would lead to double counting of diagrams. In this section we therefore shift to the Green-function/path-integral language, where this double-counting can be avoided quite easily. Finally we proceed to the numerical solution of this theory, and note that for narrow resonances the results are consistent with their mean-field equivalents. This encourages us to develop a simple theory to study the molecular formation via magnetic field ramps, and, using an approach based on the Landau-Zener formalism [@lz1; @lz2], we derive analytic expressions in section \[ch6\].
Throughout this article, we work with zero temperature gases, in the free space thermodynamic limit. These are limitations which render the results obtained here hard to directly compare with experimental results. One of the main possible future directions of this work should include solving the same problem in a trap, and generalization to higher temperatures.
The Model {#ch3}
=========
We are interested primarily in the effects of resonant behavior on the otherwise reasonably understood properties of the system. To this end we use a model which has become standard in the last few years. This model has been useful in studying the effect of resonant scattering in Bose [@holland2002prl_ramsey; @stoof2004pr; @burnett2003pra] and Fermi [@holland2002pra; @stoof2004prl; @gurarie2004prl; @griffin2003pra; @sasha2004jpb; @sasha2005pra] gases. In the case of the bose-fermi mixture, this model has been used in Ref.[@powell2005prb],and [@bortolotti2006jpb; @bortolotti2006sfm]. We refer to these works for further details about the origin and justification of the Hamiltonian we use here, and for details on the solution in the two body regime.
The Hamiltonian for the system reads: $$\label{hamiltonian_gen}
H=H_0+H_I,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_0&=&\sum_p \epsilon_p^F \ \hat{a}_p^{\dagger}\hat{a}_p + \sum_p
\epsilon_p^B \
\hat{b}_p^{\dagger}\hat{b}_p + \sum_p \left( \epsilon_p^M + \nu
\right) \
\hat{c}_p^{\dagger}\hat{c}_p \nonumber \\
&+&{\gamma \over 2 V} \sum_{p,p',q}
\hat{b}_{p-q}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{p'+q}^{\dagger} \hat{b}_{p} \hat{b}_{p'}
\nonumber \\
H_I &=& {V_{bg} \over V} \sum_{p,p',q}
\hat{a}_{p-q}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{p'+q}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{p} \hat{b}_{p'}
\nonumber \\
&+&{g \over
\sqrt{V}}\sum_{q,p}(\hat{c}_q^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{-p+q/2}\hat{b}_{p+q/2} +
h.c.). \nonumber \\
\label{act-bfm}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\hat{a}_p,\hat{b}_p$, are the annihilator operators for, respectively, fermions and bosons, $\hat{c}_p$ is the annihilator operator for the molecular field [@holland2002pra; @sasha2004jpb; @sasha2005pra]; $\gamma = 4\pi a_b /
m_b$ is the interaction term for bosons, where $a_b$ is the boson-boson scattering length; $V_{bg},\nu$, and $g$ are parameters related to the Bose Fermi interaction, yet to be determined; the single particle energies are $\epsilon^{\alpha} = p^2 / 2 m_{\alpha}$, where $m_{\alpha}$ indicates the mass of bosons, fermions, or pairs; and $V$ is the volume of a quantization box with periodic boundary conditions.
The first step is to find the values for $V_{bg},\nu,g$, in terms of measurable parameters. We will, for this purpose, calculate the 2-body T-matrix resulting from the Hamiltonian in Eq. \[act-bfm\]. Integrating the molecular field out of the real time path integral, leads to the following Bose-Fermi interaction Hamiltonian: $$H_I^{2body}={1 \over V} \left( V_{bg} + {g^2 \over E - \nu}\right)
\sum_{p} \hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{-p}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{p}
\hat{b}_{-p}.$$ This expression is represented in center of mass coordinates, and $E$ is the collision energy of the system. From the above equation we read trivially the zero energy scattering amplitude in the saddle point approximation: $$T = (V_{bg} -{g^2\over\nu}),
\label{t2b}$$ which corresponds to the Born approximation (This is akin to identifying the scattering amplitude $f=a_{sc}$ in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, where the interaction term would be ${2
\pi \over m_{bf}} a_{b}$ ). We emphasize that this approximation is only valid in the zero energy limit, and it does not, therefore, describe the correct binding energy as a function of detuning. However, with this approach we obtain an adequate description of the behavior of scattering length as a function of detuning, which allows us to relate the parameters of our theory to experimental observables via the conventional parametrization [@holland2002pra; @stoof2004pr] $$T(B) = {2 \pi \over m_{bf}} a_{bg} \left(1-{\Delta_B
\over (B - B_0)} \right),
\label{e0param}$$ where $a_{bg}$ is the value of the scattering length far from resonance, $\Delta_B$ is the width, in magnetic field, of the resonance, $m_{bf}$ is the reduced mass, and $B_0$ is the field at which the resonance is centered.
The identification of parameters between Eqns., (\[t2b\]) and (\[e0param\]) proceeds as follows: far from resonance, $|B-B_0|
>>\Delta_B$, the interaction is defined by a background scattering length, via $V_{bg}={2 \pi a_{bg} \over m_{bf}}$. To relate magnetic field dependent quantity $B-B_0$ to its energy dependent analog $\nu$, requires defining a parameter $\delta_B=\partial \nu / \partial B$, which may be thought of as a kind of magnetic moment for the molecules. It is worth noting that $\nu$ does not represent the position of the resonance nor the binding energy of the molecules, and that, in general $\delta_B$ is a field-dependent quantity, since the thresholds move quadratically with field, because of nonlinear corrections to the Zeeman effect. For current purposes we identify $\delta_B$ by its behavior far from resonance, where it is approximately constant. Careful calculations of scattering properties using the model in Eq. (\[act-bfm\]), however, leads to the correct Breit-Wigner behavior of the 2-body T-matrix [@newton].
Finally we get the following identifications: $$\begin{aligned}
&V_{bg}={2 \pi a_{bg} \over m_{bf}} \nonumber \\
&g=\sqrt{V_{bg} \delta_B \Delta_B} \nonumber \\
&\nu=\delta_B (B - B_0).\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
Synthesizing the approach descibed in [@bortolotti2006jpb], and diagrammatically represented in Fig. \[2-bdiag1\], we can obtain the exact two-body T-matrix of the system by solving the Dyson equation $$\begin{aligned}
T&=&g D^0 g+g D ^0g\ \Pi \ g D^0 g+g D^0 g\
\Pi \
g D ^0 g\ \Pi \ g D^0g+\cdots \nonumber \\
&=&g D g
\label{dyson2body}\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the T-matrix for the collision, and which has formal solution $$T = g D g={g^2\over ( D^0)^{-1} - g^2 \Pi}.
\label{Dyson}$$
These quantities take the explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
& D^0(E) &=\left({V_{bg}\over g^2}+{1 \over E -\nu} \right) \nonumber \\
& \Pi(E)&=-i \int \ {d\omega \over 2 \pi}{d{\bf p} \over (2 \pi)^3}{1
\over (\hbar \omega - {p^2 \over 2 m_b} + i0^+)}\times \\
\nonumber
&&{1\over (E- \hbar\omega -
{p^2 \over
2 m_f} + i0^+)} \nonumber \\
& & \approx i{ m_{bf}^{3/2}\over \sqrt{2} \pi} \sqrt{E}+{ m_{bf}
\Lambda \over \pi^2},
\label{M-E}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{bf}$ is the boson-fermion reduced mass, and $\Lambda$ is an ultraviolet momentum cutoff needed to hide the unphysical nature of the contact interactions. Note that $D^0$ represents an effective molecular field, accounting for the fermion-boson background interaction, and, as described in detail in [@bortolotti2006jpb], it is obtained by integrating the original molecular field, and performing a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation [@negele] to eliminate the direct boson-fermion interaction in favour of the effective molecular field $D^0$.
Regularization of the theory [@bortolotti2006jpb; @milstein2002pra] is obtained by the substitutions $$\begin{aligned}
&&\bar{V_{bg}}=V_{bg} \left(1 \over 1- {m_{bf} \Lambda V_{bg} \over \pi^2}
\right)\nonumber \\
&&\bar{g}=g \left(1 \over 1- {m_{bf} \Lambda V_{bg} \over \pi^2}
\right)\nonumber \\
&&\bar{\nu}=\nu+\bar{g} g {m_{bf} \Lambda V_{bg} \over \pi^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Finally the two-body T-matrix takes the form $$T(E)=\left[ {1 \over V_{bg} +{g^2 \over E - \nu}}+i{ m_{bf}^{3/2}\over
\sqrt{2} \pi} \sqrt{E} \right]^{-1}.
\label{ch3_tmat}$$
Poles of the T-Matrix: Testing the Model {#ch3_poles}
----------------------------------------
Bound states and resonances of the two-body system are identified in the structure of poles of the T-matrix (Eq.\[ch3\_tmat\]). This is illustrated in Figure \[ch3\_twobody\_poles\], where real and imaginary parts of the poles’ energies are plotted as a function of magnetic field. The resonance portrayed in the figure is the $544.7 G$ resonance present in the $|9/2,-9/2\rangle|1,1\rangle$ state of $ ^{40}$K-$^{87}$Rb. For $B<544.7G$ (corresponding to detunings $\nu<0$) the two-body system possesses a true bound state, whose binding energy is denoted by the solid line. In this case, the pole occurs for real energies. This bound state vanishes as the detuning goes to zero, where the resonance occurs.
For positive detunings, $\nu > 0$, on the other hand, the poles are complex, and the inverse of the imaginary part is proportional to the lifetime of the metastable resonant state.
In this regime, there is no longer a true bound state, but there may be a scattering resonance, indicated in Fig. \[ch3\_twobody\_poles\] by a thick dashed line. This resonance appears for magnetic fields $B>544.7$ for this particular resonance, well before the disappearance of the bound state. This value is highly dependent upon the value of the background potential. We will see in section \[ch5\] that for $V_{bg}=0$, the resonance actually appears at positive detunings. In the case of $^{40}$K-$^{87}$Rb, $V_{bg}<0$, implying that there is a weak potential resonance in the open channel which interferes with the closed-channel resonance, and causes it to cross the axis at negative detunings. For $V_{BG}>0$ ([@unpublished]) the positive background scattering length is set by a bound state in the open channel, which does not affect the resonance states, but which interferes with the bound state at negative detunings.
The thin dashed lines in Fig. \[ch3\_twobody\_poles\] are physically meaningless solutions to the Schrödinger equation, in which the amplitude in the resonant state would grow exponentially in time, rather than decay. These poles do not therefore identify any particular features in the energy-dependent cross section of the atoms, and will not modify the physics of the system. Finally Fig. \[ch3\_twobody\_poles\] contains data obtained from virtually exact close-coupling calculations which show the extent of validity of the model. For the purposes at hand this agreement is sufficient.
It should be noted that the agreement is not as good for positive background scattering length systems, since the open-channel bound state determining this scattering length is not adequately described by the model, which treats the background physics as an essentially zero range interaction. This implies that the relation between the background scattering length and open channel bound-state energy is exactly $E_b=1/2 \mu a_{bg}^2$, while in the physical system this relation depends on the details of the interaction potential. This problem has been addressed in the literature [@kokkelmans2004pra], but no treatable field theory has yet been proposed.
[cccc]{}\
$\hspace{.5cm}B_0 (G)\hspace{.5cm}$ & $\hspace{.5cm}\Delta_B (G)
$ & $\delta_B (K/G) $ & $a_{bg} (a.u.)$\
\[5pt\]\
$492.49$ & $0.134$ & $3.624\times10^{-5}$ & $-176.5$\
\[5pt\] $544.7$ & $3.13$ & $1.576\times10^{-4}$ & $-176.5$\
\[5pt\] $659.2$ & $1.0$ & $2.017 \times 10^{-4}$ & $-176.5$\
Mean-Field Theory {#ch4}
=================
In this section we introduce the many-body physics of the system, by first analyzing it in a mean-field approach. Because of the statistical properties of the system, we will see right away that mean field theory does not recover the correct two body physics in the low density limits. In spite of this substantial weakness, however, the approach has several qualitative features which persist even in the improved theory that we introduce below. Furthermore, since the model is exactly solvable, it will allow us to develop a language which will help us to understand the problem in simpler terms, and to identify some small physical effects, which, when ignored, can greatly simplify the beyond mean-field approach presented in the next section.
The Formalism
-------------
Starting with the Hamiltonian described by equation (\[hamiltonian\_gen\]), we obtain the mean-field Hamiltonian by substituting the boson annihilator $\hat{b}$ by its expectation value $\phi=\langle \hat{b}\rangle$, a complex number. The number operator $\hat{b}_p^{\dagger}\hat{b}_p$ therefore becomes $|\phi|^2=N_b$, where $N_b$ is the number of condensed bosons. The grand canonical Hamiltonian therefore becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonian_mf}
H &=& E_b+\sum_p \left(\epsilon_p^F-\mu_f+V_{bg} n_b\right)
\hat{a}_p^{\dagger}\hat{a}_p \\ \nonumber
&+&\sum_p \left( \epsilon_p^M + \nu -\mu_m
\right) \
\hat{c}_p^{\dagger}\hat{c}_p \\ \nonumber
&+& g \sqrt{n_b}\sum_{p}\left(\hat{c}_p^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p} +
h.c.\right),\end{aligned}$$
where $n_b$ is the density of condensed bosons, $E_b/V = \gamma
n_b^2 -\mu_b n_b$ is the energy per unit volume of the (free) condensed bosons, a constant contribution to the total energy of the system, and $\mu_{(b,f,m)}$ are the chemical potentials. These are Lagrange multipliers that serve to keep the densities constant as we minimize the energy to find the ground state. In the following we will drop the volume term, absorbing it in the definition of the creator/annihilator operators, such that the expected value of the number operator represents a density, instead of a number.
Before proceeding with the analysis of this Hamiltonian, we introduce the set of self-consistent equations we wish to solve. To this end we define the quantities $n_{b(f)}^0$, representing the total density of bosons (fermions) in the system, at detuning $\nu \rightarrow \infty$. At finite detunings some of these atoms will combine into molecules, and the densities will be denoted as $n_{(b,f,m)}$ for bosons, fermions and molecules respectively.
The system, therefore, is described by six quantities, namely three densities and three chemical potentials, which require six equations to determine. These equations, which can be derived by number-conservation constraints and energy minimization arguments, are:
$$\begin{aligned}
&& n_f+n_m-n_f^0=0 \label{eqsc1}\\
&& n_b+n_m-n_b^0=0\label{eqsc2}\\
&& n_f={d \ \Omega \over d\mu_f} \label{eqsc3}\\
&& n_m={d \ \Omega \over d\mu_m} \label{eqsc5}\\
&& {d \Omega \over d \phi}=0 \label{eqsc4}\\
&& \mu_b+\mu_f=\mu_m \label{eqsc6},\end{aligned}$$
where $\Omega=\langle
H\rangle/V$ is the Gibbs free energy. Equations (\[eqsc1\]) and (\[eqsc2\]) follow from the simple counting argument that for every molecule created, there is one less free boson and one less free fermion in the gas. Equations \[eqsc3\], and \[eqsc5\] are simply the Lagrange multiplier constraint equations, equation (\[eqsc4\]) follows from the mean-field approximation, whereby the bosonic field is simply a complex number, and minimization of the energy can therefore be done directly. Finally equation (\[eqsc6\]) is the law of mass action, which follows from the fact that to make a molecule it takes one free atom of each kind.
The next step is to write down $\Omega$ for the system, by taking the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in equation( \[hamiltonian\_mf\]), obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega &=& E_b/V+\sum_p \left(\epsilon_p^F-\mu_f+V_{bg} n_b\right)
\eta_f(p)
\\ \nonumber
&+& \sum_p \left( \epsilon_p^M + \nu -\mu_m
\right)\eta_m(p) \\ \nonumber
&+& 2 g \sqrt{n_b}\sum_{p}\eta_{mf}(p),\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_f(p)=\langle \hat{a}_p^{\dagger}\hat{a}_p\rangle$ and $\eta_m(p)=\langle \hat{c}_p^{\dagger}\hat{c}_p\rangle$ are the fermionic and molecular momentum distributions, $\eta_{mf}(p)=\langle \hat{c}_p^{\dagger}\hat{a}_p\rangle$ is an off-diagonal correlation term arising from the interactions in the system, and the densities are given by $n_{f,m,mf}=\int {dp \over 2
\pi^2} \eta_{f,m,mf}(p)$. Equations \[eqsc1\]-\[eqsc6\] then read
$$\begin{aligned}
&& n_f+n_m-n_f^0=0 \label{2eqsc1}\\
&& n_b+n_m-n_b^0=0\label{2eqsc2}\\
&& n_{f,m,mf}=\int {dp \over 2\pi^2} \eta_{f,m,mf}(p) \label{2eqsc3} \\
&& g\ n_{mf}-\mu_b \sqrt{n_b}+\gamma n_b^{3/2}=0 \label{2eqsc4} \\
&& \mu_b+\mu_f=\mu_m \label{2eqsc5}\end{aligned}$$
The remaining task is now to find expressions to calculate the expected values $\eta_{f,m,mf}(p)$. To this end we follow a Bogoliubov-like approach, similar to that described in [@powell2005prb]. The mean-field Hamiltonian is bilinear in all creation/annihilation operators, which means that it can be diagonalized via a change of basis, whereby introducing the operators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{change_basis}
\hat{\alpha}_p=A_{\alpha} \hat{a}_p+ C_{\alpha} \hat{c}_p \\ \nonumber
\hat{\beta}_p=A_{\beta} \hat{a}_p+ C_{\beta} \hat{c}_p,\end{aligned}$$ for some appropriately chosen coefficients $A_{\alpha,\beta}$ and $B_{\alpha,\beta}$, the Hamiltonian will read $$H'=E_0+\sum_p \lambda_{\alpha}(p) \hat{\alpha}_p^{\dagger}\hat{\alpha}_p+\sum_p \lambda_{\beta}(p)\hat{\beta}_p^{\dagger}\hat{\beta}_p.$$ At this point we note that the Hamiltonian is just a separable sum of free-particle Hamiltonians, where the free particles are fermions, with dispersion relations $\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}(p)$. We can readily write down the distribution $$\eta_{\alpha,\beta}(p)=\Theta(-\lambda_{\beta,\alpha}(p))
\label{etaalphabeta}$$ where $\Theta$ is the step function, and calculate the densities $n_{\alpha,\beta}$. The step function could be replaced by the free Fermi distribution for non-zero temperatures, but the mean-field assumption that all bosons are condensed would no longer hold. If these were ordinary free fermions with dispersion $p^2/2m-\mu$, equation (\[etaalphabeta\]) would reduce to the standard zero-temperature Fermi distribution. We will see below that $\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}(p)$ are dispersion relations of quasi-particles that are a mixture of atoms and molecules.
Below we show how these ideas, together with equation (\[eqsc1\]) - \[eqsc6\], give us the tools we require to calculate the observable atomic and molecular densities as a function of the chemical potentials.
To illustrate more explicitly the diagonalization procedure we define the vectors $$A=\left(\begin{array}{r} \hat{a}_p \\ \hat{c}_p \end{array}\right)\ \ \
A^{\dagger}=(\ \hat{a}_p^{\dagger} \ \ \hat{c}_p^{\dagger}\ ),$$ and $$B=\left(\begin{array}{r} \hat{\alpha}_p \\ \hat{\beta}_p \end{array}\right)\ \ \
B^{\dagger}=(\ \hat{\alpha}_p^{\dagger} \ \ \hat{\beta}_p^{\dagger}\ ),$$ whereby the Hamiltonian can be written as $A^{\dagger}\hat{H} A$, and $B^{\dagger}\hat{H'} B$, where $$\hat{H}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \left(\epsilon_p^F-\mu_f+V_{bg}
n_b\right) & g \sqrt{n_b} \\ g \sqrt{n_b} & \left( \epsilon_p^M +
\nu -\mu_m \right) \end{array} \right),
\label{H_matrix}$$ and $$\hat{H'}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_{\alpha}(p) & 0\\ 0 & \lambda_{\beta}(p) \end{array} \right).$$ Diagonalizing $\hat{H}$, we get the two eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}(p)&=&{h_f(p)+h_m(p)\over 2} \\ \nonumber
&\pm& {1 \over 2}\sqrt{4 g^2 n_b+(h_m(p)-h_f(p))^2},\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $h_f(p)=\left(\epsilon_p^F-\mu_f+V_{bg}n_b\right)$, and $h_m(p)=\left( \epsilon_p^M +\nu -\mu_m \right)$, and the unitary eigenvector matrix $$U=\left( \begin{array}{cc} A_{\alpha} & B_{\alpha} \\ A_{\beta}
& B_{\beta} \end{array} \right).$$ The transformation in eq. \[change\_basis\] can then be written as $A=U^{\dagger}B$, and its inverse $B=UA$.
Our goal now is to write the densities $\eta_{m,f,mf}(p)$ in terms of the known densities $\eta_{\alpha,\beta}(p)$. In component notation, (where $A_i= \hat{a}_p$, etc.), we can write $$\langle A_i^{\dagger}A_l\rangle=\langle B_j^{\dagger}U_{ji}(U^{\dagger})_{lj}B_k\rangle=U_{lj}U^*_{ij}\langle B_j^{\dagger}B_j\rangle,$$ where we have used the fact that since the Hamiltonian is diagonal in the $B$ basis, then $\langle B_j^{\dagger}B_k\rangle=\langle B_j^{\dagger}B_j\rangle\delta_{jk}$.
Using this formalism we obtain the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_f(p)&=&|A_{\alpha}|^2 \eta_{\alpha}(p)+|B_{\alpha}|^2
\eta_{\beta}(p)\\ \nonumber \eta_f(p)&=&|A_{\beta}|^2
\eta_{\alpha}(p)+|B_{\beta}|^2 \eta_{\beta}(p)\\ \nonumber
\eta_{fm}(p)&=&A_{\alpha}^*A_{\beta}\eta_{\alpha}(p)+B_{\alpha}^*B_{\beta}\eta_{\beta}(p).
\label{self-cons}\end{aligned}$$ Using these expressions in conjunction with eqs. \[2eqsc1\]-\[2eqsc5\] will then allow us to compute the equilibrium properties of the system.
This simplified, mean-field version of the solution can only approximately reproduce the energies of atomic and molecular states, as is shown in figure \[mf\_poles\]. In this example, we have assumed a uniform mixture of $^{40}$K and $^{87}$Rb atoms with densities $8.2\times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $4.9 \times 10^{15}$ cm$^{-1}$, respectively. These densities correspond to the central density of each species assuming it is confined to a $100$ Hz spherical trap. Far from the resonance, these energies asymptote to zero (representing the atomic state) and to the detuning (representing the bare molecular state that went into the theory). Near zero detuning, these levels cross owing to the coupling term $g \sqrt{n_b}$ in Eqn. (\[H\_matrix\]). The size of this crossing is therefore larger the larger the bosonic density is. In the crossing region the eigenstates do not clearly represent either atoms or molecules, but linear combinations of the two.
Mean field: noninteracting case {#emf_analres}
-------------------------------
To better understand the structure of the mean-field theory, in this section we detail its results for a [*noninteracting*]{} gas, by setting $g = V_{bg} = \gamma = 0$. We contrast two different physical regimes, based on the ratio of bosons to that of fermions, $r_{bf} \equiv n_b/n_f$.
In the case of high fermion density, we set $r_{bf} = 0.6$, and plot chemical potentials and populations of the various states in Figure \[mu\_free1\]. Consider what happens in an infinitely slow ramp from positive detuning (no molecules) to negative detuning (introducing bound molecular states). For large positive detuing, the fermionic and molecular chemical potentials are the same, since the chemical potential of the condensed bosons vanishes. For large enough detuning, the molecular chemical potential remains below the detuning, so it is energetically unfavorable to make molecules. When the detuning dips below the chemical potential (detuning a in the figure), fermions begin to pair with bosons to make molecules (see populations in lower panel). This process continues until all the bosons are consumed (detuning b), at which point the populations stabilize. For detunings less that this, there remain both fermions and fermionic molecules in the gas, and there are two Fermi surfaces present. Because the internal energy of the molecules continues to diminish at lower detuning, so does the molecular chemical potential. The two Fermi surfaces therefore split from one another, although the relative population of the two fermions is fixed.
By contrast, the case where the bosons outnumber the fermions is shown in Figure \[mu\_free2\], where we have set the density ratio to $r_{bf} = 6$. As in the previous case, no molecules are generated until the detuning drops lower than the chemical potential of the atomic Fermi gas. Since there are enough bosons to turn all the fermions into molecules, there there are no fermionic atoms at sufficiently negative detuning, and the gas possesses only a single Fermi surface. The chemical potential of the remaining bosons is still zero, since these bosons are condensed. Formally, then, the chemical potential for atomic fermions is negative, meaning that their formation at negative detuning is energetically forbidden.
Mean field: interacting case
----------------------------
In most experimental circumstances, the density of bosons is larger than that of fermions, since condensed bosons cluster to the center of the trap, whereas fermions are kept away by Pauli blocking. We therefore focus on this case hereafter, setting the bose and fermi densities to $n_b = 4.9 \times 10^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $n_f = 8.2\times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$. The coupling term $g \sqrt{n_b}$ in equation (\[H\_matrix\]) is the perturbative expansion parameter for the problem, and since it has units of energy, it must be compared with the characteristic non-perturbed energy of the gas, which in this case is $E_f$. Also since in the perturbative expansions it always appears squared (see eq. \[dyson2body\]), we can define the unitless small parameter for the system as $\epsilon_{SM}=g^2 n_b/E_f^2=g^2 n_f/E_f^2 r_{bf}$, For the $492G$ resonance in table \[table\_fesh\], we have $\epsilon_{SM}=6.35\times 10^{-2}
r_{bf}$, and since $r_{bf}=6$, the small parameter is of order $0.1$, appropriate for perturbative treatment.
Figure \[mf\_mu\] shows the equilibrium chemical potentials for the system obtained via a self-consistent solution of equations (\[self-cons\]) and \[2eqsc1\]-\[2eqsc5\]. This figure is qualitatively similar to the corresponding non-interacting result in Fig. \[mu\_free2\], but contains important differences. First, the nonzero boson-boson interaction generates a nonzero bosonic chemical potential $\mu_b$ that breaks the degeneracy between the molecular and fermionic chemical potentials. In physical terms, this means that there is an energy cost in maintaining bosons unpaired, and therefore we need to take this into account in the kinematic analysis. Namely, to make molecules energetically favorable no longer requires a detuning $\nu$ such that $\nu = \mu_f$, but now requires $\nu = \mu_f + \mu_b$. The net result is to shift the chemical potential up and to the left by an amount $\mu_b$, and to shift the molecular population curve to the left by this amount.
A second difference is that molecule creation takes place more gradually as a function of detuning in the interacting case. This is simply the result of the avoided crossing smearing out the molecular energy.
Finally, we exploit the simplicity of the mean field approach to test some approximations that will simplify the beyond-mean-field approach in the next section. These approximations have been tested numerically, and they give corrections of the order of $.1\%$ or less in calculated molecular populations for all regimes of interest here. The approximations are: i) incorporate the boson-boson interaction $\gamma N_b^3$ by shifting the detuning and chemical potential as discussed above; ii) disregard the background scattering between bosons and fermions, i.e., set $V_{bg}=0$, since this interaction is dominated by its resonance part; and iii) disregard the correlation function $\langle\eta_bf(p)\rangle$ ((analogous to the boson polarization operator in the Green function formalism), since its contribution to $\mu_b$ is much smaller than that of $\gamma n_b^3$. It is difficult to directly verify the validity of these approximations in the beyond-mean-field approach. Nevertheless, we expect that these approximations remain valid, since the generalized mean field theory is, after all, a mean-field theory at heart.
Generalized Mean-Field Theory {#ch5}
=============================
In section \[ch4\] we reached the conclusion that the mean-field approach to the resonant Bose-Fermi system does not properly account for the correct two body physics of the system. In this section we wish to improve on this, by introducing a generalization to mean-field theory, via an appropriate renormalization of the molecular propagator, which is able to reproduce the correct two-body physics in the low-density limit. To accomplish this, we will have to abandon the Hamiltonian treatment of the previous section, in favor of a perturbative approach based on the Green’s function formalism, much as was done for two bodies in \[ch3\]. Throughout this section we use the approximations made above, namely, $\gamma n_b^3 = V_{bg} = \langle \eta_b f(p) \rangle = 0$.
We begin by recasting the rn field result from Sec. \[ch4\] in the language of Green functions. The self-consistent Dyson equations that describe this system are $$\begin{aligned}
G^{MF}_F(E,P)&=&G^0_F(E,P)+g^2 n_b \ D^0(E,P)\ G^{MF}_F(E,P)\nonumber \\
D^{MF}(E,P)&=&D^0(E,P)+g^2 n_b \ G^0_F(E,P)\ D^{MF}(E,P),\end{aligned}$$ where the free propagators are simply $$\begin{aligned}
D^0={1\over {\omega}-\xi^M(p)+i \eta \ {\rm sign}(\xi(p))} \nonumber \\
G^0_{F}={1\over {\omega}-\xi^F(p)+i \eta \ {\rm sign}(\xi(p))},
\label{free_many_body}\end{aligned}$$ and $\xi^{M,F}(p)=(\epsilon_p^{M,F}-\mu_{m,f})$ These propagators are described diagrammatically in Fig. \[diags\_mf\]. They represent the fact that a free fermion may encounter a [*condensed*]{} boson and associate with it, temporarily creating a molecule; or that a free molecule may temporarily split into a fermion and a condensed boson. Self-consistency ensures that these processes may be repeated coherently an infinite number of times. We neglect the bosonic renormalization equation $\phi^{MF}=n_b^0+g^2 n_b\
G^0_F(E,P)\ D^0(E,P)$, whereby a condensed boson may pick-up a fermion to create a molecule; this is equivalent to the condition $\langle \eta_b f(p) \rangle= 0$.
Solutions to these equations take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mean_field_green}
G^{MF}_F(E,P)&=&{1\over G^0_F(E,P)^{-1}-g^2 n_b \ D^0(E,P)}\nonumber \\
D^{MF}(E,P)&=&{1\over D^0(E,P)^{-1}-g^2 n_b \ G^0(E,P)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the definitions of $G^0_F(E,P)$ and $D^0(E,P)$ from Eq. \[free\_many\_body\], we can find the poles corresponding to many-body bound states. In this case, it can be shown that the poles are exactly the mean-field eigenvalues $\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}(p)$ from section \[ch3\]. Moreover, the equations (\[mean\_field\_green\]) are symmetric with respect to interchange of $G_F$ and $D$, which implies that both renormalized green functions have the same poles, and the same residues. We can therefore study the properties of the fermions by only looking at the molecules. This is not completely surprising, since, given that the condensed bosons are relatively inert, every molecule corresponds exactly to a missing fermion, and vice-versa.
The most important deficiency of this mean-field approach is that it only allows molecules to decay into a free fermion and a condensed boson, disregarding the possibility that the bosonic byproduct may be noncondensed. We must allow noncondensed bosons somehow, and yet these bosons make a perturbation to the result, as seen by the following argument. The fundamental mean field assumption is that the gas is at zero temperature, and therefore the noncondensed population should be negligible at equilibrium. Furthermore, if a molecule is composed of a zero-momentum boson and a fermion from the Fermi sea, dissociating into a noncondensed boson implies that the outgoing fermion would have momentum lower than the Fermi momentum, an event which Pauli blocking makes quite unlikely. Therefore, if a molecule does indeed decay yielding a non-condensed boson, it should immediately recapture the boson in a virtual process such as that described in Fig. \[2-bdiag1\]. It is only convenient that these events are exactly the kind of events which will correctly renormalize the binding energy of the molecules, leading to a theory which will reproduce the exact two-body resonant physics.
The Dyson equation describing this generalized mean-field theory are: $$\begin{aligned}
G^{GMF}_F(E,P)&=&G^0_F(E,P)+g^2 n_b \ D(E,P)\ G^{GMF}_F(E,P)\nonumber \\
D^{GMF}(E,P)&=&D(E,P)+g^2 n_b \ G^0_F(E,P)\ D^{GMF}(E,P).\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Here we have replaced the free propagator $D^0$ by the renormalized molecular propagator $D$ from equation (\[Dyson\]). A diagrammatic representation of this theory appears in Fig. \[diags\_gmf\]. By analogy with the mean field version, the solution to these equations are: $$\begin{aligned}
G^{GMF}_F(E,P)&=&{1\over G^0_F(E,P)^{-1}-g^2 n_b \ D(E,P)}\nonumber \\
D^{GMF}(E,P)&=&{1\over D(E,P)^{-1}-g^2 n_b \ G^0(E,P)}.\end{aligned}$$ These equations preserve the symmetrical nature of the mean-field theory described above, and also the avoided crossing of atomic and molecular levels. This is demonstrated in Figure \[gmf\_poles\], where we reproduce the $P=k_f$ pole of $D$ from Fig. \[ch3\_twobody\_poles\] as dashed lines. We also present in this figure the corresponding poles for the generalized mean-field theory, as solid lines. As in figure \[mf\_poles\] we note the splitting in two energy levels, avoiding each-other around $\nu=0$. The fundamental difference in this case is that the molecular curve does not asymptote to the bare detuning, but rather to the correct molecular binding and resonance energies.
Studying the equilibrium properties of the system is now a matter solving the self-consistent set of equations (\[2eqsc1\]-\[2eqsc5\]), while setting $\eta_{mf}$ and $\lambda$ equal to zero. To do this we first need to extract the distributions $\eta_{f,m}$ from the Green functions $D^{GMF}$ and $G^{GMF}_F$. To avoid taking a distracting detour here, we refer the reader to appendix \[appGF\] for details. As in the previous section, we will consider a mixture composed of a free gas of fermionic $^{40}K$ atoms, with a density of $8.2\times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$, and a gas of condensed $^{87}Rb$ bosons with density $4.9 \times 10^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$ (corresponding to the respective Thomas-Fermi densities of $10^6$ atoms of either species in the center of a $100Hz$ spherical trap).
Figure \[pop\_narrow\] shows the equilibrium molecular population as a function of detuning, for the $492.5G$ resonance. For the densities assumed, the mean-field parameter $\epsilon_{SM}=g^2
n_b/E_f^2\approx 0.4$ is indeed perturbative. For this narrow resonance, the agreement between mean-field and generalized mean-field is quite good, and we could as easily have used the bare molecular positions to calculate this quantity. However, the situation is completely different for the wide resonance at 544.7G, for which the equilibrium molecular populations are shown in Fig. \[pop\_wide\]. Here the “perturbative” parameter has the value $\epsilon_{SM}=38.7$, and is not perturbative at all. For a given small detuning, the simple mean-field approximation would greatly overestimate the number of molecules in the gas at equilibrium. The more realistic generalized mean field theory accounts for the fact that the actual molecular bound-state energy is higher than the bare detuning. This fact in turn hinders molecular formation, according to chemical potential arguments analogous to those in Sec. \[emf\_analres\].
Molecule Formation {#ch6}
==================
Moving beyond equilibrium properties, we are also interested in the prospects for molecule creation upon ramping a magnetic field across the resonance. In reference [@bortolotti2006jpb], the mean-field equations of motion for the system at hand were derived, as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar {\partial \over \partial t} \phi &=& (V_{bg} \rho_F+\gamma
|\phi|^2) \phi + g \rho_{MF}^* \label{eqr1} \\
\hbar {\partial \over \partial t} \eta_F(p)&=&-2 g \ \Im m (\phi
\eta_{MF}(p))\label{eqr2}\\
\hbar {\partial \over \partial t} \eta_M(p)&=& 2 g \ \Im m (\phi
\eta_{MF}(p))\label{eqr3}\\
i \hbar {\partial \over \partial t} \eta_{MF}(p)&=&\left[\epsilon_p^F-
\epsilon_p^M -\nu+ V_{bg} |\phi|^2\right]
\eta_{MF}(p) - \nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ g
\phi^*\left(\eta_F(p)-\eta_M(p)\right) \label{eqr4},
$$
where $\eta_{F}(p)=\langle \hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{p}\rangle$ is the the fermionic distribution, $\eta_{M}(p)$ its molecular counterpart, and $\rho_{M,F}=\int {dp \over 2 \pi^2} p^2 \eta_{M,F}(p) $ the fermionic and molecular densities. Similarly $ \eta_{MF}(p)=\langle \hat{c}_{p}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{p}\rangle$ and is the distribution for molecule-fermion correlation, with the associated density $\rho_{MF}$.
Reference [@bortolotti2006jpb] outlined the limitations of the non-equilibrium theory, by claiming that to obtain the correct two-body physics in the low-density limit it would be necessary to include three point and possibly higher correlations. While this fact is indeed true, we have amended it in the previous section. For experimentally reasonable parameters, the mean-field theory can be complemented by the correct renormalized propagator to accurately describe the equilibrium properties of the gas. Encouraged by this argument, we now apply it to the problem of a field ramp as well.
In the following we wish to study molecular formation via a time dependent ramp of the magnetic field across the resonance. To this end we use two approaches: the first consists of propagating equations (\[eqr1\]-\[eqr4\]), ramping the detuning linearly in time from a large positive value to a large negative one, and plotting the final molecular population as a function of detuning ramping rate $R$. The second approach consists in noticing that if $\nu(t)$ is a linear function of time, then the mean-field Hamiltonian (eq. \[H\_matrix\]) is ideally suited to a Landau-Zener treatment, whereby the final molecular population as a function of detuning can be readily written as $$n_m/min(n_b,n_f)=1-e^{-R \over \tau}$$ Here $n_m/max(n_b,n_f)$ is the fraction of possible molecules formed, and $R=1 / {\partial B \over \partial t}$ is the inverse ramp rate, and the exponential time constant is given by $\tau={\hbar \delta_B
\over g^2 n_b}={m_{bf} \over h a_{bg} n_b \Delta_B}$, where $a_{bg}$ is the background scattering length, $h$ is Plank’s constant, and $\Delta_B$ is the magnetic field width of the resonance.
Remarkably, the characteristic sweep rate $\tau$ does not depend on the fermionic density. This arises from the fact that in mean-field theory the momentum-states of the fermionic gas are uncoupled, except via the depletion of the condensate. Since in the Landau-Zener approach the depletion is assumed small, it follows that the various fermionic momentum states are considered independently, and thus the probability of transition of the gas is equal to the probability of transition of each individual momentum state. This approximation is only valid for narrow resonances, such as the $492.5G$ resonance in table \[table\_fesh\].
Molecular formation rate versus ramp rate is shown in Figure \[LZ\], for the cases $r_{bf}=6$ (more fermions than bosons) and $r_{bf}=0.6$ (more fermions than bosons. In both cases the Landau-Zener result agrees nearly perfectly with direct numerical integration. This agreement is surprising in the case of more fermions, since the width of the crossing is proportional to density of leftover bosons, and we expect that this number will change substantially as the bosonic population is depleted via the formation of molecules. This type of time dependent crossing should not be properly described by the Landau-Zener formula. However, monitoring the time evolution of the molecular population as a function of time shows that the majority of the transfer takes place quite abruptly somewhat after crossing the zero-detuning region, whereby the change in bosonic density does not modify the energy levels substantially.
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we developed and solved a generalized mean-field theory describing an ultracold atomic Bose-Fermi mixture in the presence of an interspecies Feshbach resonance. The theory is “generalized” in the sense that it correctly incorporates bosonic fluctuations, at least to the level that it reproduces the correct two-body physics in the extreme dilute limit. This theory, like any mean-field theory, presents undeniable limitations. Nevertheless, any useful many-body treatment must start from a well conceived mean-field theory. Future directions of this work should include the generalization to finite temperature, and the inclusion of a trap, initially in a local-density approximation. These advances would be essential to check for empirical confirmation of the theory.
DCEB and JLB acknowledge support from the DOE and the Keck Foundation.
Green Function Methods for Fermions {#appGF}
===================================
In this Appendix we briefly introduce some of the Green function techniques that we found useful in our calculations.
Free Green functions
--------------------
We start from the Green function for a gas of free fermions, which is given, in the frequency-momentum representation by $$G^0(w,{{\bf q}})={1\over {\omega}-\xi({{\bf p}})+i \eta \ {\rm sign}(\xi({{\bf p}}))},$$ where $\xi({{\bf p}})={{\bf p}}^2/2 m -\mu$. The momentum distribution, at equilibrium, is given by $$n({{\bf p}})=- i \lim_{\eta \to 0^+} \int{{d{\omega}\over 2 \pi} e^{i {\omega}\eta}G^0(w,{{\bf q}})},
\label{free_num_int}$$ Here the limit comes from the equilibrium condition; the frequency, in the Green function definition, is the fourier space equivalent of time, whereby the real time green function represents the evolution of the system from from time $t$ to $t'$, and the observables obtained this way, represent expected values of the kind $ \langle
\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t')\rangle$. However, since we want equilibrium conditions, we need to take the limit $t\to t'$, which is non trivial, since $G^0$ is defined by a green function equation of the form $\mathcal{L}\ G^0(t-t')\propto \delta(t-t')$, where $\mathcal{L}$ is some linear operator, and which highlights a peculiar behavior in the limit we desire. However, since we know on physical grounds that observables, such as the momentum distribution, must be defined and well behaved at equilibrium, then by first taking the expectation value integral, and then the limit, we can circumvent the problem. In eq. \[free\_num\_int\] this implies we cannot quite get rid of the fourier transform exponent $e^{i {\omega}(t-t')}$ until after the ${\omega}$ integral.
To perform the integral in \[free\_num\_int\], we exploit the fourier exponent, by noting that since $\eta$ is positive, $e^{i {\omega}\eta}
\to 0$ as ${\omega}\to +i \infty$, so that the integral is identical to a contour integral over the path defined by the real $\omega$ axis, closed in the upper complex $\omega$ plain by an infinite radius semicircle, which, as we have just seen, gives no contribution to the integral. We can now integrate using the residue theorem.
We note that the integrand in \[free\_num\_int\] has a simple pole at ${\omega}=\xi({{\bf p}})-i \eta \ sign(\xi({{\bf p}}))$. Thus, if $\xi({{\bf p}})>0$, then the pole is in the lower complex plane, and the integral vanishes, and if $\xi({{\bf p}})>0$, then the pole is in the upper complex plane, with residue 1. Using the residue theorem, and summarizing these results we finally get $$n({{\bf p}})=\Theta(-\xi({{\bf p}})),$$ which we recognize as the zero temperature fermi distribution.
Interacting Green functions
---------------------------
According to Dyson’s equation, the green function for an interacting system has the form $$G(w,{{\bf q}})={1\over {\omega}-\xi({{\bf p}})- \Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}})},
\label{GFDyson}$$ where $\Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}})$ is an arbitrarily complicated function summarizing all the interactions in the system, which is known as self energy.
The prescription to find $\Sigma$ is quite straightforward, and it consists of adding all amputated connected feynman diagrams for the system. The fact that, in general, the number of such diagrams is infinite, makes this task virtually impossible. Nonetheless, eq. \[GFDyson\] is very powerful, since it allows one to include the effect of infinite subsets of the total number of diagrams in the system, by only having to explicitly calculate a few representative ones.
An alternative standard approach, leads to the exact result (NOTE: Abrikosov measures energy from $\mu$, here we measure from 0, which is more standard.) $$G({\omega},{{\bf p}})=\int_0^\infty{d{\omega}'\left[{A({\omega},{{\bf p}})\over {\omega}-{\omega}'+i
\eta}+{B({\omega},{{\bf p}})\over {\omega}+{\omega}'-i \eta}\right]},
\label{leh}$$ Where $A$ and $B$ are, again, arbitrary complicated functions, though they are known to be finite.
To understand $A$ and $B$ more closely, we need to introduce the following well known identity: $$\lim_{\nu \to 0} {1 \over x \pm i \nu}
=\mathcal{P}{1\over x}\mp i \pi \delta(x),
\label{form}$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ is a Cauchy principal value, which represents the contribution due to a discontinuity in a Riemann sheet (branch cut), and the delta function represents the contribution due to the pole.
Applying \[form\] to \[leh\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{imleh}
&&Re\ G({\omega},{{\bf p}})=\mathcal{P}\int_0^\infty{d{\omega}'\left[{A({\omega},{{\bf p}})\over {\omega}-{\omega}'+i
\eta}+{B({\omega},{{\bf p}})\over {\omega}+{\omega}'-i \eta}\right]} \\
&&Im\ G({\omega},{{\bf p}})=\left\{ \begin{array}{r c c} -\pi A({\omega},{{\bf p}})&if&{\omega}>0 \\
\pi B(-{\omega},{{\bf p}})&if&{\omega}<0 \end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, eq. \[free\_num\_int\] represents a fundamental property of green functions, and it can be generalized to interacting systems simply substituting $G^0$ with $G$. Applying it to eq. \[leh\], and performing the ${\omega}$ integral first, we get $$n({{\bf p}})=\int_0^\infty{d{\omega}' B({\omega},{{\bf p}})}=\int_{-\infty}^{0}{d{\omega}{-1\over \pi}
Im\ G({\omega},{{\bf p}}).
}$$ Introducing the function $\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})=-2 Im G({\omega},{{\bf p}})$, generally called spectral function, the above equation can be written as $$n({{\bf p}})=\int{{d{\omega}\over 2 \pi}\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})\Theta(-{\omega})}.
\label{dist}$$
An important property of the spectral function is that for all ${{\bf p}}$, $$\int{{d{\omega}\over 2 \pi}\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})}=1.$$ This can be understood as a sum rule in the following sense: if we wish to calculate the number of holes in the system, we would take the $\eta \to 0^-$ limit in equation \[free\_num\_int\]. The distribution would then have been $n_{holes}({{\bf p}})=1-n({{\bf p}})=
\int_0^\infty{d{\omega}' A({\omega}',{{\bf p}})}$, so that $ 1=\int_0^\infty{d{\omega}'
\left[ A({\omega}',{{\bf p}})+B({\omega}',{{\bf p}})\right]}= \int{{d{\omega}\over 2
\pi}\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})}$.
Using eq.\[GFDyson\], together with the definition of $\rho$, we can write $$\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})={-2 Im \Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}}) \over
\left[{\omega}-\xi({{\bf p}})-Re\Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}})\right]^2+ \left[Im
\Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}})\right]^2}.$$ Furthermore, if $\Sigma$ were to be real, or if, equivalently, the pole of the green function were to be real, for some momentum ${{\bf p}}$, then taking the limit $Im \Sigma \to 0$ of \[GFDyson\], and using eq,\[form\], we get $$\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})=2 \pi \delta({\omega}-\xi({{\bf p}})-Re\Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}})),$$ which can be simplified, using the properties of the delta function, to $$\rho({\omega},{{\bf p}})=2 \pi Z({{\bf p}}) \delta({\omega}-{\omega}_0({{\bf p}})),
\label{rhoZ}$$ where Z, known as spectral weight is given by $$Z({{\bf p}})={1\over\left|1-{\partial \over \partial
{\omega}}Re\Sigma({\omega},{{\bf p}})\right|_{w={\omega}_0({{\bf p}})}},
\label{Z}$$ and ${\omega}_0({{\bf p}})$ is the pole of the green function, defined by $${\omega}_0({{\bf p}})-\xi({{\bf p}})-\Sigma({\omega}_0({{\bf p}}),{{\bf p}})=0.$$ The momentum distribution in this case is thus given by $$n({{\bf p}})=Z({{\bf p}})\int{\delta({\omega}-{\omega}_0({{\bf p}}))\Theta(-{\omega})}=Z({{\bf p}})\Theta(-{\omega}_0({{\bf p}})).
\label{zdens}$$
[10]{}
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer. , 108(5):1175–1204, Dec 1957.
S.N. Bose. , 26:178–181, 1924.
A. Einstein. , pages 261–267, 1924.
M. Greiner, C.A. Regal, and D.S. Jin. , 426(6966):537–540, 2003.
M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J.H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm. , 92(12):120401, 2004.
MW Zwierlein, CA Stan, CH Schunck, SMF Raupach, AJ Kerman, and W. Ketterle. , 92(12):120403, 2004.
E.A. Donley, N.R. Claussen, S.T. Thompson, and C.E. Wieman. , 2002.
S. Inouye, J. Goldwin, M. L. Olsen, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin. , 93(18):183201, Oct 2004.
Francesca Ferlaino, Chiara D39Errico, Giacomo Roati, Matteo Zaccanti, Massimo Inguscio, Giovanni Modugno, and Andrea Simoni. , 73(4):040702, Apr 2006.
CA Stan, MW Zwierlein, CH Schunck, SMF Raupach, and W. Ketterle. , 93(14):143001, 2004.
J.J.Zirbel, K.-K.Ni, S.Ospelkaus, J.P D’Incao, C.E.Wieman, J.Ye, and D.S.Jin. , 100(11):143201, 2008.
Yong-il Shin, A.Schirotzek, C.H.Schunck, and W.Ketterle , 101(15):070404, 2008.
C. Ospelkaus, S. Ospelkaus, L. Humbert, P. Ernst, K. Sengstock, and K. Bongs. , 97(12):120402, 2006.
R. Roth and H. Feldmeier. , 65(2):21603, 2002.
R. Roth. , 66(1):13614, 2002.
G. Modugno, G. Roati, F. Riboli, F. Ferlaino, R.J. Brecha, and M. Inguscio. 2002.
H. Hu and X.J. Liu. , 68(2):23608, 2003.
X.J. Liu, M. Modugno, and H. Hu. , 68(5):53605, 2003.
L. Salasnich, S.K. Adhikari, and F. Toigo. , 75(2):23616, 2007.
P. Pedri and L. Santos. . , 95(20):200404, 2005.
Sadhan K. Adhikari. , 70(4):043617, 2004.
HP B[ü]{}chler and G. Blatter. , 69(6):63603, 2004.
R. Kanamoto and M. Tsubota. , 96(20):200405, 2006.
S.K. Adhikari. , 72(5):53608, 2005.
A. Albus, F. Illuminati, and J. Eisert. , 68(2):23606, 2003.
M. Lewenstein, L. Santos, MA Baranov, and H. Fehrmann. , 92(5):50401, 2004.
R. Roth and K. Burnett. , 69(2):21601, 2004.
A. Sanpera, A. Kantian, L. Sanchez-Palencia, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Lewenstein. , 93(4):40401, 2004.
K. G[ü]{}nter, T. St[ö]{}ferle, H. Moritz, M. K[ö]{}hl, and T. Esslinger. , 96(18):180402, 2006.
I.Titvinidze, M.Snoek, and W.Hofstetter. , 100(14):100401, 2008.
MJ Bijlsma, BA Heringa, and HTC Stoof. , 61(5):53601, 2000.
H. Heiselberg, CJ Pethick, H. Smith, and L. Viverit. , 85(12):2418–2421, 2000.
DV Efremov and L. Viverit. , 65(13):134519, 2002.
L. Viverit. , 66(2):23605, 2002.
F. Matera. , 68(4):43624, 2003.
AP Albus, SA Gardiner, F. Illuminati, and M. Wilkens. , 65(5):53607, 2002.
D.W. Wang. , 96(14):140404, 2006.
S. Powell, S. Sachdev, and H.P. B[ü]{}chler. , 72(2), 2005.
A. Storozhenko, P. Schuck, T. Suzuki, H. Yabu, and J. Dukelsky. , 71(6):063617, 2005.
Eddy Timmermans, Paolo Tommasini, Mahir Hussein, and Arthur Kerman. , 315:199, 1999.
S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans and M. J. Holland. , 89(18):180401, Oct 2002.
S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, J. N. Milstein, M. L. Chiofalo, R. Walser, and M. J. Holland. , 65(5):053617, May 2002.
Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin. , 89(13):130402, Sep 2002.
RA Duine and HTC Stoof. , 5(2):S212–S218, 2003.
E.M. Lifshitz and L.P. Pitaevskii. . Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.
C Zener. , 137(696), 1932.
L.D. Landau. , 1(89), 1932.
RA Duine and HTC Stoof. , 396(3):115–195, 2004.
Thorsten Köhler, Thomas Gasenzer, and Keith Burnett. , 67(1):013601, Jan 2003.
M. Holland, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, M. L. Chiofalo, and R. Walser. , 87(12):120406, Aug 2001.
GM Falco and HTC Stoof. , 92(13):130401, 2004.
AV Andreev, V. Gurarie, and L. Radzihovsky. , 93(13):130402, 2004.
Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin. , 67(3):33603, 2003.
A.V. Avdeenkov. , 37(1):237–246, 2004.
AV Avdeenkov and JL Bohn. , 71(2):23609, 2005.
D.C.E. Bortolotti, A.V. Avdeenkov, C. Ticknor, and J.L. Bohn. , 39(1):189–203, 2006.
A.V. Avdeenkov, D.C.E. Bortolotti, and J.L. Bohn. , 74(1):12709, 2006.
R.G. Newton. . Courier Dover Publications, 2002.
J.W. Negele and H. Orland. . Addison-Wesley, 1988.
D.C.E. Bortolotti. unpublished, 2006.
B. Marcelis, E. G. M. van Kempen, B. J. Verhaar, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans. , 70(1):012701, Jul 2004.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use on-shell amplitude techniques to study the possible $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrizations of Galileon theories in $3\!+\!1$ dimensions, both in the limit of decoupling from DBI and without. Our results are that (1) the quartic Galileon has a supersymmetrization compatible with Galileon shift symmetry ($\phi \to \phi +c + b_\mu x^\mu$) for the scalar sector and an ordinary shift symmetry ($\psi \to \psi + \xi$) for the fermion sector, and it is unique at least at 6th order in fields, but possibly not beyond; (2) the enhanced “special Galileon” symmetry is incompatible with supersymmetry; (3) there exists a quintic Galileon with a complex scalar preserving Galileon shift symmetry; (4) one cannot supersymmetrize the cubic and quintic Galileon while preserving the Galileon shift symmetry for the complex scalar; and (5) for the quartic and quintic Galileon, we present evidence for a supersymmetrization in which the real Galileon scalar is partnered with an R-axion to form a complex scalar which only has an ordinary shift symmetry.'
address: |
Leinweber Center for Theoretical Physics,\
Randall Laboratory of Physics, Department of Physics,\
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA\
LCTP-1714
author:
- Henriette Elvang
- 'Callum R. T. Jones'
- Marios Hadjiantonis
- Shruti Paranjape
bibliography:
- 'susyGalBib.bib'
title: On the Supersymmetrization of Galileon Theories in Four Dimensions
---
Introduction and Results {#sec:Introduction}
========================
Galileon theories are scalar effective field theories (EFTs) with higher derivative self-interactions of the form \[GalInt\] = ()\^2 + \_[n=3]{}\^[D+1]{} g\_n ()\^2 ()\^[n-2]{}, where $D$ is the spacetime dimension. The couplings $g_n$ are generally independent. The characteristic feature of these models is that despite the higher derivatives, the equations of motion are only second order. As a consequence, the Galileons have a well-defined classical field theory limit, free from Ostrogradski ghosts. This feature is strongly atypical among EFTs and make Galileons attractive for model building in cosmology and beyond. The cubic Galileon originally arose in the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) model [@Dvali:2000hr], but Galileons appear in other contexts too, for example in modifications of gravity [@Nicolis:2008in; @deRham:2010ik; @deRham:2010kj]. Perhaps most significantly, Galileons emerge as subleading terms on effective actions on branes [@deRham:2010eu]. Here we focus on flat branes in Minkowski space, although other embeddings are also of interest [@deRham:2010eu; @Goon:2010xh; @Goon:2011qf].
A flat 3-brane placed in a $4\!+\!1$-dimensional Minkowski bulk will induce a spontaneous breaking of spacetime symmetry: $\text{ISO}(4,1)\rightarrow \text{ISO}(3,1)$. A massless Goldstone mode $\phi$ must appear in the spectrum of the $3\!+\!1$-dimensional world-volume EFT which is physically identified with fluctuations of the brane into the extra dimension. The full $\text{ISO}(4,1)$ symmetry remains a symmetry of the action, and so at leading and next-to-leading order in the derivative expansion the effective action takes the form [@deRham:2010eu] $$\label{DBIGal}
S = \int \text{d}^4x \sqrt{-G} \left[\Lambda^4_2 + \Lambda^3_3 K[G]+\Lambda^2_4 R[G]+\Lambda_5 \mathcal{K}_{\text{GHY}}[G]\right]\,,$$ where $G$ is the pullback of the bulk metric onto the 3-brane world-volume. The leading term with coupling $\Lambda_2^4$ (the brane tension) gives the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action, while the remaining terms are built from the extrinsic curvature, intrinsic curvature and Gibbons-Hawking-York (GHY) boundary terms. The $\Lambda_i$ are in general arbitrary mass scales. The resulting action is the [*DBI-Galileon*]{} [@deRham:2010eu]: its leading part is DBI and the subleading terms are cubic, quartic, and quintic in $\phi$.[^1] The non-DBI interaction terms in (\[DBIGal\]) are the $4\!+\!1$-dimensional Lovelock invariants that give the characteristic second-order equations of motion.
The [*Galileon models*]{} (\[GalInt\]) correspond to a decoupling limit in which the 3-brane tension $\Lambda_2^4 \rightarrow \infty$, but the ratios $$\label{decouple}
g_3 = \frac{\Lambda^3_3}{\Lambda^6_2}, \;\;\;g_4 = \frac{\Lambda^2_4}{\Lambda^8_2}, \;\;\;g_5 = \frac{\Lambda_5}{\Lambda^{10}_2}\,,$$ are held fixed. The only part of DBI that survives is the canonical kinetic term for $\phi$.[^2]
The Galileons and the DBI-Galileons both enjoy a non-trivial extended shift symmetry of the form \[galsym\] + c+ b\_x\^+ …, where $c$ is a constant, $b_\mu$ is a constant vector, and $x^\mu$ is the spacetime coordinate. The ellipses stand for possible field-dependent terms, which will not play a role for us here. These symmetries arise from the spontaneously broken symmetry generators [@Goon:2010xh]: the constant shift from the broken bulk translation and the $x^\mu$-shift from the broken Lorentz rotation.
The quartic Galileon ($g_3=g_5=0$) is sometimes called the [*special Galileon*]{} [@Cheung:2014dqa; @Hinterbichler:2015pqa] because it has a further enhanced shift symmetry \[specgalsym\] + s\_ x\^x\^+ …, where the constant tensor $s_{\mu\nu}$ is symmetric and traceless [@Hinterbichler:2015pqa]. This is an accidental symmetry that occurs only in the decoupling limit from DBI.
In this paper, we address the question of supersymmetrization of Galileon theories in $3\!+\!1$ dimensions, both in the context of DBI-Galileons and the decoupled Galileons. Based on the brane construction, one expects that the quartic DBI-Galileon can be supersymmetrized, in particular, there should exist an $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetrization corresponding to the effective action for a D3-brane in 9+1-dimensional Minkowski space. It is less obvious that supersymmetry would survive the decoupling limit or if the cubic or quintic (DBI-)Galileons can be supersymmetrized. An explicit $\mathcal{N}=1$ superfield construction of the quartic Galileon was presented in [@Farakos:2013zya]. We will construct an $\mathcal{N}=1$ quartic Galileon and comment on its uniqueness. In the literature, a supersymmetrization of the cubic Galileon was proposed, but it suffered from ghosts [@Koehn:2013hk]. By a field redefinition, any cubic Galileon is equivalent to the quartic and quintic Galileon with related couplings, so we address supersymmetrization of the cubic Galileon via the quintic. Before describing our approach, let us briefly comment on the super-algebra.
Symmetry algebra
----------------
The Poincare algebra can be extended [@Goon:2012dy; @Hinterbichler:2015pqa] with the translation generator $C$ ($\delta_C \phi = 1$), the Galileon shift generator $B_\mu$ ($\delta_B \phi = x^\mu$), and the symmetric traceless generator $S_{\!\mu\nu}$ of the special Galileon transformations [(\[specgalsym\])]{}.
Being agnostic about the origin of a Galileon extension of the super-Poincare algebra, at the minimum we might demand the closure of the extended super-translation sub-algebra with generators $P_\mu$, $Q$, $\bar{Q}$, $C$, and $B_\mu$ (plus $S_{\!\mu\nu}$ for the special Galileon), as well as a second set of fermionic generators $S$ and $\bar{S}$ associated with spontaneously broken supersymmetry. The latter are required by the algebra. Among the new commutator relations, we must have (schematically)
& \[P\_, B\_\] \~\_ C, \[P\_, S\_\] \~\_ B\_+ \_ B\_,\
& \[B\_, Q\] \~\_(|[Q]{} + |[S]{}), \[S\_, Q\] = 0.
The last vanishing commutator follows from the fact that $[S_{\!\mu\nu}, Q]$ must be a linear-combination of fermionic generators, but there are no tensor structures available that can make it symmetric and traceless. Now, consider the Jacobi identity \[SJacobi\] \[S\_,{ Q, |[Q]{}}\] = {\[S\_, Q\] ,|[Q]{}}+ {Q, \[S\_, |[Q]{}\]}. The RHS vanishes, but using $\{ Q, \bar{Q}\} \sim P$ the LHS gives a non-vanishing linear combination of $B_\mu$-generators. Therefore the algebra does not close consistently. This indicates that there is no supersymmetrization of the special Galileon that also preserves the enhanced symmetry [(\[specgalsym\])]{}. Replacing $S_{\!\mu\nu}$ by $B_\mu$ in the Jacobi identity [(\[SJacobi\])]{} gives $C$ on the LHS. The RHS can match this if $\{ Q, S\} \sim C$. There does not appear to be any inconsistency extending the super-translation algebra with the Galileon generators $C$ and $B_\mu$. Indeed, such an algebra follows from the scenario of bulk supersymmetry spontaneously broken to $\mathcal{N}=1$ on the 3-brane.[^3]
These algebraic arguments constrain the form of the symmetry as realized on the classical fields and are suggestive but formally problematic when extended to the quantum theory. In general, spontaneously broken symmetries do not possess well-defined Noether charges as operators on a Hilbert space.[^4] As demonstrated in [@PhysRevLett.16.408.2], the infinite volume improper integral of the Noether charge density operators of spontaneously broken symmetries do not converge in the weak operator topology. Furthermore, the second $S$-type supersymmetry is necessarily spontaneously broken and satisfies a current algebra with tensor central charges which cannot be integrated to a consistent charge algebra in infinite volume. (See [@Dumitrescu:2011iu] for a related discussion.) It is difficult to draw convincing conclusions from an algebra which formally does not exist.
Nonetheless we will find that the properties suggested by the algebraic arguments do indeed hold as properties of the scattering amplitudes and can be argued for in a mathematically satisfactory way. In the following, we outline the strategy of using on-shell amplitudes to assess the existence of effective field theories with linearly- and non-linearly realized supersymmetry. We then apply these methods to prove each of claims in the Abstract.
Approach
--------
The precise form of the extended shift symmetry (\[galsym\]) is parametrization-dependent. The consequences for physical observables, however, are not. From such non-linear symmetries follow universal soft theorems which must be satisfied by all on-shell scattering amplitudes. Similarly the form of a supersymmetry transformation on the fields appearing in the effective action depends on the parametrization, but the on-shell supersymmetry Ward identities relating the scattering amplitudes do not. Both of these properties will be used to place constraints on any possible effective field theory with both Galileon extended shift symmetry and supersymmetry.
The traditional approach to the supersymmetrization of a bosonic theory is to work with the Lagrangian and either supersymmetrize the terms directly or to employ superfields. If one is not successful, it can be hard to strictly rule out the existence of supersymmetrizations. And if one is successful, can one know with certainty if the answer is unique? Finally, higher-derivative theories are haunted by questions of field redefinitions that can confuse matters of whether two Lagrangians are physically equivalent. A more systematic approach uses the methods of non-linear realizations of Callan, Coleman, Wess and Zumino [@Coleman:1969sm; @Callan:1969sn] and Volkov [@Volkov:1973vd], but these are based on specific symmetry-breaking patterns. We avoid all the above issues by addressing the question of supersymmetrizations from the point of view of on-shell amplitudes. This will allow us to give precise exclusion statements and give evidence for existence of supersymmetric Galileons.
Technical details are discussed with much further rigor in the forthcoming paper [@ourlongpaper], which will also include analytic results for scattering amplitudes of Galileons and their superpartners.
The evidence for new (supersymmetric) theories presented in this paper is based on on-shell amplitudes. If one engineers the associated Lagrangians, it is not clear if their equations of motion will remain second-order and hence free of Ostrogradski ghosts. This would be interesting to address in future work.
Method
======
Lagrangian $\leftrightarrow$ amplitudes
---------------------------------------
If a local Lagrangian has an $n$-field interaction term which is not a total derivative and not proportional to the equation of motion of any of its fields, then it has an associated $n$-particle on-shell matrix element which has no poles, i.e. it is a polynomial in the kinematic variables. The number of independent kinematic polynomials that obey all the symmetries of the underlying theory tells us how many such independent Lagrangian terms there are. Thus, to assess if a local interaction term exists with certain symmetries, we impose these symmetry constraints on the most general ansatz for the amplitude. If no such amplitude exists, it means that no such independent local interaction term exists. If an amplitude exists, it is evidence that the theory may exist and we can further characterize the properties of the theory using explicitly computed scattering amplitudes.
Shift symmetries, such as [(\[galsym\])]{}, of the Lagrangian manifest themselves as Adler zeroes of the amplitudes. When a single external momentum is taken soft, $p_i \to {\epsilon}\,p_i$ with $\epsilon \to 0$, the tree amplitude vanishes as A\_n \~ \^, where $\sigma$ is an integer. In particular, the ordinary shift symmetry $\phi \to \phi + c$ gives a soft theorem with $\sigma =1$, the Galileon symmetry $\phi \to \phi + c_\mu x^\mu$ gives $\sigma =2$, and the special Galileon shift [(\[specgalsym\])]{} gives $\sigma=3$.
Spinor helicity
---------------
We use spinor helicity formalism to encode particle kinematics in $3\!+\!1$ dimensions. The on-shell momenta of the external massless particles can be expressed in terms of commuting angle and square spinors $|p{\rangle}$ and $|p]$ via p\_(\^)\_[a]{} = p\_[a]{} = - |p\]\_a p |\_. Spinor indices are raised and lowered with the 2-index Levi-Civita symbol, so Lorentz-invariant contractions are antisymmetric: p q = p |\_ | q \^ = - q p , \[ p q \] = \[ p |\^a | q \]\_a = - \[ q p \] . We note the following useful relation between Mandelstam variables and spinor brackets s\_[ij]{} = -(p\_i + p\_j)\^2 = -2p\_i p\_j = - i j \[ij\]. When the momentum is real, angle and square spinors are related by complex conjugation. Often it is useful to analytically continue to complex momenta and the angles and squares are then independent.
External line Feynman rules are also written in terms of spinor variabes. The wavefunction for a positive (negative) helicity massless fermion with momentum $p$ is $|p]$ ($|p{\rangle}$). A review of spinor helicity and expressions for polarization vectors can be found in [@Elvang:2013cua; @Elvang:2015rqa].
Little group scaling $( |i{\rangle}, |i] ) \to ( t |i{\rangle}, t^{-1}|i] )$ leaves the on-shell momentum invariant and the amplitude scales homogenously as $A_n \to t^{-2h_i} A_n$ where $h_i$ is the helicity of particle $i$.
To avoid trivially vanishing results due to little group scaling, we take the soft limit $p_i \to \epsilon p_i$ differently for non-negative and negative helicity particles:
h\_i 0:& |i|i, |i\] |i\],\
h\_i < 0:& |i|i, |i\] |i\].
We actually take the soft limit in a way that preserves momentum conservation, see [@Elvang:2016qvq].
Scalar example
--------------
Let us apply this to an example to illustrate the ideas. Suppose we would like to examine the existence of quintic interaction terms with Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}. Such terms would take the schematic form $g {\partial}^{2m} \phi^5$ and the mass-dimension of the coupling therefore has to be $[g]=-(2m+1)$. The most general ansatz for the 5-scalar amplitude $A_5(\phi\phi\phi\phi\phi)$ must be a Bose-symmetric degree $m$ polynomial in the Mandelstam variables $s_{ij}$ (i.e. $2m$ in powers of momentum). It is straightforward to list the possible polynomials for small values of $m$:[^5]
[lll]{} \^[2m]{} \^5 &A\_5()\
m=0 & 1\
m=1 & 0 \
m=2 & \_[i<j]{} s\_[ij]{}\^2\
m=3 & \_[i<j]{} s\_[ij]{}\^3 .
None of these have vanishing soft limits, so there can be no quintic single scalar Lagrangians at these orders with shift symmetry.
The quintic Galileon has coupling of mass-dimension $-9$, i.e. $m=4$, so that means the terms in the Lagrangian have 8 derivatives distributed on the 5 scalar fields. There are two polynomials that are linearly independent modulo momentum conservation, so we can write \[A5realGal\] A\_5() = c\_1 \_[i<j]{} s\_[ij]{}\^4 + c\_2 ( \_[i<j]{} s\_[ij]{}\^2 )\^2. This means that there are two independent ways that 8 derivatives can be distributed on 5 identical scalar fields in the Lagrangian and they are not related by partial integration or application of the equation of motion. For generic coefficients $c_1$ and $c_2$, this amplitude does not go to zero when a momentum is taken soft. This only happens when $c_2=-c_1/4$, in which case one actually finds that the amplitude vanishes as $O({\epsilon}^2)$. This solution is the unique 5-point Galileon.
Starting at 10 derivatives (coupling dimension $-11$), each of the five fields $\phi$ can be dressed with two or more derivatives and then invariance under [(\[galsym\])]{} is trivial. The quintic Galileon is therefore rather special: it is the only quintic interaction of a single real scalar field that is non-trivially invariant under the extended shift symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}.
Supersymmetry Ward identities
-----------------------------
The supercharges $Q$ act on the on-shell states of a chiral multiplet as \[Q, \] = |p\] Z, \[Q, |\] = 0, \[Q, |Z \] = |p\] |, \[Q, Z \] =0, where the brackets are graded and we use the fields as shorthand to denote the on-shell states. For brevity, we use $\psi$ and $\bar \psi$ to denote a fermionic external state with positive and negative helicity, respectively.
The supersymmetry Ward identities follow from $Q$’s annihilation of the vacuum, 0= \[Q, …\]= \_i …\[Q,\_i\] …, where $\Phi$ stands for any state in the chiral multiplet. For example $0={\langle}[Q, \psi Z\dots Z ]{\rangle}= |1] {\langle}ZZ \dots Z {\rangle}$ tells us that the amplitude with all $Z$ external states must vanish. Likewise 0=\[Q, |Z Z…Z\] = |1\] Z |Z Z …Z - |2\] |Z …Z implies that both these amplitudes must vanish, as can be seen from dotting in $[1|$ or $[2|$. Thus, the only complex scalar amplitudes that can be compatible with supersymmetry have at least two $Z$’s and two $\bar Z$’s. The analogue statement for gluon amplitudes in super-Yang Mills theory is that the helicity-violating amplitudes $++\ldots+$ and $-+\ldots+$ vanish.
Supersymmetry example
---------------------
The supersymmetry Ward identity for 4-particle amplitudes of a massless chiral multiplet with a complex scalar $Z$ and a Weyl fermion $\psi$ takes the form \[4ptsusyWI\] A\_4(| |) = A\_4(Z |[Z]{} |) = A\_4(Z |[Z]{} Z |[Z]{}).
To illustrate the application, consider 4-particle amplitudes with couplings of dimension $-4$. Four-particle tree amplitudes must be dimensionless, so a local amplitude at this order must be a linear combination of the independent 2nd order Mandelstam polynomials. Taking Bose symmetry into account, there are two possible such terms for the amplitude $A_4(Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z}) = b_1 t^2 + b_2 s u$. Only the $t^2$-term is compatible with supersymmetry. To see this, let us consider the 4-fermion amplitude. Little group scaling and antisymmetry under exchanges of identical fermions tell us that $A_4(\psi \bar{\psi} \psi \bar{\psi})$ must be equal to ${\langle}24 {\rangle}[13]$ times a Mandelstam polynomial of degree 1 symmetric under $1 {\leftrightarrow}3$ and $2 {\leftrightarrow}4$ (the spinor brackets account for two mass-dimensions): there is only one option, namely A\_4(| |) = b\_1’ 24 \[13\] t. Now using the supersymmetry Ward identities, we find A\_4 (Z |[Z]{} Z |[Z]{}) = A\_4(| |) = b\_1’ 24 \[13\] t = - b\_1’ t\^2. Thus we see that only the case of $b_1 = - b_1'$ and $b_2=0$ is compatible with supersymmetry. This is the unique solution that corresponds to the $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric theory of DBI coupled to Akulov-Volkov, the effective theory of Goldstinos.
Soft subtracted recursion
-------------------------
We use [*soft subtracted recursion relations*]{} to test the soft behavior. This method was introduced in [@Kampf:2013vha; @Cheung:2014dqa; @Cheung:2015cba; @Cheung:2015ota; @Cheung:2016drk; @Luo:2015tat]. We outline how it works, but leave the details of our analysis for [@ourlongpaper].
Consider deforming the $n$ complex external momenta $p_i$ as \_i\^= p\_i\^(1-a\_i z). The shift parameters $a_i$ must be chosen subject to the constraint of momentum conservation, $\sum_{i=1}^n p_i^\mu a_i =0$. As a function of these shifted momenta (which are on-shell too), we write the tree-level amplitude $\hat{A}_n(z)$. Consider the integral \[contourint\] dz F(z) = \_[i=1]{}\^n (1 - a\_i z)\^[\_i]{} , where the contour surrounds all finite poles in the $z$-plane. This integral vanishes provided there are no poles at $z=\infty$; a sufficient condition can be stated in terms of the mass-dimensions of the couplings $[g_v]$ that appear as vertices in the $n$-point amplitude [@ourlongpaper]: \[reccrit\] 4 - n - \_v \[g\_v\] - \_[i=1]{}\^n s\_i - \_[i=1]{}\^n \_i < 0, where $s_i \ge 0$ is the spin (not helicity) of particle $i$ and $\sigma_i$ are the non-negative integers that appear in the definition of the function $F(z)$ in [(\[contourint\])]{}.
If the criterion [(\[reccrit\])]{} holds, then the residue at $z=0$, which gives the unshifted amplitude, equals minus the sum of all the other finite-$z$ residues. These come in two classes: from simple poles in the amplitude and from the poles at $z=1/a_i$. The former we can calculate easily since the amplitude factorizes on its physical poles. To deal with the latter, note that taking $z\to 1/a_i$ is simply a single soft limit of the shifted amplitude $\hat{A}_n(z)$ (assuming all the $a_i$ be distinct). Hence, if $A_n$ vanishes in the single soft limit at the rate $\sigma_i$ for particle $i$, there are no poles in [(\[contourint\])]{} at $z = 1/a_i$. That means the amplitude is fully constructible from its factorization into lower-point amplitudes. The purpose of the function $F(z)$ is to improve the large-$z$ behavior, and this is absolutely needed in effective field theories with higher-derivative couplings.
We illustrate the method with an example. Consider again the general ansatz $A_4(Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z}) = b_1 t^2 + b_2 s u$ for a complex scalar amplitude in an EFT whose quartic coupling has dimension $-4$. In the Lagrangian approach, one would calculate the 6-particle amplitude $A_6(Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z})$ from pole diagrams with the 4-point interactions and possible 6-point contact terms in that theory. To calculate $A_6$ recursively, we note that it factorizes into two 4-point amplitudes $A_4(Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z})$, so the criterion [(\[reccrit\])]{} is $4-6-2(-4)-0- 6\sigma= 6(1-\sigma) < 0$, i.e. soft subtracted recursion is valid for computation of $A_6$ if $\sigma \ge 2$. Now *assume* that $\sigma=2$ is a property of the 6-particle amplitude and calculate $A_6$ via the soft subtracted recursion relation. Note that this is the soft behavior of the complex scalar, meaning that both its real and imaginary parts are assumed to have the symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}. If the assumption of $\sigma=2$ holds true, the recursive result for $A_6$ must be independent of the $a_i$’s.[^6] Hence, if $a_i$-independence fails, the amplitude cannot have $\sigma=2$ and therefore there cannot be a corresponding Lagrangian invariant under Galileon symmetry. For the particular case at hand, one finds that $a_i$-independence works only when $b_2=0$. The conclusion is that there is definitively no EFT with Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{} for the complex scalar when $b_2\ne0$. On the other hand, we have positive evidence in favor of such a theory whose 4-point interaction gives $A_4(Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z}) = b_1 t^2$. This theory is already well-known: it is the complex scalar DBI theory — and we learned previously that it is compatible with supersymmetry.
If we assume $\sigma=3$, we will find that recursion fails (the result is $a_i$-dependent). This tells us that (the complex scalar) DBI theory cannot be invariant under the special Galileon symmetry [(\[specgalsym\])]{}.
To summarize, the soft subtracted recursion relations allow us to efficiently rule out existence of effective field theories with given fundamental interaction vertices and spontaneously broken symmetries. They also provide evidence (though not a proof) of existence of theories and explicit results for the scattering amplitudes.
Results I
=========
The first step towards supersymmetry is to combine the Galileon with another scalar to form a complex scalar $Z$ of a chiral supermultiplet. We will consider two cases in this paper. In this section, both the real and imaginary part of $Z$ have the extended shift symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}. In Sec. \[s:raxion\], we relax this condition.
Complex scalar quintic Galileon {#complxQuinticGal}
-------------------------------
Multi-scalar Galileon theories were constructed in [@Hinterbichler:2010xn] from the effective action of a 3-brane in a bulk space with $n$ transverse directions. The actions in [@Hinterbichler:2010xn] have $n$ scalars which are Goldstone modes of each of the spontaneously broken translational symmetries and they all have extended shift symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}. The models inherit SO$(n)$ symmetry from the bulk, in particular that means there are only even-powered interactions. This may seem to doom a quintic Galileon with more than one scalar; however, we now give evidence for the existence of a complex scalar quintic model that breaks U$(1)$=SO$(2)$, but still has symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{} for both real scalars.
To potentially be compatible with supersymmetry, the complex scalar 5-point amplitude must be of the form $A_5(Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z )$ (and its conjugate). The coupling has mass-dimension $-9$, and the interaction terms have 8 derivatives. Using that the 5 momenta must satisfy momentum conservation, one finds (using Mathematica to generate the polynomial basis) that there are ten independent Lorentz-invariant contractions of 8 momenta satisfying Bose symmetry under exchanges of identical states $\{1 {\leftrightarrow}3 {\leftrightarrow}5\}$ and $\{ 2 {\leftrightarrow}4\}$. Of these ten, nine are polynomials of degree 4 in the Mandelstam variables, whereas the tenth is parity odd and proportional to the Levi-Civita symbol.
Imposing the Galileon symmetry in the form of the required $\sigma=2$ soft behavior of a general linear combination of these ten basis polynomials selects one unique answer: \[5ptcomplexGal\]
A\_5(Z |Z Z |Z Z) & = c\_1 ( \_[i<j]{} s\_[ij]{}\^4 - ( \_[i<j]{} s\_[ij]{}\^2 )\^2 )\
& = 48 c\_1 ( \_ p\_1\^p\_2\^p\_3\^p\_4\^)\^2.
This amplitude is equal to the real 5-point Galileon [(\[A5realGal\])]{}, however, at higher-point these models give distinct amplitudes. For example, using soft subtracted recursion relations (which are valid by [(\[reccrit\])]{}) to obtain the 8-point amplitudes involves $\frac 1 2 \left ( \begin{smallmatrix} 8 \\ 4 \end{smallmatrix} \right ) = 35$ factorization diagrams for the real scalar case, while for the complex scalar case there are actually two types of 8-point amplitudes, $A_8(Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z \bar Z)$ and $A_8(Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z Z)$. The former has 52 diagrams (of two different types) and the latter has 30 diagrams. We have computed these three 8-point amplitudes and verified that they are distinct. We conclude that
> [*this is significant evidence in favor of the existence of a 5-point Galileon whose complex scalar has Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}.* ]{}
Note that this model necessarily breaks any $U(1)$ symmetry acting on the scalars. Next we show that this quintic model is not compatible with supersymmetry.
Quintic Galileon & supersymmetry, part 1
----------------------------------------
One necessary condition for supersymmetry is the Ward identity \[5ptsusyWI\] A\_5(Z |Z Z |) = -A\_5(Z |Z Z |Z Z). The amplitude on the LHS must come from a local interaction term in the Lagrangian that arises from the supersymmetrization of the five-scalar term. So $A_5(Z \bar Z Z \bar \psi \psi)$ must be local, i.e. it cannot have any poles.[^7] On the other hand, the RHS of [(\[5ptsusyWI\])]{} will have a pole when $[24] \to 0$ (when momenta $p_2$ and $p_4$ go collinear), unless $A_5(Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z)$ vanishes in that limit. One can explicitly check, using the expression [(\[5ptcomplexGal\])]{}, that it does not. Hence we conclude that
> [*the quintic Galileon cannot be supersymmetrized while preserving the Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{} for the complex scalar.* ]{}
We will relax the condition of Galileon symmetry in Sec. \[s:raxion\].
Cubic Galileon
--------------
The only possibly non-vanishing 3-scalar amplitude in any theory of massless scalars is constant, i.e. it comes from $\phi^3$, and the resulting higher point amplitudes have singular soft limits. When a 3-particle amplitude vanishes, the associated cubic Lagrangian can be removed by a field redefinition. In particular, the cubic Galileon can be removed by a field redefinition of the form $\phi \to \phi + a ({\partial}\phi)^2$. This shuffles the information into $4$-, $5$-, and $6$-point interactions. There is no independent 6th order Galileon, so this means the cubic Galileon is equivalent to a particular choice of the quartic and quintic Galileon. This remains true also when there are multiple scalars. In particular, the quintic coupling will be non-zero. From the above, we immediately conclude that
> [*the cubic Galileon cannot be supersymmetrized while preserving the Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{} for the complex scalar.*]{}
Quartic Galileon & supersymmetry, part 1 {#s:quartic1}
----------------------------------------
Soft subtracted recursion relations with $\sigma_Z=2$ show that there is a unique complex scalar quartic Galileon whose amplitude is \[A4gal4\] A\_4(Z |[Z]{} Z |[Z]{}) = g\_4 s t u. We have already introduced the supersymmetry Ward identity [(\[4ptsusyWI\])]{} that fixes all the other 4-point amplitudes in terms of this result. Thus the 4-particle sector is unique. Using the supersymmetry Ward identities, one can show [@ourlongpaper] that the soft behavior $\sigma_\psi$ of the fermion in the chiral multiplet is related to the scalar soft behavior as $\sigma_\psi = \sigma_Z$ OR $\sigma_\psi = \sigma_Z-1$. The recursion relations for $A_6(Z \bar{Z} Z \bar{Z} \psi \bar\psi)$ are valid in either case (by [(\[reccrit\])]{}). The condition of $a_i$-independence passes for $\sigma_\psi =1$, but fails for $\sigma_\psi = \sigma_Z=2$. The result that $\sigma_\psi =1$ then proves that a supersymmetrization of the quartic Galileon must have a regular shift symmetry for the fermions.
Proceeding, the constructibility criterion [(\[reccrit\])]{} with $\sigma_\psi =1$ and $\sigma_Z=2$ shows that only amplitudes with at most a pair of fermions are constructible when based on quartic interactions with coupling dimension $[g_4]=-6$. However, at 6-point order, we can exploit the supersymmetry Ward identities to fully construct all 6-particle amplitudes in the supersymmetric quartic Galileon theory. The supersymmetry Ward identities are
\[25\] A\_6(Z |[Z]{}Z |[Z]{}Z |[Z]{}) -\[26\] A\_6(Z |[Z]{}Z |[Z]{}|) +\[24\] A\_6(Z |[Z]{}Z ||[Z]{}) &=0\
\[23\] A\_6(Z |[Z]{}Z ||[Z]{}) +\[25\] A\_6(Z |[Z]{}|Z |[Z]{}) -\[26\] [ A\_6(Z |[Z]{}||)]{} &=0\
\[31\] [ A\_6(Z |||[Z]{}) ]{} +\[35\] [ A\_6(||Z |[Z]{})]{} -\[36\] [ A\_6(|||)]{} &=0.
We use the first identity to check that the amplitudes reconstructed with soft subtracted recursion relations are compatible with supersymmetry. The second identity allows us to solve for the four-fermion amplitude, and with this result the third identity uniquely determines the 6-fermion amplitude. There are three more independent supersymmetry Ward identities: we use them as consistency checks to make sure all the 6-point amplitudes are compatible with the supersymmetry requirements. These checks all pass. We present the explicit results for the 6-particle amplitudes in [@ourlongpaper].
At higher point, the constructible amplitudes with at most two fermions are not sufficient to solve the supersymmetry Ward identities. In a Lagrangian construction, there may therefore be an ambiguity starting at 8th orders in the fields in terms of independently supersymmetrizable operators which must not have any components with two fermions or less; such operators will involve so many derivatives that it is trivial that they can be compatible with the Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{} for the scalars and shift symmetry for the fermions.
Notice also that the constructible amplitudes satisfy the conservation of a $U(1)_R$ charge under which only the scalar $Z$ is charged. Such a symmetry is also respected by the supersymmetrization of DBI, but given the ambiguity in the non-constructible amplitudes the strongest statement we can say is that a supersymmetric quartic Galileon *may* be consistent with such a symmetry.
In conclusion,
> [*we have found strong evidence for an $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization of the quartic Galileon. It is compatible with a Galileon symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{} for the complex scalar and shift symmetry for the fermion. It may not be a unique supersymmetrization, as there could be independently supersymmetrizable operators starting at 8th order in fields.* ]{}
A superfield Lagrangian for $\mathcal{N}=1$ quartic Galileon was presented in [@Farakos:2013zya]. We find that (up to a sign) the 4-point amplitudes computed from [@Farakos:2013zya] agree with ours. Further comparisons are deferred to [@ourlongpaper].
Special Galileon vs. supersymmetry
----------------------------------
The real scalar amplitudes resulting from [(\[A4gal4\])]{} are those of the special Galileon, which has the enhanced shift symmetry [(\[specgalsym\])]{}. However, this symmetry does not carry over to the complex scalar case (i.e. it is broken by terms mixing the two scalars). This follows from using $\sigma=3$ in the soft subtracted recursion relations: this construction $A_6(Z \bar{Z}Z \bar{Z}Z \bar{Z})$ fails $a_i$-independence. We conclude that
> [*for the quartic Galileon, the special Galileon symmetry [(\[specgalsym\])]{} is not compatible with supersymmetry.*]{}
This is what the argument based on the algebra indicated.
Results II: Marrying Galileons and R-axions {#s:raxion}
===========================================
In this section, we find evidence for $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric quartic and quintic Galileon theories in which the complex scalar $Z = (\phi + i \chi)/\!\sqrt 2$ bundles an honest Galileon $\phi$, who enjoys extended shift symmetry [(\[galsym\])]{}, with a second real scalar $\chi$, who only has regular shift symmetry. The second scalar $\chi$ is naturally identified as an R-axion and a scenario for this type of theory is partial supersymmetry breaking; this will be discussed further in [@ourlongpaper].
Quintic Galileon & supersymmetry, part 2
----------------------------------------
We start by writing the most general Ansatz for the amplitudes $A_5 ( Z \bar Z Z \bar Z Z)$, $A_5 ( Z \bar Z Z \bar \psi \psi )$, $A_5 ( Z \bar \psi \psi \bar \psi \psi )$ and their complex conjugates. All other amplitudes must be zero for a theory compatible with supersymmetry. On this Ansatz of 122 free parameters we impose the following constraints:
- Compatibility with supersymmetry via the supersymmetry Ward identities
A\_5 ( Z |Z Z |Z Z ) & = - A\_5 ( Z |Z Z |) = A\_5 ( Z ||),\
A\_5 ( |Z Z |Z Z |Z ) & = - A\_5 ( |Z Z |Z |) = A\_5 ( |Z ||). \[fivePtSUSY-WI\]
- A shift symmetry for the complex field $Z$ in the form of $\sigma = 1$ soft behavior for the amplitudes of $Z$.
- Galileon symmetry for the real scalar field $\phi$ in the form of $\sigma = 2$ soft behavior imposed on the linear combinations of complex-scalar amplitudes, $$A_5 ( \phi \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot ) = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \left ( A_5 ( Z \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot ) + A_5 ( \bar Z \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot ) \right )\,.$$
Imposing these constraints on our Ansatz left us with a 3-parameter family of solutions. Interestingly, this solution comes with a ‘free’ $\sigma = 1$ soft behavior for the fermions, that suggests that the theory is invariant under a shift of the fermions. Moreover, the five-Galileon amplitude $A_5 ( \phi \phi \phi \phi \phi )$ matches the known real Galileon amplitude.
In order to further constrain the solution, we consider the 7-point amplitudes of the DBI-Galileon theory. The leading order contribution to these amplitudes is proportional to the product of the DBI coupling with mass dimension $-4$ and the the quintic Galileon coupling with mass dimension $-6$; it can be reconstructed using subtracted soft recursion relations with $\sigma_\phi = 2$, $\sigma_\chi = 1$ and $\sigma_\psi = 1$ if $2 n_\chi + n_f < 8$, where $n_\chi$ is the number of $\chi$-external states and $n_f$ is the the number of fermionic external states. Demanding that the results of recursion are independent of the shift parameters $a_i$ *uniquely* fixes the parameters of our solution. The resulting scalar amplitude is
A\_5 ( Z |Z Z |Z Z ) = s\_[24]{} - 4 s\_[24]{}\^4 ,
while the amplitudes with fermions can be straightforwardly obtained from the supersymmetry Ward identities [(\[fivePtSUSY-WI\])]{}.
To conclude this section,
> [*we find strong evidence for the existence of a supersymmetrization of the quintic Galileon. In this theory, only one of the two scalar modes enjoys the full Galileon symmetry, while the second one, an R-symmetry axion has only a shift symmetry.*]{}
Quartic Galileon & supersymmetry, part 2
----------------------------------------
A very similar analysis can be carried out for the quartic Galileon. The 4-point scalar amplitude has two independent terms, $A_4 ( Z \bar Z Z \bar Z ) = r_1 \,stu + r_2\, t^3$. When $r_2 = 0$, we recover the quartic Galileon from Sec. \[s:quartic1\] which has $\sigma=2$ for the complex scalar. Computing all constructible (by [(\[reccrit\])]{}) 6-point amplitudes in both the decoupled Galileon and DBI-Galileon places no constraints on the couplings $r_1$ and $r_2$. [*This is evidence that there may exist a 2-parameter family of quartic $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric Galileons in which the complex scalar is composed of a galileon and an R-axion*]{}. Note that if one were to try the same for DBI, one would find that the R-axion automatically has its symmetry enhanced to [(\[galsym\])]{}; we comment further on that interesting result in [@ourlongpaper].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Ratin Akhoury, Clifford Cheung, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Yu-tin Huang, and Chia-Hsien Shen for useful discussions. All four authors are grateful to the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UC Santa Barbara, for hospitality during the ‘Scattering Amplitudes and Beyond’ program. This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under Grant No. de-sc0007859.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: The boundary terms $K[G]$ and $\mathcal{K}_{\text{GHY}}[G]$ are only available when the brane is considered an end-of-the-world brane and they are responsible for the odd-powered $\phi$-interactions.
[^2]: When decoupled from DBI, Galileons violate the null-energy condition and for that reason they have received attention as models for cosmological bounces. However, without the leading DBI terms, the Galileon theories cannot arise as the low-energy limit of a UV complete theory [@Adams:2006sv].
[^3]: The decoupling limit [(\[decouple\])]{} induces an İnönü-Wigner contraction of the original $\text{ISO}(4,1)$ symmetry algebra in the direction transverse to the 3-brane. The resulting algebra $\mathfrak{Gal}(4,1)$ is a cousin of the familiar Galilean algebra of non-relativistic mechanics. In the decoupling limit [(\[decouple\])]{}, the extended shift symmetry (\[galsym\]) arises from the non-linear realization of the coset $\mathfrak{Gal}(4,1)/\text{ISO}(3,1)$. The recent work [@Roest:2017uga] extends this construction to include the supercharges. An earlier version of the algebra is in [@Bagger:1994vj].
[^4]: The algebra constructed in [@Roest:2017uga] is of the former kind. In this case even the classical Poisson algebra will differ from the algebra realized on the fields by the appearance of central terms [@Toppan:2001qb].
[^5]: Throughout this paper, we use crossing symmetry to take amplitudes to have all outgoing particles. We consider only tree level.
[^6]: In $3\!+\!1$ dimensions, the constraint of momentum conservation has $n-4$ solutions. For all $n$ there is a trivial solution with all $a_i$ equal, however this solution cannot be used to defined subtracted recursion relations. If the external momenta are restricted to a 3-dimensional subspace then the number of solutions increases to $n-3$. Demanding that the candidate amplitude is independent from the choice of $a_i$ in the restricted kinematics often gives stronger constraints.
[^7]: One might worry about contributions from pole diagrams involving Yukawa interactions; however, such terms would give singular soft theorems and are hence not allowed in this setting.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In \[Linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs. WG’14\], we presented a characterization of the linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs, from which we derived an algorithm to compute it in polynomial time. In this paper, we investigate structural properties of distance-hereditary graphs based on this characterization.
First, we prove that for a fixed tree $T$, every distance-hereditary graph of large linear rank-width contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$. We prove this in a more general setting, that it is also true for graphs whose prime induced subgraphs have bounded linear rank-width, where prime graphs are graphs with no vertex partition $(A, B)$ with ${\lvert A\rvert}, {\lvert B\rvert}\ge 2$ such that the set of edges joining $A$ and $B$ induces a complete bipartite graph.
For a class $\Phi$ of graphs closed under taking vertex-minors, a graph $G$ is called a *vertex-minor obstruction* for $\Phi$ if $G\notin \Phi$ but all of its proper vertex-minors are contained in $\Phi$. We provide, for each $k\ge 2$, a set of distance-hereditary graphs that contains all distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions for graphs of linear rank-width at most $k$. Also, we give a simpler way to obtain the known vertex-minor obstructions for graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$.
author:
- 'Isolde Adler [^1]'
- Mamadou Moustapha Kanté
- 'O-joung Kwon [^2] [^3]'
title: 'Linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs II. Vertex-minor obstructions'
---
Introduction
============
*Linear rank-width* is a linear-type width parameter of graphs motivated by the rank-width of graphs [@OumS06]. The *vertex-minor* relation is a graph containment relation which was introduced by Bouchet [@Bouchet1987a; @Bouchet1987b; @Bouchet88; @Bouchet1988; @Bouchet1989a] on his research of circle graphs and 4-regular Eulerian digraphs. The relation has an important role in the theory of (linear) rank-width [@Oum2004a; @Oum05; @Oum2006a; @JKO2014; @Oum12] as (linear) rank-width cannot increase when taking vertex-minors of a graph.
The first result of the Graph Minor series papers is that for a fixed tree $T$, every graph of sufficiently large path-width contains a minor isomorphic to $T$ [@RobertsonS83], and this was later used by Blumensath and Courcelle [@BlumensathC10] to define a hierarchy of *incidence graphs* based on *monadic second-order transductions*. In order to obtain a similar hierarchy for graphs, still based on monadic second-order transductions, Courcelle [@CourcelleBanhoff08] asked whether for a fixed tree $T$, every bipartite graph of sufficiently large linear rank-width contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$. In a more general setting we can ask whether it is true for all graphs.
\[que:tree\] For every fixed tree $T$, is there an integer $f(T)$ satisfying that every graph of linear rank-width at least $f(T)$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$?
We prove that Question \[que:tree\] is true if and only if it is true for prime graphs with respect to split decompositions [@Cunningham1982], i.e., it is true for every class of graphs whose prime induced subgraphs have linear rank-width bounded by some fixed constant. Prime graphs are the graphs having no vertex partition $(A,B)$ with ${\lvert A\rvert}$, ${\lvert B\rvert} \ge 2$ such that the set of edges joining $A$ and $B$ induces a complete bipartite graph. Since the maximum size of prime induced subgraphs of a distance-hereditary graph is at most $3$ [@Bouchet88], our result implies that Question \[que:tree\] is true for distance-hereditary graphs.
Let $p\ge 3$ be an integer and let $T$ be a tree. Let $G$ be a graph such that every prime induced subgraph of $G$ has linear rank-width at most $p$. If $G$ has linear rank-width at least $40(p+2){\lvert V(T)\rvert}$, then $G$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$.
To prove this theorem, we essentially prove that for a fixed tree $T$, every graph admitting a split decomposition whose decomposition tree has sufficiently large path-width contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$. Combined with a relation between the linear rank-width of such graphs and the path-width of their canonical decompositions, we obtain Theorem \[thm:largelrw\]. The vertex-minor relation is indeed necessary because there is a cograph (equivalently, a $P_4$-free graph) admitting a split decomposition whose decomposition tree has sufficiently large path-width [@CorneilLB1981; @GP2012].
In the second part, we investigate the set of forbidden distance-hereditary vertex-minors for graphs of bounded linear rank-width. Robertson and Seymour [@RS2004] showed that for every infinite sequence $G_1, G_2, \ldots $ of graphs, there exist $G_i$ and $G_j$ with $i<j$ such that $G_i$ is isomorphic to a minor of $G_j$. In other words, graphs are *well-quasi-ordered* under the minor relation. Interestingly, this property implies that for any class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs closed under taking minors, the set of forbidden minors for $\mathcal{C}$ is finite.
Oum [@Oum2004a; @Oum12] partially obtained an analogous result for the vertex-minor relation; for every infinite sequence $G_1$, $G_2, \ldots$ of graphs of bounded rank-width, there exist $G_i$ and $G_j$ with $i<j$ such that $G_i$ is isomorphic to a vertex-minor of $G_j$. We obtain the following as a corollary.
\[thm:vertexminorwqo\] For every class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs with bounded rank-width that are closed under taking vertex-minors, there is a finite list of graphs $G_1$, $G_2, \ldots, G_m$ such that a graph is in $\mathcal C$ if and only if it has no vertex-minor isomorphic to $G_i$ for some $i\in \{1,2, \ldots, m\}$.
Theorem \[thm:vertexminorwqo\] implies that for every integer $k$, the class of all graphs of (linear) rank-width at most $k$ can be characterized by a finite list of vertex-minor obstructions. However, it does not give any explicit number of necessary vertex-minor obstructions or bound on the size of such graphs. Oum [@Oum05] proved that for each $k$, the size of a vertex-minor obstruction for graphs of rank-width at most $k$ is at most $(6^{k+1}-1)/5$. For linear rank-width, such an upper bound on the size of vertex-minor obstructions remains as an open problem. Jeong, Kwon, and Oum [@JKO2014] showed that there is a set of at least $2^{\Omega(3^k)}$ vertex-minor minimal graphs for the class of graphs of linear rank-width at most $k$, such that there are no two graphs $G, H$ in the set where $G$ has a vertex-minor isomorphic to $H$ and ${\lvert V(G)\rvert}={\lvert V(H)\rvert}$.
=\[circle, draw, solid, fill=black, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=3pt\]
(v1) at (0,.8); (v2) at (0,1.6); (v3) at (-.8,-.5); (v4) at (.8,-.5); (v5) at (-1.6,-1); (v6) at (1.6,-1); (v1)–(v3)–(v4)–(v1); (v1)–(v2); (v3)–(v5); (v4)–(v6);
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5);
(v1) at (1,3); (v2) at (2,2.3); (v3) at (1.6,1); (v4) at (0.4,1); (v5) at (0, 2.3); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v4)–(v5)–(v1);
Adler, Farley, and Proskurowski [@AdlerFP11] characterized exactly the three vertex-minor obstructions for graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$, depicted in Figure \[fig:vmobslrw1\], two of which are distance-hereditary. In this paper, we give a set of graphs containing all vertex-minor obstructions that are distance-hereditary using the characterization of the linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs given in the companion paper [@AdlerKK15]. This is an analogous result of the characterization of acyclic minor obstructions for graphs of path-width at most $k$, investigated by Takahashi, Ueno and Kajitani [@TakahashiUK94], and Ellis, Sudborough and Turner [@EllisST94].
We lastly remark that we can obtain simpler proofs of known characterizations of graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$ [@AdlerFP11; @Bui-XuanKL13] using our characterization of the linear rank-width on distance-hereditary graphs.
Preliminaries
=============
In this paper, graphs are finite, simple and undirected, unless stated otherwise. Our graph terminology is standard, see for instance [@Diestel05]. Let $G$ be a graph. We denote the vertex set of $G$ by $V(G)$ and the edge set by $E(G)$. An edge between $x$ and $y$ is written $xy$ (equivalently $yx$). For $X\subseteq V(G)$, we denote by $G[X]$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $X$, and let $G\setminus X:=G[V(G)\setminus X]$. For shortcut we write $G\setminus x$ for $G\setminus \{x\}$. For a vertex $x$ of $G$, let $N_G(x)$ be the set of *neighbors* of $x$ in $G$ and we call $|N_G(x)|$ the *degree* of $x$ in $G$. An edge $e$ of $G$ is called a *cut-edge* if its removal increases the number of connected components of $G$. A vertex $x$ is a *pendant* vertex if the degree of $x$ is one. Two vertices $x$ and $y$ are *twins* if $N(x)\setminus \{y\}=N(y)\setminus \{x\}$.
A *tree* is a connected acyclic graph. A *leaf* of a tree is a vertex of degree one. A *sub-cubic tree* is a tree such that each vertex has degree at most three. A *path* is a tree where every vertex has degree at most two. The *length* of a path is the number of its edges. A *star* is a tree with a distinguished vertex, called its *center*, adjacent to all other vertices. A *complete graph* is a graph with all possible edges. A graph $G$ is called *distance-hereditary* if for every pair of two vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$ the distance of $x$ and $y$ in $G$ equals the distance of $x$ and $y$ in any connected induced subgraph containing both $x$ and $y$ [@BandeltM86]. It is well-known that a graph $G$ is distance-hereditary if and only if $G$ can be obtained from a single vertex by creations of pendant vertices and twins [@HammerM90].
Path-width and graph minors
---------------------------
A *path decomposition* of a graph $G$ is a pair $(P,{\mathcal{B}})$, where $P$ is a path and ${\mathcal{B}}=(B_t)_{t\in V(P)}$ is a family of subsets $B_t\subseteq V(G)$, satisfying
1. For every $v\in V(G)$ there exists a $t\in V(P)$ such that $v\in B_t$.
2. For every $uv\in E(G)$ there exists a $t\in V(P)$ such that $\{u,v\}\subseteq B_t$.
3. For every $v\in V(G)$ the set $\{t\in V(P)\mid v\in B_t\}$ is connected in $P$.
The *width* of a path decomposition $(P,{\mathcal{B}})$ is defined as ${\operatorname{w}}(P,{\mathcal{B}}):=\max\{|B_t|\mid t\in V(P)\}-1$. The *path-width* of $G$ is defined as $${\operatorname{pw}}(G):=\min\{{\operatorname{w}}(P,{\mathcal{B}})\mid
(P,{\mathcal{B}})\text{ is a path decomposition of }G\}.$$
Given a graph $G$ and an edge $xy$ of $G$, the *contraction* of the edge $xy$ is the graph, denoted by $G/xy$, with vertex set $V(G)\setminus \{y\}$ and edge set $E(G)\setminus \{yz\in E(G)\}\cup \{xz\notin E(G)\mid yz\in E(G)\}$. A graph $H$ is a *minor* of a graph $G$ if $H$ is obtained from a subgraph of $G$ by contractions of edges. It is well-known that if $H$ is a minor of $G$, then ${\operatorname{pw}}(H)\leq {\operatorname{pw}}(G)$ [@RobertsonS83]. The following is now a well-established result in the Graph Minor series.
\[thm:pathwidththeorem\] For every forest $F$, every graph with path-width at least $|V(F)|-1$ has a minor isomorphic to $F$.
We finally recall the following theorem which characterizes the path-width of trees and were used for computing their path-width in linear time, and also for computing the acyclic minor obstructions for path-width.
\[thm:maintreeforpathwidth\] Let $T$ be a tree and let $k\geq 1$. The following are equivalent.
1. $T$ has path-width at most $k$.
2. For every vertex $x$ of $T$, at most two of the subtrees of $T\setminus x$ have path-width $k$ and all other subtrees of $T\setminus x$ have path-width at most $k-1$.
3. $T$ has a path $P$ such that for each vertex $v$ of $P$ and a component $T'$ of $T\setminus v$ not containing a vertex of $P$, ${\operatorname{pw}}(T')\le k-1$.
Linear rank-width and vertex-minors {#subsec:lrw-vm}
-----------------------------------
For sets $R$ and $C$, an *$(R,C)$-matrix* is a matrix whose rows and columns are indexed by $R$ and $C$, respectively. For an $(R,C)$-matrix $M$, $X\subseteq R$, and $Y\subseteq C$, let $M[X,Y]$ be the submatrix of $M$ whose rows and columns are indexed by $X$ and $Y$, respectively.
### **Linear rank-width** {#linear-rank-width .unnumbered}
Let $G$ be a graph. We denote by $A_G$ the *adjacency matrix* of $G$ over the binary field. For a graph $G$, we let ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G^*:2^{V(G)}\times 2^{V(G)} \to \mathbb{Z}$ be such that ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G^*(X,Y):={\operatorname{rank}}(A_G[X,Y])$ for all $X,Y\subseteq V(G)$.
The *cut-rank function* of $G$ is the function ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G:2^{V(G)}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ where for each $X\subseteq V(G)$, $${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G(X):= {\operatorname{cutrk}}_G^*(X,V(G)\setminus X).$$ A sequence $(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ of the vertex set $V(G)$ is called a *linear layout* of $G$. If ${\lvert V(G)\rvert}\ge 2$, then the *width* of a linear layout $(x_1,\ldots, x_n)$ of $G$ is defined as $$\max_{1\le i\le n-1}\{{\operatorname{cutrk}}_G(\{x_1,\ldots,x_i\})\}.$$ The *linear rank-width* of $G$, denoted by ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)$, is defined as the minimum width over all linear layouts of $G$ if ${\lvert V(G)\rvert}\ge 2$, and otherwise, let ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G):=0$.
Caterpillars and complete graphs have linear rank-width at most $1$. Ganian [@Ganian10] gave a characterization of the graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$, and call them *thread graphs*. Adler and Kanté [@AdlerK13] showed that linear rank-width and path-width coincide on forests, and therefore, there is a linear time algorithm to compute the linear rank-width of forests. It is easy to see that the linear rank-width of a graph is the maximum over the linear rank-widths of its connected components. The following is folklore and admits an easy proof.
\[lem:folklore\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ be a linear layout of $G$ of width $k\geq 1$. If the graph $G'$ is obtained from $G$ by creating a twin vertex $x$ to $x_1$ (resp. to $x_n$), then $(x,x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ (resp. $(x_1,\ldots,x_n,x)$) is a linear layout of $G'$ of width $k$.
Assume first that $x$ is a twin vertex of $x_1$. Then ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G(\{x\})\leq 1$ trivially. Now, for each $1\leq i \leq n-1$, the row of $A_G[\{x,x_1,\ldots,x_i,\{x_{i+1},\ldots,x_n\}]$ indexed by $x$ is the same as the row indexed by $x_1$. Hence, $${\operatorname{rank}}(A_G[\{x,x_1,\ldots,x_i,\{x_{i+1},\ldots,x_n\}])={\operatorname{rank}}(A_G[\{x_1,\ldots,x_i,\{x_{i+1},\ldots,x_n\}])\leq k$$ for each $1\leq i \leq n-1$.
Now, the case when $x$ is a twin vertex of $x_n$ follows from the previous argument because $(x_n,\ldots,x_1)$ is also a linear layout of $G$ of width $k$ as the function ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G$ is symmetric.
### **Vertex-minors** {#vertex-minors .unnumbered}
For a graph $G$ and a vertex $x$ of $G$, the *local complementation at $x$* of $G$ is an operation to replace the subgraph induced by the neighbors of $x$ with its complement. The resulting graph is denoted by $G*x$. If $H$ can be obtained from $G$ by applying a sequence of local complementations, then $G$ and $H$ are called *locally equivalent*. A graph $H$ is called a *vertex-minor* of a graph $G$ if $H$ can be obtained from $G$ by applying a sequence of local complementations and deletions of vertices.
\[lem:vm-rw\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $x$ be a vertex of $G$. Then for every subset $X$ of $V(G)$, we have ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_G(X)={\operatorname{cutrk}}_{G*x}(X)$. Therefore, every vertex-minor $H$ of $G$ satisfies that ${\operatorname{lrw}}(H) \leq {\operatorname{lrw}}(G)$.
For an edge $xy$ of $G$, let $W_1:=N_G(x)\cap N_G(y)$, $W_2:=(N_G(x)\setminus N_G(y))\setminus \{y\}$, and $W_3:=(N_G(y)\setminus N_G(x))\setminus \{x\}$. The *pivoting on $xy$* of $G$, denoted by $G\wedge xy$, is the operation to complement the adjacencies between distinct sets $W_i$ and $W_j$, and swap the vertices $x$ and $y$. It is known that $G\wedge
xy=G*x*y*x=G*y*x*y$ [@Oum05].
Split decompositions and local complementations {#subsec:splitdecs}
-----------------------------------------------
All the materials presented in this section are already discussed in the companion paper [@AdlerKK15] and we present here only the necessary definitions for completeness.
Let $G$ be a connected graph. A *split* in $G$ is a vertex partition $(X,Y)$ of $G$ such that $|X|,|Y|\geq 2$ and ${\operatorname{rank}}(A_G[X,Y]) = 1$. In other words, $(X,Y)$ is a split in $G$ if $|X|,|Y| \geq 2$ and there exist non-empty sets $X'\subseteq X$ and $Y'\subseteq Y$ such that $\{xy\in E(G) \mid x\in X, y\in Y\} = \{xy \mid x\in X', y\in Y'\}$. Notice that not all connected graphs have a split, and those that do not have a split are called *prime* graphs. A *marked graph* $D$ is a connected graph $D$ with a set of edges $M(D)$, called *marked edges*, that form a matching such that every edge in $M(D)$ is a cut-edge. The ends of the marked edges are called *marked vertices*, and the components of $(V(D), E(D)\setminus M(D))$ are called *bags* of $D$. The edges in $E(D)\setminus M(D)$ are called *unmarked edges*, and the vertices that are not marked vertices are called *unmarked vertices*. If $(X,Y)$ is a split in $G$, then we construct a marked graph $D$ that consists of the vertex set $V(G) \cup \{x',y'\}$ for two distinct new vertices $x',y'\notin V(G)$ and the edge set $E(G[X]) \cup E(G[Y]) \cup \{x'y'\} \cup E'$ where we define $x'y'$ as marked and $$\begin{aligned}
E' &:= \{x'x\mid x\in X\ \textrm{and there exists $y\in Y$ such that $xy\in E(G)$}\} \cup\\ & \qquad \{y'y \mid y\in Y\ \textrm{and there exists $x\in X$ such that $xy\in E(G)$}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The marked graph $D$ is called a *simple decomposition of* $G$.
A *split decomposition* of a connected graph $G$ is a marked graph $D$ defined inductively to be either $G$ or a marked graph defined from a split decomposition $D'$ of $G$ by replacing a component $H$ of $(V(D'),E(D')\setminus M(D'))$ with a simple decomposition of $H$. For a marked edge $xy$ in a split decomposition $D$, the *recomposition of $D$ along $xy$* is the split decomposition $D':=(D\wedge xy) \setminus \{x,y\}$. For a split decomposition $D$, let ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ denote the graph obtained from $D$ by recomposing all marked edges. Note that if $D$ is a split decomposition of $G$, then ${\mathcal{G}[D]}=G$. Since each marked edge of a split decomposition $D$ is a cut-edge and all marked edges form a matching, if we contract all unmarked edges in $D$, then we obtain a tree. We call it the *decomposition tree of $G$ associated with $D$* and denote it by $T_D$. To distinguish the vertices of $T_D$ from the vertices of $G$ or $D$, the vertices of $T_D$ will be called *nodes*. Obviously, the nodes of $T_D$ are in bijection with the bags of $D$. Two bags of $D$ are called *adjacent bags* if their corresponding nodes in $T_D$ are adjacent.
A split decomposition $D$ of $G$ is called a *canonical split decomposition* (or *canonical decomposition* for short) if each bag of $D$ is either a prime, a star, or a complete graph, and $D$ is not the refinement of a decomposition with the same property. The following is due to Cunningham and Edmonds [@CunninghamE80], and Dahlhaus [@Dahlhaus00].
\[thm:CED\] Every connected graph $G$ has a unique canonical decomposition, up to isomorphism, and it can be computed in time ${\mathcal{O}}(|V(G)|
+|E(G)|)$.
From Theorem \[thm:CED\], we can talk about only one canonical decomposition of a connected graph $G$ because all canonical decompositions of $G$ are isomorphic.
Let $D$ be a split decomposition of a connected graph $G$ with bags that are either primes, complete graphs or stars (it is not necessarily a canonical decomposition). The *type of a bag* of $D$ is either $P$, $K$, or $S$ depending on whether it is a prime, a complete graph, or a star. The *type of a marked edge* $uv$ is $AB$ where $A$ and $B$ are the types of the bags containing $u$ and $v$ respectively. If $A=S$ or $B=S$, then we can replace $S$ by $S_p$ or $S_c$ depending on whether the end of the marked edge is a leaf or the center of the star.
\[thm:can-forbid\] Let $D$ be a split decomposition of a connected graph with bags that are either primes, complete graphs, or stars. Then $D$ is a canonical decomposition if and only if it has no marked edge of type $KK$ or $S_pS_c$.
A canonical decomposition $D$ is an *$\cS$-decomposition* if every bag of $D$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex. We will use the following characterizations of trees and of distance-hereditary graphs.
\[thm:Bouchet88\]
1. A connected graph is distance-hereditary if and only if each bag of its canonical decomposition is of type K or S.
2. A connected graph is a tree if and only if its canonical decomposition is an $\cS$-decomposition.
We now relate the split decompositions of a graph and the ones of its locally equivalent graphs. Let $D$ be a split decomposition of a connected graph. A vertex $v$ of $D$ *represents* an unmarked vertex $x$ (or is a *representative* of $x$) if either $v=x$ or there is a path of even length from $v$ to $x$ in $D$ starting with a marked edge such that marked edges and unmarked edges appear alternately in the path. Two unmarked vertices $x$ and $y$ are *linked* in $D$ if there is a path from $x$ to $y$ in $D$ such that unmarked edges and marked edges appear alternately in the path.
\[lem:represent\] Let $D$ be a split decomposition of a connected graph. Let $v'$ and $w'$ be two vertices in a same bag of $D$, and let $v$ and $w$ be two unmarked vertices of $D$ represented by $v'$ and $w'$, respectively. The following are equivalent.
1. $v$ and $w$ are linked in $D$.
2. $vw\in E({\mathcal{G}[D]})$.
3. $v'w' \in E(D)$.
A *local complementation* at an unmarked vertex $x$ in a split decomposition $D$, denoted by $D*x$, is the operation to replace each bag $B$ containing a representative $w$ of $x$ with $B*w$. Observe that $D*x$ is a split decomposition of ${\mathcal{G}[D]}*x$, and $M(D) = M(D*x)$. Two split decompositions $D$ and $D'$ are *locally equivalent* if $D$ can be obtained from $D'$ by applying a sequence of local complementations at unmarked vertices.
\[lem:localdecom\] Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected graph. If $x$ is an unmarked vertex of $D$, then $D*x$ is the canonical decomposition of ${\mathcal{G}[D]}*x$.
\[rem:localdecom\] If $D$ is a canonical decomposition and $D'=D*x$ for some unmarked vertex $v$ of $D$, then $T_{D'}$ and $T_D$ are isomorphic because $M(D)=M(D')$. Thus, for every node $v$ of $T_D$ associated with a bag $B$ of $D$, its corresponding node $v'$ in $T_{D'}$ is associated in $D'$ with either
1. $B$ if $x$ has no representative in $B$, or
2. $B*w$ if $B$ has a representative $w$ of $v$.
For easier arguments in several places, if $T_D$ is given for $D$, then we assume that $T_{D'}=T_D$ for every split decomposition $D'$ locally equivalent to $D$. For a canonical decomposition $D$ and a node $v$ of its decomposition tree, we write ${\textsf{b}_{D}(v)}$ to denote the bag of $D$ with which it is in correspondence.
Let $x$ and $y$ be linked unmarked vertices in a split decomposition $D$, and let $P$ be the alternating path in $D$ linking $x$ and $y$. Observe that each bag contains at most one unmarked edge in $P$. Notice also that if $B$ is a bag of type $S$ containing an unmarked edge of $P$, then the center of $B$ is a representative of either $x$ or $y$. The *pivoting on $xy$ of $D$*, denoted by $D\wedge xy$, is the split decomposition obtained as follows: for each bag $B$ containing an unmarked edge of $P$, if $v, w\in V(B)$ represent respectively $x$ and $y$ in $D$, then we replace $B$ with $B\wedge vw$. (It is worth noticing that by Lemma \[lem:represent\], we have $vw\in E(B)$, hence $B\wedge vw$ is well-defined.)
\[lem:pivotdecom\] Let $D$ be a split decomposition of a connected graph. If $xy\in E({\mathcal{G}[D]})$, then $D\wedge xy=D*x*y*x$.
As a corollary of Lemmas \[lem:localdecom\] and \[lem:pivotdecom\], we get the following.
\[cor:pivotdecom\] Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected graph. If $xy\in E({\mathcal{G}[D]})$, then $D\wedge xy$ is the canonical decomposition of ${\mathcal{G}[D]}\wedge xy$.
The linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs {#sec:dhandthread}
---------------------------------------------------
We present here the characterization of the linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs in terms of their canonical decomposition [@AdlerKK15]. Let $G$ be a distance-hereditary graphs and let $D$ be its canonical decomposition. For a bag $B$ of $D$ and a component $T$ of $D\setminus V(B)$, let us denote by $\zeta_b(D,B,T)$ and $\zeta_t(D,B,T)$ the adjacent marked vertices of $D$ that are in $V(B)$ and in $V(T)$ respectively. Observe that $\zeta_t(D,B,T)$ is not incident with any marked edge in $T$. So, when we take a sub-decomposition $T$ from $D$, we regard $\zeta_t(D,B,T)$ as an unmarked vertex of $T$.
For an unmarked vertex $y$ in $D$ and a bag $B$ of $D$ containing a marked vertex that represents $y$, let $T$ be the component of $D\setminus V(B)$ containing $y$, and let $v$ and $w$ be adjacent marked vertices of $D$ where $v\in V(T)$ and $w\in V(B)$. We define the *limb* ${\mathcal{L}}:={\mathcal{L}}_D[B,y]$ with respect to $B$ and $y$ as follows:
1. if $B$ is of type $K$, then ${\mathcal{L}}:=T*v\setminus v$,
2. if $B$ is of type $S$ and $w$ is a leaf, then ${\mathcal{L}}:=T\setminus v$,
3. if $B$ is of type $S$ and $w$ is the center, then ${\mathcal{L}}:=T\wedge vy \setminus v$.
Since $v$ becomes an unmarked vertex in $T$, the limb is well-defined and it is a split decomposition. While $T$ is a canonical decomposition, ${\mathcal{L}}$ may not be a canonical decomposition at all, because deleting $v$ may create a bag of size $2$. Let us analyze the cases when such a bag appears, and describe how to transform it into a canonical decomposition.
Suppose that a bag $B'$ of size $2$ appears in ${\mathcal{L}}$ by deleting $v$. If $B'$ has no adjacent bags in ${\mathcal{L}}$, then $B'$ itself is a canonical decomposition. Otherwise we have two cases.
1. ($B'$ has one adjacent bag $B_1$.)\
If $v_1\in V(B_1)$ is the the marked vertex adjacent to a vertex of $B'$ and $r$ is the unmarked vertex of $B'$ in $\mathcal{L}$, then we can transform the limb into a canonical decomposition by removing the bag $B'$ and replacing $v_1$ with $r$.
2. ($B'$ has two adjacent bags $B_1$ and $B_2$.)\
If $v_1\in V(B_1)$ and $v_2\in V(B_2)$ are the two marked vertices that are adjacent to the two marked vertices of $B'$, then we can first transform the limb into another decomposition by removing $B'$ and adding a marked edge $v_1v_2$. If the new marked edge $v_1v_2$ is of type KK or $S_pS_c$, then by recomposing along $v_1v_2$, we finally transform the limb into a canonical decomposition.
Let ${\mathcal{LC}}_D[B,y]$ be the canonical decomposition obtained from ${\mathcal{L}}_D[B,y]$ and we call it the *canonical limb*. Let ${\mathcal{LG}}_D[B,y]$ be the graph obtained from ${\mathcal{L}}_D[B,y]$ by recomposing all marked edges. See [@AdlerKK15 Figure 3] for an illustration of canonical limbs.
\[prop:limb\] Let $G$ be a connected distance-hereditary graph and let $D$ be its canonical decomposition. Let $v$ be a vertex of $T_D$ and let $y\in V(T)$ be an unmarked vertex represented by $\zeta_b(D,{\textsf{b}_{D}(v)},T)$ for some component $T$ of $D\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)})$. For every canonical decomposition $D'$ locally equivalent to $D$ and every unmarked vertex $y'$ represented by $\zeta_b(D,{\textsf{b}_{D}(v)},T)$ the two canonical limbs ${\mathcal{LC}}_D[{\textsf{b}_{D}(v)},y]$ and ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D'}[{\textsf{b}_{D}(v)},y']$ are locally equivalent.
For a bag $B$ of $D$ and a component $T$ of $D\setminus V(B)$, we define $f_D(B,T)$ as the linear rank-width of ${\mathcal{LG}}_D[B,y]$ for some unmarked vertex $y\in V(T)$. By Proposition \[prop:limb\], $f_D(B,T)$ does not depend on the choice of $y$ nor on the decomposition $D$ since we can take any decomposition locally equivalent to $D$. We can now state the characterization which generalizes Theorem \[thm:maintreeforpathwidth\].
\[thm:mainchap2\] Let $k$ be a positive integer and let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected distance-hereditary graph $G$. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $G$ has linear rank-width at most $k$.
2. For each bag $B$ of $D$, $D$ has at most two components $T$ of $D\setminus V(B)$ such that $f_D(B,T)=k$, and every other component $T'$ of $D\setminus V(B)$ satisfies that $f_D(B,T')\le k-1$.
3. $T_D$ has a path $P$ such that for each node $v$ of $P$ and a component $C$ of $D\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)})$ such that $T_C$ does not contain a node of $P$, $f_D({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)},C)\le k-1$.
Path-width of decomposition trees {#sec:pwofcanonicaltrees}
=================================
To prove Theorem \[thm:largelrw\], we first observe a relation between the linear rank-width of a graph whose prime induced subgraphs have bounded linear rank-width and the path-width of its decomposition tree.
\[prop:generalupperbound\] Let $p\ge 1$ be a positive integer. Let $G$ be a connected graph whose prime induced subgraphs have linear rank-width at most $p$, and let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of $G$, and $T_D$ be the decomposition tree of $D$. Then ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G) \le 2(p+2)({\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)+1)$.
We need the following lemma.
\[lem:genupperbound\] Let $B$ be a bag of a canonical decomposition $D$ with two unmarked vertices $a$ and $b$ and let $D_1,D_2,\ldots,D_\ell$ be the components of $D\setminus
V(B)$. Let $k:=\max\{{\operatorname{lrw}}({\mathcal{G}[D_i]}))\mid 1\leq i \leq \ell\}$. If $B$ has a linear layout of width at most $p\geq 1$ whose first and last vertices are $a$ and $b$ respectively, then ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ has a linear layout of width at most $2p+k$ whose first and last vertices are $a$ and $b$ respectively.
Let $L_B:=(a,w_1,\ldots,w_m,b)$ be a linear layout of $B$ of width at most $p$. For each $1\le j\le m$,
1. if $w_j$ is an unmarked vertex, then let $L(w_j):=(w_j)$, and
2. if $w_j$ is a marked vertex with a neighbor in the component $D_j$ of $D\setminus V(B)$, then let $L(w_j)$ be a linear layout of ${\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]}\setminus \zeta_t(D, B, D_{j})$ having width at most $k$.
We define the linear layout $L$ of ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ as $$L:=(a) \oplus L(w_1)\oplus L(w_2) \cdots \oplus L(w_m) \oplus (b).$$ We claim that $L$ has width at most $2p+k$. It is sufficient to prove that for every $w\in V({\mathcal{G}[D]})\setminus \{a,b\}$, ${\operatorname{cutrk}}_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(\{v: v\le_{L} w\})\le 2p +k$. Let $w\in V({\mathcal{G}[D]})\setminus \{a,b\}$ and let $S_w:=\{v:v\le_{L} w\}$ and $T_w:=V({\mathcal{G}[D]})\setminus S_w$. If $w$ is an unmarked vertex in $B$, then clearly, $${\operatorname{cutrk}}_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w})={\operatorname{cutrk}}_{B}(\{v: v\le_{L_{B}} w\})\le p.$$ Thus, we may assume that $w\notin V(B)$, and $w$ is contained in a component $D_{j}$.
From the assumption we have the following. $$\begin{aligned}
&(1)\, {\operatorname{cutrk}}^*_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w}, T_{w}\setminus V({\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]})) \\
&\le
\max \{{\operatorname{cutrk}}_{B}(\{v: v\le_{L_{B}} \zeta_b(D,B,D_{j-1})\}), {\operatorname{cutrk}}_{B}(\{v: v\le_{L_{B}} \zeta_b(D,B,D_{j})\})\}
\le p. \\
&(2)\, {\operatorname{cutrk}}^*_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w}\setminus V({\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]}), T_{w}) \\
&\le
\max \{{\operatorname{cutrk}}_{B}(\{v: v\le_{L_{B}} \zeta_b(D,B,D_{j-1})\}), {\operatorname{cutrk}}_{B}(\{v: v\le_{L_{B}} \zeta_b(D,B,D_{j})\})\}
\le p. \\
&(3)\, {\operatorname{cutrk}}^*_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w}\cap V({\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]}), T_{w}\cap V({\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]}))\le k.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{cutrk}}_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w})\\
&\le {\operatorname{cutrk}}^*_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w}, T_{w}\setminus V({\mathcal{G}[D_j]}))
+{\operatorname{cutrk}}^*_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w}\setminus V({\mathcal{G}[D_j]}), T_{w}) \\
&+ {\operatorname{cutrk}}^*_{{\mathcal{G}[D]}}(S_{w}\cap V({\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]}), T_{w}\cap V({\mathcal{G}[D_{j}]}))\\
&\le p + p + k\le 2p+k.
\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $L$ is a linear layout of ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ of width at most $2p+k$ whose first and last vertices are $a$ and $b$, respectively.
We prove it by induction on $k:={\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)$. If $k=0$, then $T_D$ consists of one node, and by the assumption, ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)\le p\le 2(p+2)$. We may assume that $k\ge 1$.
Since ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)=k$, by Theorem \[thm:maintreeforpathwidth\], there exists a path $P:=v_1 \cdots v_n$ in $T_D$ such that for each node $v$ in $P$ and a component $T$ of $T_D\setminus v$ not containing a node of $P$, ${\operatorname{pw}}(T)\le k-1$. For each $1\le i\le n$, let $B_i:={\textsf{b}_{D}(v_i)}$.
If $n=1$, then let $D_1:=D$, and by adding unmarked vertices on $B_1$ which are twins of respectively the first vertex and the last vertex in the corresponding optimal linear layout, we may assume that $B_1$ has unmarked vertices $a_1$ and $b_1$ in $D$, respectively, and the linear rank-width of $B_1$ is still at most $p$ (see Lemma \[lem:folklore\]). Otherwise, we define $D_i$ for each $1\le i\le n$ as follows. For each $1\le i\le n-1$, let $b_i$ and $a_{i+1}$ be the marked vertices of $B_i$ and $B_{i+1}$, respectively, such that $b_ia_{i+1}$ is the marked edge connecting $B_i$ and $B_{i+1}$. If necessary, by adding unmarked vertices on $B_1$ and $B_{n}$ which are twins of respectively the first vertex and the last vertex in the corresponding optimal linear layout, we may assume that $B_1$ and $B_{n}$ have unmarked vertices $a_1$ and $b_{n}$ in $D$, respectively, and the linear rank-width of $B_1$ and $B_{n}$ are still at most $p$ (see Lemma \[lem:folklore\]). We define the following sub-decompositions.
1. Let $D_1$ be the component of $D\setminus V(B_2)$ containing the bag $B_1$.
2. Let $D_{n}$ be the component of $D\setminus V(B_{n-1})$ containing the bag $B_{n}$.
3. For each $1\le i\le n$, let $D_i$ be the component of $D\setminus (V(B_{i-1})\cup V(B_{i+1}))$ containing the bag $B_i$.
Notice that the vertices $a_i$ and $b_i$ are unmarked vertices in $D_i$
Since the rank of any matrix can be increased by at most $1$ when we move one element in the column indices (resp. the row indices) to the row indices (resp. the column indices), $B_i$ admits a linear layout of width at most $p+2$ whose first and last vertices are $a_i$ and $b_i$, respectively. By induction hypothesis and Lemma \[lem:genupperbound\] we have that ${\mathcal{G}[D_i]}$ has a linear layout $L_i$ of width at most $2(p+2)(k+1)$ whose first and last vertices are $a_i$ and $b_i$, respectively. For each $i$, let $L_i'$ be the linear layout obtained from $L_i$ by removing unnecessary vertices. Then it is not hard to check that $$L'_1 \oplus\cdots \oplus L'_{n}$$ is a linear layout of $G$ having width at most $2(p+2)(k+1)$. We conclude that ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G) \le 2(p+2)({\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)+1)$.
For distance-hereditary graphs, the following establishes a lower bound and the tight upper bound of linear rank-width with respect to the path-width of their canonical decomposition.
\[prop:lrwpw\] Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected distance-hereditary graph $G$ and let $T_D$ be the decomposition tree of $D$. Then $\frac{1}{2}{\operatorname{pw}}(T_D) \le {\operatorname{lrw}}(G) \le {\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)+1$.
The upper bound part is tight. For instance, every complete graph with at least two vertices has linear rank-width $1$ and the path-width of its decomposition tree has path-width $0$. Also, for each odd integer $k=2n+1$ with $n\ge 1$, every complete binary tree of height $k$ (each path from a leaf to the root has distance $k$) has linear rank-width $\lceil k/2 \rceil=n+1$, and its decomposition tree has path-width $\lceil (k-1)/2 \rceil=n$. (Note that the linear rank-width and the path-width of a tree are the same [@AdlerK13].) We will need the following lemmas.
\[lem:decpw\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $uv\in E(G)$. Then ${\operatorname{pw}}(G)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(G/uv )+1$.
Let $(P, \mathcal{B})$ be an optimal path-decomposition of $G/uv$. It is not hard to check that a new path-decomposition obtained by adding $u$ in each bag containing $v$ is a path-decomposition of $G$. We conclude that ${\operatorname{pw}}(G)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(G/uv)+1$.
\[lem:decpw2\] Let $G$ be a graph. Let $u$ be a vertex of degree $2$ in $G$ such that $v_1, v_2$ are the neighbors of $u$ in $G$ and $v_1v_2\notin E(G)$. Then ${\operatorname{pw}}(G)\le
{\operatorname{pw}}(G/uv_1/uv_2 )+1$.
Let $w$ be the contracted vertex in $G/uv_1/uv_2$, and let $(P, \mathcal{B})$ be an optimal path-decomposition of $G/uv_1/uv_2$ of width $t:={\operatorname{pw}}(G/uv_1/uv_2)$. We may assume without loss of generality that not two consecutive bags are equal.
We first obtain a path-decomposition $(P, \mathcal{B}')$ from $(P, \mathcal{B})$ by replacing $w$ with $v_1$ and $v_2$ in all bags containing $w$. Since every two consecutive bags in $(P,
\mathcal{B})$ are not equal, every two consecutive bags in $(P, \mathcal{B}')$ are not equal.
We first assume that there are two adjacent bags $B_1$ and $B_2$ in $(P, \mathcal{B}')$ containing both $v_1$ and $v_2$, respectively. We obtain a path-decomposition $(P', \mathcal{B}'')$ from $(P,
\mathcal{B}')$ by subdividing the edge between $B_1$ and $B_2$, and adding a new bag $B'=(B_1\cap B_2) \cup \{u\}$. Since $B_1$ and $B_2$ are not the same, ${\lvert B_1\cap B_2\rvert}\le t+1$ and therefore, ${\lvert B'\rvert}\le t+2$. Thus, $(P', \mathcal{B}'')$ is a path-decomposition of $G$ of width at most $t+1$, and ${\operatorname{pw}}(G)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(G/uv_1/uv_2)+1$.
Now we assume that there are only one bag $B$ in $(P, \mathcal{B}')$ containing both $v_1$ and $v_2$. In this case, since $v_1v_2\notin E(G)$, we can obtain a path decomposition of $G$ by replacing this bag $B$ with a sequence of two bags $B_1$ and $B_2$, where $B_1:=B\setminus \{v_2\} \cup \{u\}$ and $B_2:=B\setminus \{v_1\} \cup \{u\}$. This implies that ${\operatorname{pw}}(G)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(G/uv_1/uv_2)+1$.
We are now ready to prove Proposition \[prop:lrwpw\].
(1) Let us first prove by induction on $k:={\operatorname{lrw}}(G)$ that ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)\leq 2{\operatorname{lrw}}(G)$. If $k=0$, then $G$ consists of a vertex, and ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)=0$. If $k=1$, then by Theorem \[thm:charlrw1\], $T_D$ is a path. Therefore, ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)=0$ or $1$, and we have ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)\le 2k$. Thus, we may assume that $k\ge 2$.
Since ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)=k\ge 2$, by Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\], there exists a path $P:=v_0v_1 \cdots v_nv_{n+1}$ in $T_D$ such that for each node $v$ in $P$ and a component $C$ of $D\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)})$ such that $T_C$ does not contain a node of $P$, $f_D(B,C)\le k-1$. Let $v$ be any node of $P$ and let $C$ be a component of $D\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)})$ such that $T_C$ does not contain a node of $P$. Let $y$ be an unmarked vertex in $C$ and let $L_C:={\mathcal{LC}}_D[V({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)}),y]$. By induction hypothesis, the decomposition tree $T_{L_C}$ of $L_C$ has path-width at most $2k-2$. We claim that ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_C)\le 2k-1$. By the definition of canonical limbs, $T_{L_C}$ is obtained from $T_C$ using one of the following operations:
1. Removing a node of degree $1$.
2. Removing a node of degree $2$ with the neighbors $v_1, v_2$ and adding an edge $v_1v_2$.
3. Removing a node of degree $2$ with the neighbors $v_1, v_2$ and identifying $v_1$ and $v_2$.
The first two cases can be regarded as contracting one edge. So, ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_C)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(T_{L_C})+1\le (2k-2)+1=2k-1$ by Lemma \[lem:decpw\]. The last case corresponds to contracting two incident edges where the middle node has degree $2$ and its neighbors are not adjacent. By Lemma \[lem:decpw2\], ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_C)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(T_{L_C})+1\le 2k-1$.
Therefore, for each node $v$ of $P$ and each component $T'$ of $T_C\setminus v$ not containing a node of $T_D$ we have that ${\operatorname{pw}}(T')\leq 2k-1$. By Theorem \[thm:maintreeforpathwidth\], $T_D$ has path-width at most $2k$, as required.
(2) We now prove by induction on $k:={\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)$ that ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)\leq {\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)+1$. If $k=0$, then $T_D$ consists of one node, and ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)=0$ or $1$. So, we have ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)\le {\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)+1$. We assume that $k\ge 1$.
Since ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)=k$, by Theorem \[thm:maintreeforpathwidth\], there exists a path $P=v_0v_1 \cdots v_nv_{n+1}$ in $T_D$ such that for each node $v$ in $P$ and a component $T_C$ of $T_D\setminus v$ not containing a node of $P$, ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_C)\le k-1$. Let $v$ be any node of $P$ and let $C$ be a component of $D\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)})$ such that its decomposition tree $T_C$ corresponds to a component of $T_D\setminus v$ that does not contain a node of $P$. By induction hypothesis, ${\mathcal{G}[C]}$ has linear rank-width at most $(k-1)+1=k$. By the definition of limbs, we can therefore conclude that $f_D({\textsf{b}_{D}(v)},C) \leq k$. By Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\], we can conclude that ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)\le k+1$.
We could not confirm that the lower bound in Proposition \[prop:lrwpw\] is tight. We leave the following as an open question.
Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected distance-hereditary graph $G$. Is it true that ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D) \le {\operatorname{lrw}}(G)$?
Containing a tree as a vertex-minor
===================================
We show that Question \[que:tree\] is true if it is true for prime graphs. To support this statement, we show the following.
\[thm:largelrw\] Let $p\ge 1$ be a positive integer and let $T$ be a tree. Let $G$ be a graph such that every prime induced subgraph of $G$ has linear rank-width at most $p$. If ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G) \ge 40(p+2){\lvert V(T)\rvert}$, then $G$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$.
We proved in the previous section that for a graph whose prime induced subgraphs have bounded linear rank-width, if $G$ has sufficiently large linear rank-width, then its decomposition tree must have large path-width. In this section, we show that for a fixed tree $T$, if a graph $G$ admits a canonical decomposition whose decomposition tree has sufficiently large path-width, then $G$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$.
We first prove some lemmas to replace general trees in Theorem \[thm:largelrw\] with subcubic trees. For a tree $T$, we denote by $\phi(T)$ the sum of the degrees of vertices of $T$ whose degree is at least $4$. Every subcubic tree $T$ satisfies that $\phi(T)=0$.
=\[circle, draw, solid, fill=black, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=2.5pt\]
\(a) at (0,0) ; (b) at (2,3) ; (c) at (-2,3) ; (d) at (-4,0) ; (e) at (-2,-3) ; (f) at (2,-3) ; (g) at (4,0) ;
(1,0.5) node[$v$]{};
(4,0.7) node[$v_1$]{}; (2,3.7) node[$v_2$]{}; (-2,3.7) node[$v_3$]{}; (-4,0.7) node[$v_4$]{}; (-2.2,-2.3) node[$v_5$]{}; (2.2,-2.3) node[$v_6$]{};
(a)–(b); (a)–(c); (a)–(d); (a)–(e); (a)–(f); (a)–(g);
\(a) at (0,0) ; (b) at (10,3) ; (c) at (-2,3) ; (d) at (-4,0) ; (e) at (-2,-3) ;
\(f) at (2,-3) ; (g) at (12,0) ;
(p1) at (4,0) ; (p2) at (8,0) ;
(1,0.5) node[$v$]{};
(12,0.7) node[$v_1$]{}; (10,3.7) node[$v_2$]{}; (-2,3.7) node[$v_3$]{}; (-4,0.7) node[$v_4$]{}; (-2.2,-2.3) node[$v_5$]{}; (2.2,-2.3) node[$v_6$]{};
(4,0.7) node[$p_2$]{}; (7.8,0.7) node[$p_1$]{};
(p2)–(b); (a)–(c); (a)–(d); (a)–(e); (a)–(f); (a)–(p1)–(p2)–(g);
\[lem:subcubicpivot1\] Let $k$ be a positive integer and let $T$ be a tree with $\phi(T)=k$. Then $T$ is a vertex-minor of a tree $T'$ with $\phi(T')=k-1$ and ${\lvert V(T')\rvert}={\lvert V(T)\rvert}+2$.
Since $\phi(T)\ge 1$, $T$ has a vertex of degree at least $4$. Let $v\in V(T)$ be a vertex of degree at least $4$, and let $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_m$ be its neighbors. We obtain $T'$ from $T$ by replacing the edge $vv_1$ with the path $vp_2p_1v_1$, removing the edge $vv_2$ and adding the edge $p_1v_2$. It is easy to verify that $(T'\wedge p_1p_2)\setminus p_1\setminus p_2=T$. We depict this procedure in Figure \[fig:splitting\]. Because $p_1$ and $p_2$ are vertices of degree at most $3$ in $T'$, and the degree of $v$ in $T'$ is one less than the degree of $v$ in $T$, we have $\phi(T')=k-1$.
\[lem:subcubicpivot2\] Let $T$ be a tree. Then $T$ is a vertex-minor of a subcubic tree $T'$ with ${\lvert V(T')\rvert}\le 5{\lvert V(T)\rvert}$.
By Lemma \[lem:subcubicpivot1\], $T$ is a vertex-minor of a subcubic tree $T'$ with ${\lvert V(T')\rvert}\le {\lvert V(T)\rvert}+2\phi(T)$. Since $\phi(T)\le 2{\lvert E(T)\rvert}\le 2{\lvert V(T)\rvert}$, we conclude that ${\lvert V(T')\rvert}\le {\lvert V(T)\rvert}+2\phi(T)\le 5{\lvert V(T)\rvert}$.
We recall that from Theorem \[thm:Bouchet88\](2) that a connected graph is a tree if and only if its canonical decomposition is an $\mathcal{S}$-decomposition. The basic strategy to prove Theorem \[thm:largelrw\] is the construction of the canonical decomposition of $T$ from the canonical decomposition of $G$.
Let us introduce some lemmas which tell how to recursively replace each bag with a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex, without changing the decomposition tree too much. This will be used in the recursion step of the proof of Theorem \[thm:largelrw\].
\[lem:findingpathinprime\] Let $G$ be a prime graph on at least $5$ vertices, and let $a,b,c\in V(G)$. Then there exists a sequence $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)$ of vertices in $V(G)\setminus \{a,b\}$ such that $G*x_1*x_2*\cdots *x_m$ contains an induced path $acb$.
Since every prime graph on at least $5$ vertices is $2$-connected, there is a path from $a$ to $b$ in $G$ of length at least $2$. Let $P$ be the shortest path among such paths. We divide into cases depending on whether $c\in V(P)$.
0.2cm ***Case 1.** $c\in V(P)$.*
Let $P_1$ be the subpath of $P$ from $a$ to $c$ and let $P_2$ be the subpath of $P$ from $c$ to $b$. By applying local complementations at all internal vertices in $P_1$ and $P_2$, we may create a path $acb$. If $ab$ is an edge in the resulting graph, then by applying a local complementation at $c$, we can remove it. We create the required induced path $acb$ without applying local complementations neither at $a$ nor at $b$.
0.2cm ***Case 2.** $c\notin V(P)$.*
By applying local complementations at all internal vertices of $P$ except one, we may assume that $G$ has a path of length $2$, say $azb$, where $z\neq c$. We take a minimal path $Q=q_1q_2 \cdots q_m$ from $q_1=c$ to the path $azb$. Since $c\notin \{a,b,z\}$, we have $m\ge 2$. Let $G_1:=G[V(Q)\cup \{a,b,z\}]$. If $m\ge 4$, then by replacing $G_1$ by $(G_1*q_2*q_3*\cdots *q_{m-2})\setminus \{q_2,\ldots,q_{m-2}\}$, we may assume that $m=2$ or $3$.
First assume that $m=2$. By applying a local complementation at $z$, we may assume that either $abc$ is a triangle or among the possible edges $\{ab, bc, ca\}$, exactly one is present in $G_1$. If $abc$ is a triangle, then $G_1*c\setminus z$ is the induced path $acb$. If $ab\in E(G_1)$ and $bc,ca\notin E(G_1)$, then $G_1*z\setminus z=acb$. If one of $bc$ and $ca$ is an edge of $G_1$ and two others of $\{ab,bc,ca\}$ are not edges of $G_1$, then $(G_1*c*z)\setminus z$ is the induced path $acb$. All of these operations create an induced path $acb$ without applying local complementations at $a$ or $b$, as required.
Now suppose that $m=3$. In this case, we take $(G_1\wedge q_2q_3)\setminus \{q_2, q_3\}$. Since $a$ and $b$ are adjacent to $z$ but $c$ is not adjacent to $z$, we have $ac, bc\in E((G_1\wedge q_2q_3)\setminus \{q_2, q_3\})$. By applying a local complementation at $c$ if $ab$ is an edge, we can obtain an induced path $acb$, as required.
A canonical decomposition $D$ is *rooted* if we distinguish a leaf bag and call it the *root* of $D$. Let $D$ be a rooted canonical decomposition with the root $R$. A bag $B$ is a descendant of a bag $B'$ if a vertex of $B'$ is in the unique path from a vertex of the root to a vertex of $B$. If $B$ is a descendant of $B'$ and $B$ and $B'$ are adjacent, then we call $B$ a *child* of $B'$ and $B'$ the *parent* of $B$. A bag in $D$ is called a *non-root bag* if it is not the root bag.
\[lem:primetwomarked1\] Let $D$ be a rooted canonical decomposition of a connected graph with root $R$ and let $B$ be a non-root bag of $D$ with $w$ its corresponding node in $T_D$ such that
- $D\setminus V(B)$ has exactly two components $T_1$ and $T_R$ with $R$ contained in $T_R$,
- the parent of $B$ is a star and $\zeta_t(D,B,T_R)$ is a leaf.
Then by possibly applying local complementations at unmarked vertices of $D$ contained in $D\setminus V(T_R)$ and possibly deleting some vertices in $B$, we can transform $D$ into a canonical decomposition $D'$ such that
1. $T_D=T_{D'}$ and $R$ is a bag of $D'$, and
2. ${\textsf{b}_{D'}(w)}$ is a star whose center is an unmarked vertex of $B$, and $T_R$ is the component of $D'\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D'}(w)})$ containing $R$.
If $B$ is a star bag or a complete bag, then it is easy to transform it into a star bag with the center at the unmarked vertex, preserving $T_R$. We may assume that $B$ is a prime bag. Let $v:=\zeta_b(D,B,T_R)$, $v_1:=\zeta_b(D,B, T_1)$ and choose an unmarked vertex $v_2$ of $B$. Let $B_1$ be the child of $B$. If $B_1$ is a star bag whose center is $\zeta_t(D,B,T_1)$, then by pivoting two linked unmarked vertices $w_1\in V(B)$ and $w_2$ represented by $v_2$, we may assume that $B_1$ is a star bag having $\zeta_t(D,B,T_1)$ as a leaf.
Since $B$ is prime, by Lemma \[lem:findingpathinprime\], we can modify $B$ into an induced path $vv_2v_1$ by only applying local complementations at unmarked vertices in $B$. Then we remove all the other vertices of $B$. Note that the marked edges incident with $B$ are still marked edges that cannot be recomposed. In the resulting canonical decomposition, the new bag modified from $B$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex, as required. Since the decomposition tree of the resulting decomposition is equal to $T_D$ we are done.
\[lem:primetwomarked2\] Let $D$ be a rooted canonical decomposition of a connected graph with root $R$ and let $B$ be a non-root bag of $D$ such that
1. $D\setminus V(B)$ has exactly three components $T_1,T_2$ and $T_R$ with $R$ contained in $T_R$,
2. the parent $P_1$ of $B$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex, and the parent $P_2$ of $P_1$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex, and
3. both $D\setminus V(P_1)$ and $D\setminus V(P_2)$ have exactly two components.
For each $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $B_i$ be the child of $B$ contained in $T_i$ where $D\setminus V(B_i)$ has exactly two components. Then by possibly applying local complementations at unmarked vertices of $D$ contained in $D\setminus V(T_R)$ and possibly deleting some vertices in $B$ and recomposing some marked edges, we can transform $D$ into a canonical decomposition $D'$ containing a bag $P$ such that $D'\setminus V(P)$ contains exactly three components $F_R, F_1, F_2$ with
1. $F_R=T_R\setminus (V(P_1)\cup V(P_2) )$,
2. for each $i\in \{1,2\}$, $V(F_i)=V(T_i)$ or $V(F_i)=V(T_i)\setminus V(B_i)$, and
3. $P$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex.
For each $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $x_i$ be the center of $P_i$. If $B$ is a star bag or a complete bag and has an unmarked vertex, then it is easy to transform it into a star bag with the center at an unmarked vertex and preserving $T_R$. Then we can remove the two bags $P_1$ and $P_2$ after doing a pivoting $x_1x_2$ and removing all the unmarked vertices contained in $P_1$ and $P_2$. Thus, we may assume that either $B$ is a prime bag on at least $5$ vertices, or $B$ has no unmarked vertex. Let $v:=\zeta_b(D,B,T_R)$ and let $w$ be the corresponding node of $B$ in $T_D$, and for each $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $v_i:=\zeta_b(D, B, T_i)$.
0.2cm ***Case 1.** $B$ is not prime and has no unmarked vertex.*
By applying a local complementation in $D$, we may assume that $B$ is a star and $v_1$ is its center without changing $T_R$. We can also assume that each of $P_1$ and $P_2$ has exactly one unmarked vertex $x_i$ by possibly deleting all the other leaf unmarked vertices in $P_1$ and $P_2$. Let $w_1w_2$ be the marked edge between $P_1$ and $P_2$ with $w_i\in V(P_i)$.
Now we transform $D$ by pivoting $x_1x_2$ so that each $w_i$ is the center of $P_i$. It does not change $T_R\setminus (V(P_1)\cup V(P_2))$. The canonical decomposition $D'$ of ${\mathcal{G}[D\wedge x_1x_2]}\setminus V(P_1)$ is obtained from $D\wedge x_1x_2$ as follows: delete the vertices of $V(P_1)$, add the marked edge $vw_2$ and then recompose the new marked edge $vw_2$ as it is of type $S_pS_c$ which is not valid by Theorem \[thm:can-forbid\]. Notice that $w$ is still in $T_{D'}$ and ${\textsf{b}_{D'}(w)}$ is a star on the vertex set $\{v,v_1,v_2,x_2\}$ with center $v_1$. By pivoting $x_2$ with an unmarked vertex represented by $v_1$, the vertex $x_2$ becomes the center of ${\textsf{b}_{D'}(w)}$. Now, by construction of $D'$, the components of $D'\setminus V({\textsf{b}_{D'}(w)})$ are respectively $T_R\setminus (V(P_1)\cup V(P_2) )$ and $F_1$ and $F_2$ with $V(F_i)=V(T_i)$.
0.2cm ***Case 2.** $B$ is prime.*
Since $B$ is prime, by Lemma \[lem:findingpathinprime\], we can modify $B$ into an induced path $vv_1v_2$ by only applying local complementations at unmarked vertices in $B$ and unmarked vertices represented by $v_1$. Then we remove all the other vertices of $B$. Note that the marked edge connecting $B$ and $P_1$ is still a valid marked edge as $P_1$ is a star with $\zeta_t(D,B,T_R)$ a leaf. Now, for $i\in \{1,2\}$, the marked edge $v_i-\zeta_t(D,B,T_i)$ may not be valid, then we recompose it. In the resulting canonical decomposition $D'$, the node $w$ is still a node of $T_{D'}$ and $\zeta_b(D', {\textsf{b}_{D'}(w)}, T_R)$ is a leaf. We are now reduced to ***Case 1***, from which we can construct the required canonical decomposition.
Now we are ready prove the main result of the section. For a tree $T$, let $\eta(T)$ be the tree obtained from $T$ by replacing each edge with a path of length $4$.
Let $t:={\lvert V(T)\rvert}$ and suppose that ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G) \ge 40(p+2)t$. By Lemma \[lem:subcubicpivot2\], there exists a subcubic tree $T'$ such that $T$ is a vertex-minor of $T'$ and ${\lvert V(T')\rvert}\le 5t$. Note that ${\lvert V(\eta(T'))\rvert}\le 20t$.
Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of $G$ and let $T_D$ be the decomposition tree of $D$. Since ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G) \ge 40(p+2)t$, by Proposition \[prop:generalupperbound\], ${\operatorname{pw}}(T_D)\ge 20t-1$. Since ${\lvert V(\eta(T'))\rvert}\le 20t$, from Theorem \[thm:pathwidththeorem\], $T_D$ contains a minor isomorphic to $\eta(T')$. Since the maximum degree of $\eta(T')$ is $3$, $T_D$ contains a subgraph $T_1$ that is isomorphic to a subdivision of $\eta(T')$. Clearly, $T_1$ is an induced subgraph of $T_D$ as $T_1$ and $T_D$ are trees. Let $D'$ be the sub-decomposition of $D$ whose decomposition tree is $T_1$ and root $D'$ at a leaf bag. Notice that $D'$ is a canonical decomposition of an induced subgraph of $G$. By possibly using Lemma \[lem:findingpathinprime\] we can moreover assume that $R$ is a star centered at a marked vertex.
Now we inductively modify $D'$ into a canonical decomposition with some bags having three adjacent bags colored in blue such that
- $R$ exists in the resulting decomposition,
- for every colored bag $B$, $B$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex,
- for every colored bag $B$ and an ascendant bag $B'$ of $B$ having three adjacent bags, $B'$ is also colored,
- for every non-colored bag $B'$, $B'$ has a parent bag $P_1$ and $P_1$ has a parent bag $P_2$ where $P_1$ and $P_2$ have two adjacent bags, respectively,
- there are at least $3$ bags between two non-colored bags, and
- the number of bags having three adjacent bags in $D'$ and in the resulting decomposition is same.
We claim that we can obtain such a decomposition where all bags with three adjacent bags are colored in blue. We construct such a decomposition in a top-down manner. Note that $D'$ itself with all bags non-colored satisfies the above conditions because the decomposition tree of $D'$ is isomorphic to $\eta(T')$.
Now, choose the first non-colored bag $B$ having three adjacent bags such that
> either all its ascendants bags having three adjacent bags are colored, or it does not have an ascendant bag with three adjacent bags.
From the condition, $B$ has a parent bag $P_1$ and $P_1$ has a parent bag $P_2$ where $P_1$ and $P_2$ have two adjacent bags, respectively. Note that $P_2\neq R$ in case when $B$ is the closest bag to $R$ as the decomposition tree of $D'$ is isomorphic to a subdivision of $\eta(T')$.
Let $T_R, T_1$ and $T_2$ be the components of $D'\setminus V(B)$ where $T_R$ contains the root bag. For each $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $B_i$ be the child of $B$ contained in $T_i$. By Lemma \[lem:primetwomarked1\], we can modify $P_1$ and $P_2$ into star bags whose centers are unmarked vertices respectively, preserving the decomposition tree and without modifying the component of $D'\setminus V(P_i)$ containing $R$. . Then by Lemma \[lem:primetwomarked2\], by possibly applying local complementations at unmarked vertices of $D'$ contained in $D'\setminus V(T_R)$ and possibly deleting some vertices in $B$ and recomposing some marked edges, we can transform $D'$ into a canonical decomposition $D''$ containing a bag $P$ such that $D''\setminus V(P)$ contains exactly three components $F_R, F_1, F_2$ with
1. $F_R=T_R\setminus (V(P_1)\cup V(P_2) )$,
2. for each $i\in \{1,2\}$, $V(F_i)=V(T_i)$ or $V(F_i)=V(T_i)\setminus V(B_i)$, and
3. $P$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex.
We color $P$ in blue. Note that previously, there are at least $3$ bags between two non-colored bags, therefore new decomposition $D''$ still satisfies the property that
- every non-colored bag $B'$ has a parent bag $P_1$ and $P_1$ has a parent bag $P_2$ where $P_1$ and $P_2$ have two adjacent bags, respectively.
Since by construction $D''$ satisfies all the other conditions (i)-(iv) and (vi), we have therefore constructed from $D'$ a new decomposition $D''$ satisfying all the conditions (i)-(vi) and have decreased by one the number of non-colored bags having three adjacent bags.
Therefore, we can construct from $D'$ a canonical decomposition $D''$ such that
- every bag of $D''$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex,
- the decomposition tree of $D''$ is isomorphic to a subdivision of $T'$.
By Theorem \[thm:Bouchet88\], ${\mathcal{G}[D'']}$ is a tree, and in fact, it is not hard to observe that ${\mathcal{G}[D'']}$ has an induced subgraph isomorphic to $T'$ by removing vertices. Since $T$ is a vertex-minor of $T'$, we conclude that $G$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to $T$.
Distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions for graphs of bounded linear rank-width {#sec:obstructions}
=====================================================================================
We generalize the constructions of vertex-minor obstructions for graphs of bounded linear rank-width in [@JKO2014] so that we can generate all vertex-minor obstructions that are distance-hereditary graphs. We use the characterization of distance-hereditary graphs described in Section \[sec:dhandthread\].
For a distance-hereditary graph $G$, a connected graph $G'$ is an *one-vertex DH-extension* of $G$ if $G=G'\setminus v$ for some vertex $v\in V(G')$ and $G'$ is distance-hereditary. For convenience, if $G'$ is an *one-vertex DH-extension* of $G$, and $D$ and $D'$ are canonical decompositions of $G$ and $G'$ respectively, then $D'$ is also called an *one-vertex DH-extension* of $D$. For a set $\mathcal{D}$ of canonical decompositions, we define the $$\mathcal{D}^{+}:=\mathcal{D}\cup \{D':D' \text{ is an one vertex DH-extension of }D\in \mathcal{D}\}.$$ For a set $\mathcal{D}$ of canonical decompositions, we define a new set $\Delta(\mathcal{D})$ of canonical decompositions $D$ as follows:
> Choose three canonical decompositions $D_1, D_2, D_3$ in $\mathcal{D}$ and for each $1\le i\le 3$, take an one-vertex extension $D_i'$ of $D_i$ with a new unmarked vertex $w_i$. We introduce a new bag $B$ of type $K$ or $S$ having three vertices $v_1, v_2, v_3$ such that the type of $B$ is compatible with the type of the bag in $D_i'$ containing $w_i$, and
>
> 1. if $v_i$ is in a complete bag, then we define $D_i'':=D_i'*w_i$,
>
> 2. if $v_i$ is the center of a star bag, then we define $D_i'':=D_i'\wedge w_iz_i$ for some $z_i$ linked to $w_i$ in $D_i'$,
>
> 3. if $v_i$ is a leaf of a star bag, then we define $D_i'':=D_i'$.
>
> Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition obtained by the disjoint union of $D_1'', D_2'', D_3''$ and $B$ by adding the marked edges $v_1w_1, v_2w_2, v_3w_3$.
For each non-negative integer $k$, we recursively construct the sets $\Psi_k$ of canonical decompositions as follows.
1. $\Psi_0:=\{K_2\}$ ($K_2$ is the canonical decomposition of itself.)
2. For $k\ge 0$, let $\Psi_{k+1}:=\Delta(\Psi_k^{+})$.
We prove the following.
\[thm:mainobs\] Let $k\ge 0$ be a positive integer. Every distance-hereditary graph of linear rank-width at least $k+1$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to a graph whose canonical decomposition is isomorphic to a decomposition in $\Psi_k$.
We remark that for each positive integer $k$, starting with the set $\Psi_k$, we can construct a set of vertex-minor minimal graphs $\mathcal{O}$ such that
1. every distance-hereditary graph of linear rank-width at least $k+1$ contains a vertex-minor isomorphic to a graph in $\mathcal{O}$, and
2. for $G\in \mathcal{O}$, ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)=k+1$ and every of its proper vertex-minors has linear rank-width at most $k$.
Recall that we can compute the linear rank-width of any distance-hereditary graph in polynomial-time [@AdlerKK15]. Let us now prove some intermediate lemmas.
\[lem:reduce\] Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected distance-hereditary graph. Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be two distinct bags of $D$, and for each $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $T_i$ be the component of $D\setminus V(B_i)$ such that
- $T_1$ contains $B_2$ and $T_2$ contains $B_1$,
- $\zeta_b(D, B_1, T_1)$ is not a center of a star bag, and
- $B_2$ is a star bag and $\zeta_b(D, B_2, T_2)$ is a leaf of $B_2$.
Then there exists a canonical decomposition $D'$ such that
1. ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ has ${\mathcal{G}[D']}$ as a vertex-minor,
2. $D[V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)]=D'[V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)]$,
3. $D[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]=D'[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]$, and
4. either $D'$ has no bags between $B_1$ and $B_2$, or $D'$ has only one bag $B$ between $B_1$ and $B_2$ such that ${\lvert V(B)\rvert}=3$, $B$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex.
If $B_1$ and $B_2$ are adjacent bags in $D$, then we are done. We assume that there exists at least one bag between $B_1$ and $B_2$ in $D$. Let $P=p_1p_2 \ldots p_{\ell}$ be the shortest path from $\zeta_b(D, B_1, T_1)=p_1$ to $\zeta_b(D, B_2, T_2)=p_{\ell}$ in $D$. Note that $\ell\ge 4$ as $D$ has at least one bag between $B_1$ and $B_2$.
Let $C$ be a bag in $D$ that contains exactly two vertices $p_i$, $p_{i+1}$ of $P$. Then we remove $C$ and all components of $D\setminus V(C)$ which does not contain $B_1$ or $B_2$, and add a marked edge $p_{i-1}p_{i+2}$. Since this operation does not change the parts $D[V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)]$ and $D[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]$, applying this operation consecutively, we may assume that all bags of $D$ between $B_1$ and $B_2$ are star bags containing $3$ vertices of $P$.
Suppose there exist two adjacent bags $C_1$ and $C_2$ in $D$ such that $p_i,p_{i+1},p_{i+2}\in V(C_1)$ and $p_{i+3},p_{i+4},p_{i+5}\in V(C_2)$. Take two unmarked vertices $x_{i+1}$ and $x_{i+4}$ of $D$ that are represented by $p_{i+1}$, $p_{i+4}$, respectively. By pivoting $x_{i+1}x_{i+4}$ in $D$, we can modify two bags $C_1$ and $C_2$ so that $p_ip_{i+2}p_{i+3}p_{i+5}$ becomes a path. By the definition of the pivoting operation, this pivoting does not affect on the parts $D[V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)]$ and $D[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]$. We remove $C_1$ and $C_2$ from $D$ (with all components of $D\setminus V(C_i)$ which does not contain $B_1$ or $B_2$), and add a marked edge $p_{i-1}p_{i+6}$. By the assumption that $y_1$ is not the center of $B_1$ we know that the marked edge incident with $B_1$ is still not recomposable. Therefore, we obtain a canonical decomposition satisfying the condition (1), (2), (3), and the number of bags containing $P$ is decreased by two. By recursively doing this procedure, at the end, we have either no bags between $B_1$ and $B_2$, or exactly one star bag $B$ with ${\lvert B\rvert}=3$, where the center of $B$ is an unmarked vertex, by removing redundant components.
The next proposition says how we can replace limbs having linear rank-width $\geq k=1$ into a canonical decomposition in $\Psi_{k-1}^{+}$ using Lemma \[lem:reduce\].
\[prop:replace\] Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of a connected distance-hereditary graph. Let $B$ be a star bag of $D$ and $v$ be a leaf of $B$. Let $T$ be a component of $D\setminus V(B)$ such that $\zeta_b(D, B, T)=v$, and let $w$ be an unmarked vertex of $D$ represented by $v$. Let $A$ be the canonical decomposition of a distance-hereditary graph. If ${\mathcal{LG}}_D[B,w]$ has a vertex-minor that is either ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$ or an one-vertex extension of ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$, then there exists a canonical decomposition $D'$ on a subset of $V(D)$ such that
1. either $D'\setminus V(T)=D\setminus V(T)$ or $D'\setminus V(T)=(D\setminus V(T))*v$, and
2. for some unmarked vertex $w'$ of $D'$ represented by $v$, ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D'}[B,w']$ is either $A$ or an one-vertex DH-extension of $A$.
Suppose that there exists a sequence $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_m$ of vertices of ${\mathcal{LG}}_D[B,w]$ and $S\subseteq V({\mathcal{LG}}_D[B,w])$ such that $({\mathcal{LG}}_D[B,w]*x_1*x_2* \ldots *x_m)\setminus S$ is either ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$ or an one-vertex DH-extension of ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$. So, there exists $Q\subseteq V(D)$ such that $({\mathcal{L}}_D[B,w]*x_1*x_2* \ldots *x_m)[Q]$ is a split decomposition of either ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$ or an one-vertex DH-extension of ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$. Since ${\mathcal{L}}_D[B,w]$ is an induced subgraph of $D$, we have $$({\mathcal{L}}_D[B,w]*x_1*x_2* \ldots *x_m)[Q]=(D*x_1*x_2* \ldots *x_m)[Q].$$ For convenience, let $D_1=D*x_1*x_2* \ldots *x_m$. Note that $D[V(B)]=D_1[V(B)]$.
We choose a bag $B'$ in $D_1$ such that
1. $B'$ has a vertex of $Q$, and
2. the distance between the corresponding nodes of $B'$ and $B$ in the decomposition tree of $D_1$ is minimum.
Here, we want to shrink all the bags between $B'$ and $B$ using Lemma \[lem:reduce\]. Let $T_1$ be the component of $D_1\setminus V(B')$ containing the bag $B$ and let $T_2$ be the component of $D_1\setminus V(B)$ containing the bag $B'$. Let $y:=\zeta_b(D, B', T_1)$. From the choice of $B'$, we have $y\notin Q$, otherwise, there exists an unmarked vertex represented by $y$, and all vertices on the path from $y$ to it should be contained in $Q$, which contradicts to the minimality of the distance from $B$ to $B'$. In addition, $y$ is not the center of a star bag because $D_1[Q]$ is connected and $B'$ has at least two vertices of $Q$.
Applying Lemma \[lem:reduce\], there exists a canonical decomposition $D_2$ such that
1. ${\mathcal{G}[D_1]}$ has ${\mathcal{G}[D_2]}$ as a vertex-minor,
2. $D_1[V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)]=D_2[V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)]$,
3. $D_1[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]=D_2[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]$,
4. either $D_2$ has no bags between $B$ and $B'$, or it has exactly one bag $B_s$ between $B$ and $B'$ such that ${\lvert V(B_s)\rvert}=3$, $B_s$ is a star bag whose center is an unmarked vertex, and the two leaves of $B_s$ are adjacent to $y$ and $v$, respectively.
We obtain $D_3$ from $D_2$ by removing the vertices of $V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)$ that are not contained in $Q\cup \{y\}$, and recomposing all new recomposable marked edges. Since recomposable marked edges appeared in the part $V(T_2)\setminus V(T_1)$, $D_3[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]=D_2[V(T_1)\setminus V(T_2)]$ and the bag between $B$ and $B'$ still exists in $D_3$. Let $B_2$ be the bag of $D_3$ containing $y$ and we denote by $H$ the canonical decomposition of $D_2[Q]$. We divide into two cases.
0.2cm ***Case 1.** $D_3$ has no bags between $B$ and $B_2$.*
In this case, $D_3$ itself is a required decomposition. Choose an unmarked vertex $z$ in $D_3$ that is represented by $v$. Then ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D_3}[B, z]=H$, which is either $A$ or an one-vertex DH-extension of $A$.
0.2cm ***Case 2.** $D_3$ has one bag $B_s$ between $B$ and $B_2$ where ${\lvert V(B_s)\rvert}=3$, $B_s$ is a star bag whose center $c$ is an unmarked vertex, and two leaves $c_1$, $c_2$ of $B_s$ are adjacent to $y$ and $v$, respectively.*
Choose an unmarked vertex $z$ of $D_3$ represented by $c_1$. From the construction, we can easily observe that ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D_3}[B_s, z]=H$. If $H=A$, then we can regard ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D_3}[B, c]$ as an one-vertex DH-extension of $A$ with the new vertex $c$. Therefore, we may assume that $H$ is an one-vertex DH-extension of $A$ with a newly added vertex $a$ for some unmarked vertex $a$ of $H$. Note that since $y$ is not the center of a star bag, either $y$ is a leaf of a star bag or $B_2$ is a complete bag.
If $B_2$ is a star whose center is an unmarked vertex in $D_3$, then we obtain a new decomposition $D_4$ by applying a local complementation at $c$ and removing $c$ and recomposing a marked edge incident with $B_s$. Note that $D_4$ is exactly the decomposition obtained from the disjoint union of the two components of $D_3\setminus V(B_s)$ by adding a marked edge $yv$, and thus it is canonical. Also, $z$ is represented by $v$ in $D_4$, and therefore ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D_4}[B, z]=H$. Thus, $D_4$ is a required decomposition.
Now we may assume that at least two unmarked vertices of $D_3$ are represented by $c_1$. So, $c$ is linked to at least two vertices of ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$ in $D_3$. Since ${\mathcal{G}[A]}$ is an one vertex DH-extension of a connected distance-hereditary graph, ${\mathcal{G}[A]}\setminus a$ is connected. So, if we define $D_4$ as the canonical decomposition obtained from $D_3\setminus a$, then $D_4$ is connected and ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D_4}[B, c]$ can be regarded as an one vertex DH-extension of $A$. Therefore, $D_4$ is a required decomposition.
We prove it by induction on $k$. If $k=0$, then ${\operatorname{lrw}}(G)\ge 1$ and $G$ has an edge. Therefore, we may assume that $k\ge 1$.
Let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of $G$. Since $G$ has linear rank-width at least $k+1$, by Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\], there exists a bag $B$ in $D$ with three components $T_1, T_2, T_3$ of $D\setminus V(B)$ such that $f_D(B, T_i)\ge k$ for each $1\le i\le 3$. For each $1\le i\le 3$, let $v_i:=\zeta_b(D, B, T_i)$ and $w_i:=\zeta_t(D, B, T_i)$, and $z_i$ be an unmarked vertex of $D$ that is represented by $v_i$ in $D$.
By Proposition \[prop:limb\], we may assume that $B$ is a star with the center $v_3$. We may also assume that $B$ has exactly three vertices. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are leaves of $B$, for each $i\in \{1,2\}$, ${\mathcal{L}}_D[B, z_i]=T_i\setminus w_i$ and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a canonical decomposition $D_i$ in $\Psi_{k-1}$ such that ${\mathcal{LG}}_D[B, z_i]$ has a vertex-minor isomorphic to a graph ${\mathcal{G}[D_i]}$. Then by applying Proposition \[prop:replace\] twice, we can obtain a canonical decomposition $D'$ satisfying that
1. $D'[V(B)]=D[V(B)]$,
2. either $D'[V(T_3)]=T_3$ or $D'[V(T_3)]=T_3*w_3$, and
3. for each $i\in \{1,2\}$, ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D'}[B, z_i']$ is isomorphic to a canonical decomposition in $\Psi_{k-1}^+$ for some unmarked vertex $z_i'$ of $D'$ represented by $v_i$.
For each $i\in \{1,2,3\}$, let $T_i'$ be the component of $D'\setminus V(B)$ containing $z_i'$, and $w_i':=\zeta_t(D', D'[V(B)], T_i')$. Note that $T_1'\setminus w_1'$ and $T_2'\setminus w_2'$ are contained in $\Psi_{k-1}^+$. We choose an unmarked vertex $z_3'$ that is represented by $v_3'$ in $D'$. If we apply local complementation at $z_3'$ and $z_2'$ subsequently in $D'$, then
1. $B$ is changed to a star with center $v_2$,
2. $T_1'$ is the same as before,
3. $T_2'$ is changed to $T_2'*w_2'*z_2'$,
4. $T_3'$ is changed to $T_3'*z_3'*w_3'$.
Now, we again apply Proposition \[prop:replace\] to $D'*z_3'*z_2'$, and obtain a canonical decomposition $D''$ satisfying that
1. $D''[V(B)]=(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(B)]$ and $D''[V(T_1')]=(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_1')]$,
2. either $D''[V(T_2')]=(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_2')]$ or $(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_2')]*w_2'$, and
3. ${\mathcal{LC}}_{D''}[B, z_3'']$ is isomorphic to a canonical decomposition in $\Psi_{k-1}^+$ for some unmarked vertex $z_3''$ of $D''$ represented by $v_3$.
Let $T_3''$ be the component of $D''\setminus V(B)$ containing $z_3''$, and $w_3'':=\zeta_t(D'', D''[V(B)], T_3'')$. Note that $T_3''\setminus w_3''\in \Psi_{k-1}^+$ and for $i\in \{1,2\}$, $z_i'$ is still represented by $v_i$ in $D''$.
Now we claim that $D''\in \Psi_k$ or $D''*z_2'\in \Psi_k$. We observe two cases depending on whether $D''[V(T_2')]$ is equal to $(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_2')]$ or to $(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_2')]*w_2'$.
0.2cm ***Case 1.** $D''[V(T_2')]=(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_2')]$.*
We observe that $B$ is a star with the center $v_2$ in $D''$, and the three components of $D''\setminus V(B)$ are $T_1'$, $T_2'*w_2'*z_2'$, and $T_3''$. In this case, $D''*z_2'\in \Psi_k$ because
1. $B$ is a complete bag in $D''*z_2'$, and
2. the three components of $D''\setminus V(B)$ are $T_1'*w_1'$, $T_2'*w_2'$, and $T_3''*w_3''$,
and the limbs of $D''*z_2'$ with respect to $B$ are $T_1'\setminus w_1'$, $T_2'\setminus w_2'$, $T_3''\setminus w_3''$, which are contained in $\Psi_{k-1}^+$.
0.2cm ***Case 2.** $D''[V(T_2')]=(D'*z_3'*z_2')[V(T_2')]*w_2'$.*
We observe that $B$ is a star with the center $v_2$ in $D''$, and the three components of $D''\setminus V(B)$ are $T_1'$, $T_2'*w_2'*z_2'*w_2'$, and $T_3''$. We can see that $D''\in \Psi_k$ because the limbs with respect to $B$ are $T_1'\setminus w_1'$, $T_2'\setminus w_2'$, $T_3''\setminus w_3''$, which are contained in $\Psi_{k-1}^+$.
0.2cm We conclude that $G$ has a vertex-minor isomorphic to ${\mathcal{G}[D'']}$ where $D''\in \Psi_{k}$, as required.
In order to prove that $\Psi_k$ is a minimal set of canonical decompositions of distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions for linear rank-width at most $k$, we need to prove that for every $D\in \Psi_k$, ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ has linear rank-width $k+1$ and all its proper vertex-minors have linear rank-width at most $k$. However, this property does not hold, for instance, the triangle in $\Psi_0$ has linear rank-width $1$ but all its proper vertex-minors also have linear rank-width $1$. We guess that the following set $\Phi_k$ would form a minimal set of distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions, but we leave it as an open problem.
1. $\Phi_0:=\{K_2\}$.
2. For $k\ge 0$, let $\Phi_{k+1}:=\Delta(\Phi_k)$.
Our intuition is supported by the following.
\[prop:phik\] Let $k\geq 0$ and let $D\in \Phi_k$. Then ${\operatorname{lrw}}({\mathcal{G}[D]}) = k+1$ and every proper vertex-minor of ${\mathcal{G}[D]}$ has linear rank-width at most $k$.
We need the following two lemmas.
\[lem:locphi\] Let $D\in \Phi_k$ and $v$ be an unmarked vertex in $D$. Then $D*v\in \Phi_k$.
We proceed by induction on $k$. We may assume that $k\ge 1$. By the construction, there exists a bag $B$ of $D$ such that the three limbs $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$ in $D$ corresponding to the bag $B$ are contained in $\Phi_{k-1}$.
Let $B':=B$ or $B':=B*v'$ be a bag of $D*v$ depending on whether $v$ has a representative $v'$ in $B$. Let $D_1'$, $D_2'$ and $D_3'$ be the three limbs of $D*v$ corresponding to the bag $B'$ such that $D_i'$ and $D_i$ came from the same component of $D\setminus V(B)$. Then by Proposition \[prop:limb\], $D_i'$ is locally equivalent to $D_i$. So by the induction hypothesis, $D_i'\in \Phi_{k-1}$. And $D*v$ is the canonical decomposition obtained from $D_i'$ following the construction of $\Phi_k$. Therefore, $D*v\in \Phi_k$.
\[lem:bouchet\] Let $G$ be a graph, $v$ be a vertex of $G$ and $w$ be an arbitrary neighbor of $v$. Then every elementary vertex-minor obtained from $G$ by deleting $v$ is locally equivalent to either $G\setminus v$, $G* v\setminus v$, or $G\wedge vw\setminus v$.
By construction, it is not hard to prove by induction with the help of Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\] that ${\operatorname{lrw}}({\mathcal{G}[D]})=k+1$ for every decomposition $D\in \Phi_k$. For the second statement, by Lemma \[lem:locphi\] and Lemma \[lem:bouchet\], it is sufficient to show that if $D\in \Phi_k$ and $v$ is an unmarked vertex of $D$, then ${\mathcal{G}[D]}\setminus v$ has linear rank-width at most $k$. We use induction on $k$ to prove it. We may assume that $k\ge 1$. Let $B$ be the bag of $D$ such that $D\setminus V(B)$ has exactly three limbs whose underlying graphs are contained in $\Phi_{k-1}$. Clearly there is no other bag having the same property. Since $B$ has no unmarked vertices, $v$ is contained in one of the limbs $D'$, and by induction hypothesis, ${\mathcal{G}[D']}\setminus v$ has linear rank-width at most $k-1$. Therefore, by Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\], ${\mathcal{G}[D]}\setminus v$ has linear rank-width at most $k$.
We finish by pointing out that it is proved in [@JKO2014] that the number of distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions for linear rank-width $k$ is at least $2^{\Omega(3^k)}$. One can easily check by induction that the number of graphs in $\Phi_k$ is bounded by $2^{O(3^k)}$. Therefore, we can conclude that the number of distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions for linear rank-width $k$ is equal to $2^{\theta(3^k)}$.
Simpler proofs for the characterizations of graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$ {#sec:charlrw1}
===================================================================================
In this section, we obtain simpler proofs for known characterizations of the graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$ using Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\]. Theorem \[thm:charlrw1\] was originally proved by Bui-Xuan, Kanté, and Limouzy [@Bui-XuanKL13].
\[thm:charlrw1\] Let $G$ be a connected graph and let $D$ be the canonical decomposition of $G$. The following two are equivalent.
1. $G$ has linear rank-width at most $1$.
2. $G$ is distance-hereditary and $T_D$ is a path.
Let $T_D:=u_1-u_2- \cdots -u_m$ be a path. For each $1\le i\le m$, we take any ordering $L_i$ of unmarked vertices in ${\textsf{b}_{D}(u_i)}$. We can easily check that $L_1\oplus L_2\oplus \ldots \oplus L_m$ is a linear layout of $G$ having width at most $1$.
Suppose $G$ has linear rank-width at most $1$. From the known fact that a connected graph has rank-width at most $1$ if and only if it is distance-hereditary [@Oum05], $G$ is distance-hereditary. Suppose $T_D$ is not a path. Then there exists a bag $B$ of $D$ such that $B$ has at least three adjacent bags in $D$. Thus, $D\setminus V(B)$ has at least three components $T$ where $f_D(B, T)\ge 1$. By Theorem \[thm:mainchap2\], $G$ has linear rank-width at least $2$, which is a contradiction.
From Theorem \[thm:charlrw1\], we have a linear time algorithm to recognize the graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$.
\[thm:recoglrw1\] For a given graph $G$, we can recognize whether $G$ has linear rank-width at most $1$ or not in time $\mathcal{O}({\lvert V(G)\rvert}+{\lvert E(G)\rvert})$.
We first compute the canonical decomposition $D$ of each connected component of $G$ using the algorithm from Theorem \[thm:CED\]. It takes $\mathcal{O}({\lvert V(G)\rvert}+{\lvert E(G)\rvert})$ time. Then we check whether $T_D$ is a path, and whether no bag is prime. By Theorem \[thm:charlrw1\], if $T_D$ is a path and each bag is not prime, then we conclude that $G$ has linear rank-width at most $1$, and otherwise, $G$ has linear rank-width at least $2$. Because the total number of bags in every canonical decomposition is $\mathcal{O}({\lvert V(G)\rvert})$, it takes $\mathcal{O}({\lvert V(G)\rvert})$ time.
The list of induced subgraph obstructions for graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$ was characterized by Adler, Farley, and Proskurowski [@AdlerFP11]. The obstructions consist of the known obstructions for distance-hereditary graphs [@BandeltM86], and the set ${\Omega_T}$ of the induced subgraph obstructions for graphs of linear rank-width at most $1$ that are distance-hereditary. See Figure \[fig:obslrw1\] for the list of obstructions $\alpha_i, \beta_j, \gamma_k$ in ${\Omega_T}$ where $1\le i\le 4$, $1\le j\le 6$, $1\le k\le 4$. This set ${\Omega_T}$ can be obtained from Theorem \[thm:charlrw1\] in a much easier way than the previous result.
=\[circle, draw, solid, fill=black, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=3pt\]
(v1) at (0,.8); (v2) at (0,1.6); (v3) at (-.8,-.5); (v4) at (.8,-.5); (v5) at (-1.6,-1); (v6) at (1.6,-1); (v1)–(v3)–(v4)–(v1); (v1)–(v2); (v3)–(v5); (v4)–(v6); at (0,-2.7) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); (v2)–(v5); at (1.5,0-.7) ;
(v2) at (1-.2-.6,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2-.6); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2+.6); (v5) at (2+.2+.6,2); (v6) at (1.5,2); (v7) at (1,2.5); (v2)–(v3)–(v4)–(v5)–(v2); (v2)–(v4); (v3)–(v5); (v6)–(v7); at (1.5,0-.7) ;
(v2) at (0.2,2); (v3) at (0.7-.3,1.5); (v4) at (2.3+.3,2.5); (v5) at (2.8,2); (v6) at (1.5,3); (v7) at (1.5,1); (v2)–(v4)–(v5)–(v3)–(v2); (v6)–(v2);(v6)–(v3);(v6)–(v4);(v6)–(v5); (v7)–(v2);(v7)–(v3);(v7)–(v4);(v7)–(v5); at (1.5,0-.7) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); at (1.5,0-.5) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); (v3)–(v1)–(v4); at (1.5,0-.5) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); (v3)–(v1)–(v4); (v3)–(v6)–(v4); at (1.5,0-.5) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); (v3)–(v4); at (1.5,0-.5) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); (v3)–(v1)–(v4); (v3)–(v4); at (1.5,0-.5) ;
(v1) at (0,2); (v2) at (1-.2,2); (v3) at (1.5,1+.2); (v4) at (1.5,3-.2); (v5) at (2+.2,2); (v6) at (3,2); (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v5)–(v6); (v2)–(v4)–(v5); (v3)–(v1)–(v4); (v3)–(v6)–(v4); (v3)–(v4); at (1.5,0-.5) ;
(v1) at (0,1); (v2) at (-.8,1.8); (v3) at (-1.6,.8); (v4) at (.8,1.8); (v5) at (1.6,.8); (v6) at (.6,.2); (v7) at (-.2,-.6); (v1)–(v2)–(v3); (v1)–(v4)–(v5); (v1)–(v6)–(v7); at (0,-2.5) ;
(v1) at (0,1); (v2) at (-.8,1.8); (v3) at (-1.6,.8); (v4) at (.8,1.8); (v5) at (1.6,.8); (v6) at (.6,.2); (v7) at (-.2,-.6); (v1)–(v2)–(v3); (v1)–(v4)–(v5); (v1)–(v6)–(v7); (v1)–(v3); at (0,-2.5) ;
(v1) at (0,1); (v2) at (-.8,1.8); (v3) at (-1.6,.8); (v4) at (.8,1.8); (v5) at (1.6,.8); (v6) at (.6,.2); (v7) at (-.2,-.6); (v1)–(v2)–(v3); (v1)–(v4)–(v5); (v1)–(v6)–(v7); (v1)–(v3); (v1)–(v5); at (0,-2.5) ;
(v1) at (0,1); (v2) at (-.8,1.8); (v3) at (-1.6,.8); (v4) at (.8,1.8); (v5) at (1.6,.8); (v6) at (.6,.2); (v7) at (-.2,-.6); (v1)–(v2)–(v3); (v1)–(v4)–(v5); (v1)–(v6)–(v7); (v1)–(v3); (v1)–(v5); (v1)–(v7); at (0,-2.5) ;
type of $B$ type of $v_1w_1$ type of $v_2w_2$ type of $v_3w_3$ induced subgraph
---------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
A complete bag $KS_p$ $KS_p$ $KS_p$ $\alpha_1$
$KS_c$ $KS_p$ $KS_p$ $\alpha_2$
$KS_c$ $KS_c$ $KS_p$ $\alpha_3$
$KS_c$ $KS_c$ $KS_c$ $\alpha_4$
A star bag $S_cS_c$ $S_pS_p$ $S_pS_p$ $\beta_1$
with center at $v_1$ $S_cS_c$ $S_pS_p$ $S_pK$ $\beta_2$
$S_cS_c$ $S_pK$ $S_pK$ $\beta_3$
$S_cK$ $S_pS_p$ $S_pS_p$ $\beta_4$
$S_cK$ $S_pS_p$ $S_pK$ $\beta_5$
$S_cK$ $S_pK$ $S_pK$ $\beta_6$
A star bag $S_pS_p$ $S_pS_p$ $S_pS_p$ $\gamma_1$
with center at $S_pK$ $S_pS_p$ $S_pS_p$ $\gamma_2$
a vertex $S_pK$ $S_pK$ $S_pS_p$ $\gamma_3$
other than $v_i$ $S_pK$ $S_pK$ $S_pK$ $\gamma_4$
: Summary of all cases in Theorem \[thm:charlrw2\][]{data-label="table2"}
\[thm:charlrw2\] Let $G$ be a connected graph and let $D$ be the canonical split decomposition of $G$. The following are equivalent.
1. $G$ has linear rank-width at most $1$.
2. $G$ is distance-hereditary and $G$ has no induced subgraph isomorphic to a graph in $\{\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4, \alpha_5, \alpha_6, \beta_1, \beta_2, \beta_3, \beta_4, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \gamma_3, \gamma_4\}$.
3. $G$ has no pivot-minor isomorphic to $C_5$, $C_6$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_3$, $\alpha_4$, $\alpha_6$, $\gamma_1$, and $\gamma_3$.
4. $G$ has no vertex-minor isomorphic to $C_5$, $\alpha_1$ and $\gamma_1$.
By Lemma \[lem:vm-rw\], $((1)\rightarrow (4))$ is clear as $C_5$, $\alpha_1$ and $\gamma_1$ have linear rank-width $2$. We can easily confirm the directions $((4)\rightarrow (3)\rightarrow (2))$; see [@AdlerFP11]. We add a proof for $((2)\rightarrow (1))$.
Suppose that $G$ has linear rank-width at least $2$ and $G$ is distance-hereditary. By Theorem \[thm:charlrw1\], $T_D$ is not a path. Thus there exists a bag $B$ of $D$ such that $D\setminus V(B)$ has at least three components $T_1$, $T_2$, $T_3$. For each $i\in \{1,2,3\}$, let $v_i:=\zeta_b(B,T_i)$ and $w_i:=\zeta_t(B,T_i)$. We have three cases; $B$ is a complete bag, or $B$ is a star bag with the center at one of $v_1, v_2, v_3$, or $B$ is a star bag with the center at a vertex of $V(B)\setminus \{v_1, v_2, v_3\}$.
If $B$ is a complete bag, then $G$ has an induced subgraph isomorphic to one of $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4$ depending on the types of the marked edges $v_iw_i$. If $B$ is a star bag with the center at one of $v_1, v_2, v_3$, then $G$ has an induced subgraph isomorphic to one of $\beta_1, \beta_2, \ldots, \beta_6$. Finally, if $B$ is a star bag with the center at a vertex of $V(B)\setminus \{v_1, v_2, v_3\}$, then $G$ has an induced subgraph isomorphic to one of $\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \gamma_3, \gamma_4$. We summarize all the cases in Table \[table2\].
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we used the characterization of the linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs given in [@AdlerKK15] to
1. compute the set of distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions for linear rank-width $k$ and at the same time give a nearly tight bound on the number of distance-hereditary vertex-minor obstructions.
2. prove that Question \[que:tree\] is true if and only if it is true in prime graphs.
Computing an upper bound on the size of vertex-minor obstructions for graphs of bounded linear rank-width is a challenging open question. Until now only a bound on obstructions for graphs of bounded rank-width is known [@Oum05]. Secondly, resolving Question \[que:tree\] in all graphs seems to require new techniques as we currently do not have any idea on how to reduce any graph of small rank-width but large linear rank-width into a distance-hereditary graph whose decomposition tree has large path-width. One may be start with graphs of rank-width $2$.
[10]{}
Isolde Adler, Arthur M. Farley, and Andrzej Proskurowski. Obstructions for linear rank-width at most 1. , 168(0):3–13, 2014.
Isolde Adler and Mamadou Moustapha Kant[é]{}. Linear rank-width and linear clique-width of trees. , 589:87–98, 2015.
Isolde Adler, Mamadou Moustapha Kant[é]{}, and O-joung Kwon. Linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs. In Dieter Kratsch and Ioan Todinca, editors, [*Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science*]{}, volume 8747 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pages 42–55. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
Isolde Adler, Mamadou Moustapha Kant[é]{}, and O-joung Kwon. Linear rank-width of distance-hereditary graphs i. a polynomial-time algorithm. , 2015.
Hans-J[ü]{}rgen Bandelt and Henry Martyn Mulder. Distance-hereditary graphs. , 41(2):182–208, 1986.
Daniel Bienstock, Neil Robertson, Paul D. Seymour, and Robin Thomas. Quickly excluding a forest. , 52(2):274–283, 1991.
Achim Blumensath and Bruno Courcelle. On the monadic second-order transduction hierarchy. , 6(2), 2010.
Andr[é]{} Bouchet. Isotropic systems. , 8(3):231–244, 1987.
Andr[é]{} Bouchet. Reducing prime graphs and recognizing circle graphs. , 7(3):243–254, 1987.
Andr[é]{} Bouchet. Graphic presentations of isotropic systems. , 45(1):58–76, 1988.
André Bouchet. Transforming trees by successive local complementations. , 12(2):195–207, 1988.
Andr[é]{} Bouchet. Connectivity of isotropic systems. In [*Combinatorial Mathematics: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (New York, 1985)*]{}, volume 555 of [*Ann. New York Acad. Sci.*]{}, pages 81–93, New York, 1989. New York Acad. Sci.
Binh[-]{}Minh Bui[-]{}Xuan, Mamadou Moustapha Kant[é]{}, and Vincent Limouzy. A note on graphs of linear rank-width 1. , abs/1306.1345, 2013.
D. G. Corneil, H. Lerchs, and L. Stewart Burlingham. Complement reducible graphs. , 3(3):163–174, 1981.
Bruno Courcelle. Graph transformations expressed in logic and applications to structural graph theory. Report of Banff workshop in Graph Minors (08w5079), 2008. http://www.birs.ca/workshops/2008/08w5079/report08w5079.pdf.
William H. Cunnigham and Jack Edmonds. A combinatorial decomposition theory. , 32:734–765, 1980.
William H. Cunningham. Decomposition of directed graphs. , 3(2):214–228, 1982.
Elias Dahlhaus. Parallel algorithms for hierarchical clustering, and applications to split decomposition and parity graph recognition. , 36(2):205–240, 2000.
Reinhard Diestel. , volume 173 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer, Heidelberg, fourth edition, 2010.
Jonathan A. Ellis, Ivan Hal Sudborough, and Jonathan S. Turner. The vertex separation and search number of a graph. , 113(1):50–79, 1994.
Robert Ganian. Thread graphs, linear rank-width and their algorithmic applications. In Costas S. Iliopoulos and William F. Smyth, editors, [*IWOCA*]{}, volume 6460 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pages 38–42. Springer, 2010.
Emeric Gioan and Christophe Paul. Split decomposition and graph-labelled trees: characterizations and fully dynamic algorithms for totally decomposable graphs. , 160(6):708–733, 2012.
Peter L. Hammer and Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Maffray. Completely separable graphs. , 27(1-2):85–99, 1990.
Jisu Jeong, O-joung Kwon, and Sang-il Oum. Excluded vertex-minors for graphs of linear rank-width at most [$k$]{}. , 41:242–257, 2014.
Sang[-]{}il Oum. Rank-width and well-quasi-ordering. , 22(2):666–682, 2008.
Sang[-]{}il Oum. Excluding a bipartite circle graph from line graphs. , 60(3):183–203, 2009.
Sang[-]{}il Oum. Rank-width and well-quasi-ordering of skew-symmetric or symmetric matrices. , 436(7):2008 – 2036, 2012.
Sangil Oum. Rank-width and vertex-minors. , 95(1):79–100, 2005.
Sangil Oum and Paul D. Seymour. Approximating clique-width and branch-width. , 96(4):514–528, 2006.
Neil Robertson and P. D. Seymour. Graph minors. [XX]{}. [W]{}agner’s conjecture. , 92(2):325–357, 2004.
Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. Graph minors. [I]{}. [E]{}xcluding a forest. , 35(1):39–61, 1983.
Atsushi Takahashi, Shuichi Ueno, and Yoji Kajitani. Minimal acyclic forbidden minors for the family of graphs with bounded path-width. , 127(1-3):293–304, 1994.
[^1]: The first author is supported by the German Research Council, Project GalA, AD 411/1-1.
[^2]: The third author is supported by ERC Starting Grant PARAMTIGHT (No. 280152).
[^3]: A preliminary version of Section \[sec:obstructions\] appeared in the proceedings of WG’14 [@AdlerKK14]. The full version of the proceeding appeared in [@AdlerKK15].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The fireball created in an ultrarelativistic heavy ion collision is the environment in which all processes providing clues about the possible formation of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) happen. It is therefore crucial to understand the dynamics of this hot and dense system. We set up a model in which the fireball evolution is reconstructed between two stages, the freeze-out, which is accessible by hadronic observables, and the initial collision for which the overlap geometry can be calculated. Using the equation of state (EoS) provided by a quasiparticle model of the QGP, we are able to calculate thermodynamical properties in volume slices of constant proper time and determine the volume expansion self-consistently. The resulting evolution model can then be tested against other observables, such as dilepton yields.'
---
[**QCD Thermodynamics and Fireball**]{}\
[**Evolution in URHICs[^1]**]{}\
T. Renk$^a$, R. A. Schneider$^a$, and W. Weise$^{ab}$\
[*$^a$ Physik-Department, Technische Universität München,\
85747 Garching/München, Germany\
$^b$ECT\*, Villa Tambosi, 38050 Villazzano (Trento), Italy\
*]{}
Introduction
============
One of the most striking predictions of QCD at high temperatures is the formation of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), a deconfined phase with quarks and gluons as degrees of freedom. Unfortunately, finding direct evidence for this phase or studying its properties is not an easy task. Ideally, one would like to study the behaviour of an observable sensitive to the formation of the QGP, such as the J/$\Psi$ system or dilepton radiation. In reality, however, no static QGP system can be prepared in a heavy ion collision and all processes inside the resulting fireball are necessarily convoluted with its evolution dynamics. As this leaves two a priori unknown inputs into any model calculation, the modified reaction dynamics inside the system and the fireball evolution itself, a model which is able to describe just one (or a few) observables may not be sufficient to disentangle these two pieces and extract unambiguous information.
The proper way to proceed seems therefore as follows: From the theoretical side, and especially from lattice calculations (see e.g. [@LAT1]), much is known about thermodynamical properties of the QGP in a static situation. Although there is no direct possibility to compare to experiment, this knowledge can be used under certain circumstances as an input for dynamical fireball models, which constitute the next important building block for modelling any specific process inside such a system. Here, experimental input is available in the form of bulk hadronic observables such as directed flow and total multiplicities which characterize the evolution endpoint. The third and final step is then the calculation of a given process within the arena prepared by the fireball evolution. In this way, fireball evolution and the process in question are tied to different observables and are readily disentangled.
In the following, we try to elaborate on the second building block, the dynamical fireball evolution in a simple framework and calculate as an application dilepton radiation from this fireball. This is more completely worked out in [@RENK].
Model framework
===============
We do not aim at the detailed description of the heavy-ion collision or its subsequent expansion on an event by event basis or by a hydrodynamical simulation. Instead we use a model of an expanding fireball which enables us to rapidly test different scenarios with different parameter sets in a systematic way, so as to gain insight into the time evolution of the strongly interacting system.
We assume that the physics of the fireball is the same inside each volume of given proper time $\tau$, thus averaging over spatial inhomogenities in density and temperature. The volume itself is taken to be an expanding cylinder, in which the volume elements move away from the center in order to generate the observed flow. There is no global Lorentz frame in which thermodynamics can be applied. As the fireball expands, volume elements away from the center are moving with large velocities and are subject to time dilatation when seen in the center of mass frame of the collision. In this frame, the fireball expands, at a given time, much more rapidly in the center than at the edges and does not resemble a cylinder any more. We assume a linear increase in rapidity when going from central volume elements to the fireball edge along the beam ($z$)-axis and the transverse axis. As the velocities along the $z$-axis are typically large (up to $c$) as compared to transverse motion (up to 0.55 $c$) for SPS and RHIC conditions, we make the simplifying assumption that the proper time is in a one-to-one correspondence to the $z$-position of a given volume element, thus neglecting the time dilatation caused by transverse motion. The whole system is assumed to be in local thermal (though not necessarily chemical) equilibrium at all times.
Given this overall framework, the volume expansion of the fireball is governed by the longitudinal growth speed $v_z$ and the transverse expansion speed $v_\perp$ at a given proper time. These quantities can be determined at the freeze-out point and correspond to the observed amount of flow. However, flow is measured in the lab frame and needs to be translated into the growth of proper time volume.
Note that it is important to keep track of the velocity $v_z$ at the fireball edge in this setup. If this quantity is simply assumed to be $c$, the volume of given proper time does not grow like $\tau c$ as one might naively expect (the c.m. frame volume does so, however), but is infinite right from the beginning.
We use a detailed analysis of the freeze-out conditions for central Pb-Pb collisions at 160 AGeV [@FREEZE-OUT] to fix the endpoint of the evolution. The initial state is constrained using the overlap geometry of the colliding nuclei. The expansion between initial and freeze-out stages is then required to be in accordance with the EoS as determined from the quasiparticle model described in [@RAS].
The volume expansion is parametrized by the following set of equations: $$v_\perp(\tau) = \int_0^\tau d \tau' c_\perp\frac{p(\tau')}{\epsilon(\tau')} \qquad
R(\tau) = R_0 + \int_0^\tau \int_0^{\tau'} d \tau' d\tau'' c_\perp\frac{p(\tau'')}{\epsilon(\tau'')}$$ $$v_z(t) = v_z^i + \int_0^t d t' c_z\frac{p(t')}{\epsilon(t')} \qquad
z(t)= z_0 + v_z^i \cdot t + \int_0^t \int_0^{t'} d t' dt'' c_z\frac{p(t'')}{\epsilon(t'')}.$$ Here, the acceleration was assumed to be proportional to the ratio of pressure $p$ over energy density $\epsilon$ with a proportionality constant $c$. The free parameters $c_\perp, c_z$, freeze-out proper time $\tau_f$ and freeze-out c.m. time $t_f$ can be fitted by requiring agreement with initial conditions $R_0 \approx 4.5$ fm and $v_\perp$ = 0 (overlap geometry) and final conditions $R_f \approx 8.55$ fm, $\overline{v}_\perp = 0.5 c$, $T_f = 100$ MeV, $v_z = 0.9 c$ (results from [@FREEZE-OUT]). Assuming entropy conservation with an entropy per baryon of 26 for SPS conditions at 160 AGeV, the entropy density $s$ at a given proper time can then be obtained by dividing the total entropy $S_0$ by the volume, $s = S_0/V(\tau)$. With the help of the EoS, the temperature $T(s)$, pressure $p(s)$ and energy density $\epsilon(s)$ can then be calculated. These are inserted into eqs.(1–2) in order to yield a self-consistent solution. Chemical potentials for hadrons are introduced in order to agree with the experimentally observed particle abundancies. For the above conditions, a rise in the pion chemical potential $\mu_\pi$ up to 123 MeV towards freeze-out is necessary.
Results
=======
The resulting volume expansion and temperature profile for SPS conditions at two different energies is shown in Fig. \[F-1\].
The primary uncertainty is attached to the initial temperature, which appears rather large ($\sim$300 MeV) for 160 AGeV collisions. Part of the difference in this value as compared to other approaches comes from the use of a more realistic equation of state, which even for the initial temparatures differs considerably from the EoS of an ideal gas. Moreover, it depends on the initial longitudinal expansion velocity. After a few fm/c evolution time, however, the system is not very sensitive to details of the initial conditions any more. Remarkably, even the 40 AGeV scenario shows some evolution above the critical temperature $T_C = 170$ MeV. This is unavoidable — for thermodynamical reasons the volume required for an initial temperature below $T_C$ would be by far too large to be found after the expansion within a sensible thermalization time of 1–2 fm/c. Note that there is no mixed phase present. This is again a consequence of the EoS which indicates a smooth crossover between the two phases. Close to the critical temperature there is a soft point in the EoS and its effect is included in the model.
As a test for the extracted fireball evolution scenarios, we consider dilepton emission. Once the thermal emission rate $\frac{dN(T(\tau),M, \eta,
p_T)}{d^4 x d^4p}$ from a hot source is known, the experimentally measured rate can be calculated as
$$\frac{d^2N}{dM d\eta} = \frac{2\pi M}{\Delta \eta} \int \limits_0^{\tau_{f}}
d\tau \ \int d\eta \ V(T(\tau),\eta)
\int
\limits_0^\infty dp_T \ p_T
\ \frac{dN(T(\tau),M, \eta,
p_T)}{d^4 x d^4p} \ Acc. \label{integratedrates}
$$
Here ’$Acc$’ refers to the acceptance characteristic of the detector. Using the thermal quasiparticle model [@RAS] for the QGP spectral function and and improved vector meson dominance model combined with chiral dynamics [@KKW1] for the hadronic part, we insert the resulting rate into the fireball evolution shown above in order to compare to the CERES data [@CERES].
The 160 AGeV scenario is shown in Fig. \[F-2\], the 40 AGeV scenario in Fig. \[F-3\]. We calculate the full rate and also the contributions from different processes, namely the thermal rate from the QGP, the so-called cocktail contribution from Dalitz decays after freeze-out and the vector meson channels. In both scenarios we find good agreement with the data within errors. The driving force of the dilepton excess around 500 MeV invariant mass is the broadening of the $\rho$-meson due to finite baryon density. The QGP contribution is visible at invariant masses above 1 GeV in the 160 AGeV scenario and negligible for 40 AGeV. Note that we do not aim for a best fit. For example, in the invariant mass region around 200 MeV, our calculation overshoots the data. This could be easily cured by raising the freeze-out temperature which corresponds to a reduction of the hadronic rate. However, as we choose to fix the fireball evolution before with hadronic observables, this is not an option any more.
It is clearly an interesting and challenging task to also apply the fireball evolution model to other processes, e.g. direct photon emission or J/$\Psi$ and see whether further agreement can be found, giving support to the overall scenario. This is work currently in progress.
[99]{} F. Karsch, A. Peikert and E. Laermann, Nucl. Phys. [**B605**]{} (2001) 579.
T. Renk, R.A. Schneider and W. Weise, hep-ph/0201048. B. Tomasik, U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz, nucl-th/9907096.
R. A. Schneider, these proceedings; R.A. Schneider and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. [**C64**]{} (2001) 055201. F. Klingl, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Z. Phys. [**A356**]{} (1996) 193. G. Agakichiev et al., CERES collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 1272; G. Agakichiev et al., CERES collaboration, Phys. Lett. [**B422**]{} (1998) 405.
[^1]: Work supported in part by BMBF and GSI.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Griffin Chure
- 'Manuel Razo-Mejia'
- 'Nathan M. Belliveau'
- Tal Einav
- 'Zofii A. Kaczmarek'
- 'Stephanie L. Barnes'
- Mitchell Lewis
- Rob Phillips
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
title: The Energetics of Molecular Adaptation in Transcriptional Regulation
---
hermodynamic treatments of transcriptional regulation have been fruitful in their ability to generate quantitative predictions of gene expression as a function of a minimal set of physically meaningful variables [@Ackers1982; @Buchler2003; @Vilar2003; @Garcia2011; @Daber2011a; @Brewster2014; @Weinert2014; @Rydenfelt2014; @Razo-Mejia2014; @Razo-Mejia2018; @Bintu2005; @Bintu2005a; @Kuhlman2007]. These models quantitatively describe numerous properties of input-output functions, such as the leakiness, saturation, dynamic range, steepness of response, and the \[$EC_{50}$\] – the concentration of inducer at which the response is half maximal. The mathematical forms of these phenotypic properties are couched in terms of a minimal set of experimentally accessible variables, such as the inducer concentration, transcription factor copy number, and the DNA sequence of the binding site [@Razo-Mejia2018]. While the amino acid sequence of the transcription factor is another controllable variable, it is seldom implemented in quantitative terms considering mutations with subtle changes in chemistry frequently result in unpredictable physiological consequences. In this work, we examine how a series of mutations in either the DNA binding or inducer binding domains of a transcriptional repressor influence the values of the biophysical parameters which govern its regulatory behavior.
We first present a theoretical framework for understanding how mutations in the repressor affect different parameters and alter the free energy of the system. The multi-dimensional parameter space of the aforementioned thermodynamic models is highly degenerate with multiple combinations of parameter values yielding the same phenotypic response. This degeneracy can be subsumed into the free energy of the system, transforming the input-output function into a one-dimensional description with the form of a Fermi function [@Swem2008; @Keymer2006]. We find that the parameters capturing the allosteric nature of the repressor, the repressor copy number, and the DNA binding specificity contribute independently to the free energy of the system with different degrees of sensitivity. Furthermore, changes restricted to one of these three groups of parameters result in characteristic changes in the free energy relative to the wild-type repressor, providing falsifiable predictions of how different classes of mutations should behave.
Next, we test these descriptions experimentally using the well-characterized transcriptional repressor of the *lac* operon LacI in *E. coli* regulating expression of a fluorescent reporter. We introduce a series of point mutations in either the inducer binding or DNA binding domain. We then measure the full induction profile of each mutant, determine the minimal set of parameters that are affected by the mutation, and predict how each mutation tunes the free energy at different inducer concentrations, repressor copy numbers, and DNA binding strengths. We find in general that mutations in the DNA binding domain only influence DNA binding strength, and that mutations within the inducer binding domain affect only the parameters which dictate the allosteric response. The degree to which these parameters are insulated is notable, as the very nature of allostery suggests that all parameters are intimately connected, thus enabling binding events at one domain to be “sensed” by another.
With knowledge of how a collection of DNA binding and inducer binding single mutants behave, we predict the induction profiles and the free energy changes of pairwise double mutants with quantitative accuracy. We find that the energetic effects of each individual mutation are additive, indicating that epistatic interactions are absent between the mutations examined here. Our model provides a means for identifying and quantifying the extent of epistatic interactions in a more complex set of mutations, and can shed light on how the protein sequence and general regulatory architecture coevolve.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
This work considers the inducible simple repression regulatory motif \[depicted in Fig. \[fig:induction\_theory\](A)\] from a thermodynamic perspective which has been thoroughly dissected and tested experimentally [@Garcia2011; @Brewster2014; @Razo-Mejia2018]. While we direct the reader to the SI text for a complete derivation, the result of this extensive theory-experiment dialogue is a succinct input-output function \[schematized in Fig. \[fig:induction\_theory\](B)\] that computes the fold-change in gene expression relative to an unregulated promoter. This function is of the form $$\text{fold-change} = \left(1 + {R_A \over
N_{NS}}e^{-\beta\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}}\right)^{-1},
\label{eq:foldchange}$$ where $R_A$ is the number of active repressors per cell, $N_{NS}$ is the number of non-specific binding sites for the repressor, $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$ is the binding energy of the repressor to its specific binding site relative to the non-specific background, and $\beta$ is defined as ${1 \over k_B T}$ where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the temperature. While this theory requires knowledge of the number of *active* repressors, we often only know the total number $R$ which is the sum total of active and inactive repressors. We can define a prefactor $p_\text{act}(c)$ which captures the allosteric nature of the repressor and encodes the probability a repressor is in the active (repressive) state rather than the inactive state for a given inducer concentration $c$, namely, $$p_\text{act}(c) = {\left(1 + {c \over K_A}\right)^n \over \left(1 + {c \over
K_A}\right)^n + e^{-\beta\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}}\left(1 + {c \over
K_I}\right)^n}.
\label{eq:pact}$$ Here, $K_A$ and $K_I$ are the dissociation constants of the inducer to the active and inactive repressor, $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ is the energetic difference between the repressor active and inactive states, and $n$ is the number of allosteric binding sites per repressor molecule ($n=2$ for LacI). With this in hand, we can define $R_A$ in as $R_A = p_\text{act}(c)
R$.
A key feature of and is that the diverse phenomenology of the gene expression induction profile can be collapsed onto a single master curve by rewriting the input-output function in terms of the free energy $F$ \[also called the Bohr parameter [@Phillips2015]\], $$\text{fold-change} = \left(1 + e^{-\beta F}\right)^{-1},
\label{eq:collapse}$$ where $$F = -k_BT \log{p_\text{act}}(c) - k_BT\log\left({R \over N_{NS}}\right) + \Delta\varepsilon_{RA}.
\label{eq:Bohr}$$ Hence, if different combinations of parameters yield the same free energy, they will give rise to the same fold-change in gene expression, enabling us to collapse multiple regulatory scenarios onto a single curve. This can be seen in Fig. \[fig:induction\_theory\](C) where eighteen unique inducer titration profiles of a LacI simple repression architecture collected and analyzed in Razo-Mejia *et al.* 2018 [@Razo-Mejia2018] collapse onto a single master curve. The tight distribution about this curve reveals that fold-change across a variety of genetically distinct individuals can be adequately described by a small number of parameters. Beyond predicting the induction profiles of different strains, the method of data collapse inspired by and can be used as a tool to identify mechanistic changes in the regulatory architecture [@Swem2008]. Similar data collapse approaches have been used previously in such a manner and have proved vital for distinguishing between changes in parameter values and changes in the fundamental behavior of the system [@Swem2008; @Keymer2006].
Assuming that a given mutation does not result in a non-functional protein, it is reasonable to say that any or all of the parameters in can be affected by the mutation, changing the observed induction profile and therefore the free energy. To examine how the free energy of a mutant $F{^\mathrm{(mut)}}$ differs from that of the wild-type $F{^\mathrm{(wt)}}$, we define $\Delta F = F{^\mathrm{(mut)}}-
F{^\mathrm{(wt)}}$, which has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta F = -k_BT\log\left({p_\text{act}{^\mathrm{(mut)}}(c) \over p_\text{act}{^\mathrm{(wt)}}(c)}\right) &- k_BT \log\left({R{^\mathrm{(mut)}}\over R{^\mathrm{(wt)}}}\right)\\
&+ (\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}{^\mathrm{(mut)}}- \Delta\varepsilon_{RA}{^\mathrm{(wt)}}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:delF}$$
$\Delta F$ describes how a mutation translates a point across the master curve shown in Fig. \[fig:induction\_theory\](C). As we will show in the coming paragraphs \[illustrated in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\]\], this formulation coarse grains the myriad parameters shown in and into three distinct quantities, each with different sensitivities to parametric changes. By examining how a mutation changes the free energy changes as a function of the inducer concentration, one can draw conclusions as to which parameters have been modified based solely on the shape of the curve. To help the reader understand how various perturbations to the parameters tune the free energy, we have hosted an interactive figure on the paper website [w](http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/mwc_mutants)hich makes exploration of parameter space a simpler task.
The first term in is the log ratio of the probability of a mutant repressor being active relative to the wild type at a given inducer concentration $c$. This quantity defines how changes to any of the allosteric parameters – such as inducer binding constants $K_A$ and $K_I$, or active/inactive state energetic difference $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ – alter the free energy $F$, which can be interpreted as the free energy difference between the repressor bound and unbound states of the promoter. Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\] (A) illustrates how changes to the inducer binding constants $K_A$ and $K_I$ alone alter the induction profiles and resulting free energy as a function of the inducer concentration. In the limit where $c
= 0$, the values of $K_A$ and $K_I$ do not factor into the calculation of $p_\text{act}(c)$ given by , meaning that $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ is the lone parameter setting the residual activity of the repressor. Thus, if only $K_A$ and $K_I$ are altered by a mutation, then $\Delta F$ should be $0\, k_BT$ when $c = 0$, illustrated by the overlapping red, purple, and grey curves in the right-hand plot of Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\](A). However, if $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ is influenced by the mutation (either alone or in conjunction with $K_A$ and $K_I$), the leakiness will change, resulting in a non-zero $\Delta F$ when $c=0$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\] (B) where $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ is the only parameter affected by the mutation.
It is important to note that for a mutation which perturbs only the inducer binding constants, the dependence of $\Delta F$ on the inducer concentration can be non-monotonic. While the precise values of $K_A$ and $K_I$ control the sensitivity of the repressor to inducer concentration, it is the ratio $K_A / K_I$ that defines whether this non-monotonic behavior is observed. This can be seen more clearly when we consider the limit of saturating inducer concentration, $$\lim\limits_{c \rightarrow \infty} \log\left({p_\text{act}{^\mathrm{(mut)}}\over p_\text{act}{^\mathrm{(wt)}}}\right) \approx \log\left[{1 + e^{-\beta\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}{^\mathrm{(wt)}}} \left({K_A{^\mathrm{(wt)}}\over K_I{^\mathrm{(wt)}}}\right)^n \over 1 + e^{-\beta\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}{^\mathrm{(wt)}}} \left({K_A{^\mathrm{(mut)}}\over K_I{^\mathrm{(mut)}}}\right)^n}\right]
\label{eq:kaki_sat_c},$$ which illustrates that $\Delta F$ returns to zero at saturating inducer concentration when $K_A / K_I$ is the same for both the mutant and wild-type repressors, so long as $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ is unperturbed. Non-monotonicity can *only* be achieved by changing $K_A$ and $K_I$ and therefore serves as a diagnostic for classifying mutational effects reliant solely on measuring the change in free energy.
The second term in captures how changes in the repressor copy number contributes to changes in free energy. It is important to note that this contribution to the free energy change depends on the total number of repressors in the cell, not just those in the active state. This emphasizes that changes in the expression of the repressor are energetically divorced from changes to the allosteric nature of the repressor. As a consequence, the change in free energy is constant for all inducer concentrations, as is schematized in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\](C). Because magnitude of the change in free energy scales logarithmically with changing repressor copy number, a mutation which increases expression from 1 to 10 repressors per cell is more impactful from an energetic standpoint ($k_BT \log(10) \approx 2.3\, k_BT$) than an increase from 90 to 100 ($k_BT \log(100/90) \approx 0.1\, k_BT$). Appreciable changes in the free energy only arise when variations in the repressor copy number are larger than or comparable to an order of magnitude. Changes of this magnitude are certainly possible from a single point mutation, as it has been shown that even synonymous substitutions can drastically change translation efficiency [@Frumkin2018].
The third and final term in is the difference in the DNA binding energy between the mutant and wild-type repressors. All else being equal, if the mutated state binds more tightly to the DNA than the wild type ($\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}{^\mathrm{(wt)}}> \Delta\varepsilon_{RA}{^\mathrm{(mut)}}$), the net change in the free energy is negative, indicating that the repressor bound states become more energetically favorable due to the mutation. Much like in the case of changing repressor copy number, this quantity is independent of inducer concentration and is therefore also constant \[Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\](D)\]. However, the magnitude of the change in free energy is linear with DNA binding affinity while it is logarithmic with respect to changes in the repressor copy number. Thus, to change the free energy by $1\, k_BT$, the repressor copy number must change by a factor of $\approx 2.3$ whereas the DNA binding energy must change by $1\, k_BT$.
The unique behavior of each quantity in and its sensitivity with respect to the parameters makes $\Delta F$ useful as a diagnostic tool to classify mutations. Given a set of fold-change measurements, a simple rearrangement of permits the direct calculation of the free energy, assuming that the underlying physics of the regulatory architecture has not changed. Thus, it becomes possible to experimentally test the general assertions made in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\].
DNA Binding Domain Mutations {#dna-binding-domain-mutations .unnumbered}
----------------------------
With this arsenal of analytic diagnostics, we can begin to explore the mutational space of the repressor and map these mutations to the biophysical parameters they control. As one of the most thoroughly studied transcription factors, LacI has been subjected to numerous crystallographic and mutational studies [@Daber2007; @Daber2009a; @Lewis1996; @Swerdlow2014]. One such work generated a set of point mutations in the LacI repressor and examined the diversity of the phenotypic response to different allosteric effectors [@Daber2011a]. However, experimental variables such as the repressor copy number or the number of specific binding sites were not known, making precise calculation of $\Delta F$ as presented here not tractable. Using this dataset as a guide, we chose a subset of the mutations and inserted them into our experimental strains of *E. coli* where these parameters are known and tightly controlled [@Garcia2011; @Razo-Mejia2018].
We made three amino acid substitutions (Y20I, Q21A, and Q21M) that are critical for the DNA-repressor interaction. These mutations were introduced into the *lacI* sequence used in Garcia and Phillips 2011 [@Garcia2011] with four different ribosomal binding site sequences that were shown (via quantitative Western blotting) to tune the wild-type repressor copy number across three orders of magnitude. These mutant constructs were integrated into the *E. coli* chromosome harboring a Yellow Fluorescent Protein (YFP) reporter. The YFP promoter included the native O2 LacI operator sequence which the wild-type LacI repressor binds with high specificity ($\Delta\varepsilon_{RA} = -13.9\, k_BT$). The fold-change in gene expression for each mutant across twelve concentrations of IPTG was measured via flow cytometry. As we mutated only a single amino acid with the minimum number of base pair changes to the codons from the wild-type sequence, we find it unlikely that the repressor copy number was drastically altered from those reported in [@Garcia2011] for the wild-type sequence paired with the same ribosomal binding site sequences. In characterizing the effects of these DNA binding mutations, we take the repressor copy number to be unchanged. Any error introduced by this mutation should be manifest as a larger than predicted systematic shift in the free energy change when the repressor copy number is varied.
A naïve hypothesis for the effect of a mutation in the DNA binding domain is that *only* the DNA binding energy is altered. This hypothesis appears to contradict the core principle of allostery in that ligand binding in one domain influences binding in another, suggesting that changing parameter modifies them all. The characteristic curves summarized in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\] give a means to discriminate between these two hypotheses by examining the change in the free energy. Using a single induction profile (white-faced points in Fig. \[fig:DNA\_muts\]), we estimated the DNA binding energy using a Bayesian approach, the details of which are discussed in the Materials and Methods as well as the SI text. The shaded red region for each mutant in Fig. \[fig:DNA\_muts\] represents the 95% credible region of this fit whereas all other shaded regions are 95% credible regions of the predictions for other repressor copy numbers. We find that redetermining only the DNA binding energy accurately captures the majority of the induction profiles, indicating that other parameters are unaffected. One exception is for the lowest repressor copy numbers ($R = 60$ and $R=124$ per cell) of mutant Q21A at low concentrations of IPTG. However, we note that this disagreement is comparable to that observed for the wild-type repressor binding to the weakest operator in Razo-Mejia *et al.* 2018 [@Razo-Mejia2018], illustrating that our model is imperfect in characterizing weakly repressing architectures. Including other parameters in the fit (such as $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$) does not significantly improve the accuracy of the predictions. Furthermore, the magnitude of this disagreement also depends on the choice of the fitting strain (see SI text).
Mutations Y20I and Q21A both weaken the affinity of the repressor to the DNA relative to the wild type strain ($-9.9 ^{+0.1}_{-0.1}\, k_BT$ and $-11.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}\, k_BT$, respectively). Here we report the median of the inferred posterior probability distribution with the superscripts and subscripts corresponding to the upper and lower bounds of the 95% credible region. These binding energies are comparable to that of the wild-type repressor affinity to the native LacI operator sequence O3, with a DNA binding energy of $-9.7\, k_BT$. The mutation Q21M increases the strength of the DNA-repressor interaction relative to the wild-type repressor with a binding energy of $-15.43^{+0.07}_{-0.06}\, k_BT$, comparable to the affinity of the wild-type repressor to the native O1 operator sequence ($-15.3 k_BT$). It is notable that a single amino acid substitution of the repressor is capable of changing the strength of the DNA binding interaction well beyond that of many single base-pair mutations in the operator sequence [@Barnes2018; @Garcia2011].
Using the new DNA binding energies, we can collapse all measurements of fold-change as a function of the free energy as shown in Fig. \[fig:DNA\_muts\](B). This allows us to test the diagnostic power of the decomposition of the free energy described in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\]. To compute the $\Delta F$ for each mutation, we inferred the observed mean free energy of the mutant strain for each inducer concentration and repressor copy number (see Materials and Methods as well as the SI text for a detailed explanation of the inference). We note that in the limit of extremely low or high fold-change, the inference of the free energy is either over- or under-estimated, respectively, introducing a systematic error. Thus, points which are close to these limits are omitted in the calculation of $\Delta F$. We direct the reader to the SI text for a detailed discussion of this systematic error. With a measure of $F{^\mathrm{(mut)}}$ for each mutant at each repressor copy number, we compute the difference in free energy relative to the wild-type strain with the same repressor copy number and operator sequence, restricting all variability in $\Delta F$ solely to changes in $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$.
The change in free energy for each mutant is shown in Fig. \[fig:DNA\_muts\](C). It can be seen that the $\Delta F$ for each mutant is constant as a function of the inducer concentration and is concordant with the prediction generated from fitting $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$ to a single repressor copy number \[red lines Fig. \[fig:DNA\_muts\](C)\]. This is in line with the predictions outlined in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\](C) and (D), indicating that the allosteric parameters are “insulated”, meaning they are not affected by the DNA binding domain mutations. As the $\Delta F$ for all repressor copy numbers collapses onto the prediction, we can say that the expression of the repressor itself is the same or comparable with that of the wild type. If the repressor copy number were perturbed in addition to $\Delta
\varepsilon_{RA}$, one would expect a shift away from the prediction that scales logarithmically with the change in repressor copy number. However, as the $\Delta F$ is approximately the same for each repressor copy number, it can be surmised that the mutation does not significantly change the expression or folding efficiency of the repressor itself. These results allow us to state that the DNA binding energy $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$ is the only parameter modified by the DNA mutants examined.
Inducer Binding Domain Mutations {#inducer-binding-domain-mutations .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
Much as in the case of the DNA binding mutants, we cannot safely assume *a priori* that a given mutation in the inducer binding domain affects only the inducer binding constants $K_A$ and $K_I$. While it is easy to associate the inducer binding constants with the inducer binding domain, the critical parameter in our allosteric model $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ is harder to restrict to a single spatial region of the protein. As $K_A$, $K_I$, and $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ are all parameters dictating the allosteric response, we consider two hypotheses in which inducer binding mutations alter either all three parameters or only $K_A$ and $K_I$.
We made four point mutations within the inducer binding domain of LacI (F164T, Q294V, Q294R, and Q294K) that have been shown previously to alter binding to multiple allosteric effectors [@Daber2011a]. In contrast to the DNA binding domain mutants, we paired the inducer binding domain mutations with the three native LacI operator sequences (which have various affinities for the repressor) and a single ribosomal binding site sequence. This ribosomal binding site sequence, as reported in [@Garcia2011], expresses the wild-type LacI repressor to an average copy number of approximately $260$ per cell. As the free energy differences resulting from point mutations in the DNA binding domain can be described solely by changes to $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$, we continue under the assumption that the inducer binding domain mutations do not significantly alter the repressor copy number.
The induction profiles for these four mutants are shown in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](A). Of the mutations chosen, Q294R and Q294K appear to have the most significant impact, with Q294R abolishing the characteristic sigmoidal titration curve entirely. It is notable that both Q294R and Q294K have elevated expression in the absence of inducer compared to the other two mutants paired with the same operator sequence. Panel (A) in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\] illustrates that if only $K_A$ and $K_I$ were being affected by the mutations, the fold-change should be identical for all mutants in the absence of inducer. This discrepancy in the observed leakiness immediately suggests that more than $K_A$ and $K_I$ are affected for Q294K and Q294R.
Using a single induction profile for each mutant (shown in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\] as white-faced circles), we inferred the parameter combinations for both hypotheses and drew predictions for the induction profiles with other operator sequences. We find that the simplest hypothesis (in which only $K_A$ and $K_I$ are altered) does not permit accurate prediction of most induction profiles. These curves, shown as dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](A), fail spectacularly in the case of Q294R and Q294K, and undershoot the observed profiles for F164T and Q294V, especially when paired with the weak operator sequence O3. The change in the leakiness for Q294R and Q294K is particularly evident as the expression at $c = 0$ should be identical to the wild-type repressor under this hypothesis. Altering only $K_A$ and $K_I$ is not sufficient to accurately predict the induction profiles for F164T and Q294V, but not to the same degree as Q294K and Q294R. The disagreement is most evident for the weakest operator O3 \[green lines in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](A)\], though we have discussed previously that the induction profiles for weak operators are difficult to accurately describe and can result in comparable disagreement for the wild-type repressor [@Razo-Mejia2018; @Barnes2018].
Including $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ as a perturbed parameter in addition to $K_A$ and $K_I$ improves the predicted profiles for all four mutants. By fitting these three parameters to a single strain, we are able to accurately predict the induction profiles of other operators as seen by the shaded lines in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](A). With these modified parameters, all experimental measurements collapse as a function of their free energy as prescribed by \[Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](B)\]. All four mutations significantly diminish the binding affinity of both states of the repressor to the inducer, as seen by the estimated parameter values reported in Tab. \[tab:ind\_params\]. As evident in the data alone, Q294R abrogates inducibility outright ($K_A \approx K_I$). For Q294K, the active state of the repressor can no longer bind inducer whereas the inactive state binds with weak affinity. The remaining two mutants, Q294V and F164T, both show diminished binding affinity of the inducer to both the active and inactive states of the repressor relative to the wild-type.
Mutant $K_A$ $K_I$ $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ \[$k_BT$\] Reference
--------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- -------------------
WT $139^{+29}_{-22}\,\mu$M $0.53^{+0.04}_{-0.04}\,\mu$M 4.5 [@Razo-Mejia2018]
F164T $165^{+90}_{-65}\,\mu$M $3^{+6}_{-3}\,\mu$M $1^{+5}_{-2}$ This study
Q294V $650^{+450}_{-250}\,\mu$M $8^{+8}_{-8}\,\mu$M $3^{+6}_{-3}$ This study
Q294K $> 1$ mM $310^{+70}_{-60}\,\mu$M $-3.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ This study
Q294R $9_{-9}^{+20}\,\mu$M $8^{+20}_{-8}\,\mu$M $-2.35^{+0.01}_{-0.09}$ This study
\[tab:ind\_params\]
: Inferred values of $K_A$, $K_I$, and $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ for inducer binding mutants
Given the collection of fold-change measurements, we computed the $\Delta F$ relative to the wild-type strain with the same operator and repressor copy number. This leaves differences in $p_{act}(c)$ as the sole contributor to the free energy difference, assuming our hypothesis that $K_A$, $K_I$, and $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ are the only perturbed parameters is correct. The change in free energy can be seen in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](C). For all mutants, the free energy difference inferred from the observed fold-change measurements falls within error of the predictions generated under the hypothesis that $K_A$, $K_I$, and $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ are all affected by the mutation \[shaded curves in Fig. \[fig:IND\_muts\](C)\]. The profile of the free energy change exhibits some of the rich phenomenology illustrated in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\](A) and (B). Q294K, F164T, and Q294V exhibit a non-monotonic dependence on the inducer concentration, a feature that can only appear when $K_A$ and $K_I$ are altered. The non-zero $\Delta F$ at $c=0$ for Q294R and Q294K coupled with an inducer concentration dependence is a telling sign that $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ must be significantly modified. This shift in $\Delta F$ is positive in all cases, indicating that $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ must have decreased, and that the inactive state has become more energetically favorable for these mutants than for the wild-type protein. Indeed the estimates for $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ (Tab. \[tab:ind\_params\]) reveal both mutations Q294R and Q294K make the inactive state more favorable than the active state. Thus, for these two mutations, only $\approx 10\%$ of the repressors are active in the absence of inducer, whereas the basal active fraction is $\approx 99\%$ for the wild-type repressor [@Razo-Mejia2018].
Taken together, these parametric changes diminish the response of the regulatory architecture as a whole to changing inducer concentrations. They furthermore reveal that the parameters which govern the allosteric response are interdependent and no single parameter is insulated from the others. However, as *only* the allosteric parameters are changed, one can say that the allosteric parameters as a whole are insulated from the other components which define the regulatory response, such as repressor copy number and DNA binding affinity.
Predicting Effects of Pairwise Double Mutations {#predicting-effects-of-pairwise-double-mutations .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------
Given full knowledge of each individual mutation, we can draw predictions of the behavior of the pairwise double mutants with no free parameters based on the simplest null hypothesis of no epistasis. The formalism of $\Delta F$ defined by explicitly states that the contribution to the free energy of the system from the difference in DNA binding energy and the allosteric parameters are strictly additive. Thus, deviations from the predicted change in free energy would suggest epistatic interactions between the two mutations.
To test this additive model, we constructed nine double mutant strains, each having a unique inducer binding (F164T, Q294V, Q294K) and DNA binding mutation (Y20I, Q21A, Q21M). To make predictions with an appropriate representation of the uncertainty, we computed a large array of induction profiles given random draws from the posterior distribution for the DNA binding energy (determined from the single DNA binding mutants) as well as from the joint posterior for the allosteric parameters (determined from the single inducer binding mutants). These predictions, shown in Fig. \[fig:dbl\_muts\](A) and (B) as shaded blue curves, capture all experimental measurements of the fold-change \[Fig. \[fig:dbl\_muts\](A)\] and the inferred difference in free energy \[Fig. \[fig:dbl\_muts\](B)\]. The latter indicates that there are no epistatic interactions between the mutations queried in this work, though if there were, systematic deviations from these predictions would shed light on how the epistasis is manifest.
The precise agreement between the predictions and measurements for Q294K paired with either Q21A or Q21M is striking as Q294K drastically changed $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ in addition to $K_A$ and $K_I$. Our ability to predict the induction profile and free energy change underscores the extent to which the DNA binding energy and the allosteric parameters are insulated from one another. Despite this insulation, the repressor still functions as an allosteric molecule, emphasizing that the mutations we have inserted do not alter the pathway of communication between the two domains of the protein. As the double mutant Y20I-Q294K exhibits fold-change of approximately $1$ across all IPTG concentrations \[Fig. \[fig:dbl\_muts\](A)\], these mutations in tandem make repression so weak it is beyond the limits which are detectable by our experiments. As a consequence, we are unable to estimate $\Delta F$ nor experimentally verify the corresponding prediction \[grey box in Fig. \[fig:dbl\_muts\](B)\]. However, as the predicted fold-change in gene expression is also approximately $1$ for all $c$, we believe that the prediction shown for $\Delta F$ is likely accurate. One would be able to infer the $\Delta F$ to confirm these predictions using a more sensitive method for measuring the fold-change, such as single-cell microscopy or colorimetric assays.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
----------
Allosteric regulation is often couched as “biological action at a distance“. Despite extensive knowledge of protein structure and function, it remains difficult to translate the coordinates of the atomic constituents of a protein to the precise parameter values which define the functional response, making each mutant its own intellectual adventure. Bioinformatic approaches to understanding the sequence-structure relationship have permitted us to examine how the residues of allosteric proteins evolve, revealing conserved regions which hint to their function. Co-evolving residues reveal sectors of conserved interactions which traverse the protein that act as the allosteric communication channel between domains [@Suel2002; @McLaughlin2012; @Reynolds2011]. Elucidating these sectors has advanced our understanding of how distinct domains ”talk" to one another and has permitted direct engineering of allosteric responses into non-allosteric enzymes [@Raman2014; @Raman2016; @Poelwijk2016]. Even so, we are left without a quantitative understanding of how these admittedly complex networks set the energetic difference between active and inactive states or how a given mutation influences binding affinity. In this context, a biophysical model in which the various parameters are intimately connected to the molecular details can be of use and can lead to quantitative predictions of the interplay between amino-acid identity and system-level response.
By considering how each parameter contributes to the observed change in free energy, we are able to tease out different classes of parameter perturbations which result in stereotyped responses to changing inducer concentration. These characteristic changes to the free energy can be used as a diagnostic tool to classify mutational effects. For example, we show in Fig. \[fig:deltaF\_theory\] that modulating the inducer binding constants $K_A$ and $K_I$ results in non-monotonic free energy changes that are dependent on the inducer concentration, a feature observed in the inducer binding mutants examined in this work. Simply looking at the inferred $\Delta F$ as a function of inducer concentration, which requires no fitting of the biophysical parameters, indicates that $K_A$ and $K_I$ must be modified considering those are the only parameters which can generate such a response.
Another key observation is that a perturbation to only $K_A$ and $K_I$ requires that the $\Delta F = 0$ at $c = 0$. Deviations from this condition imply that more than the inducer binding constants must have changed. If this shift in $\Delta F$ off of $0$ at $c = 0$ is not constant across all inducer concentrations, we can surmise that the energy difference between the allosteric states $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ must also be modified. We again see this effect for all of our inducer mutants. By examining the inferred $\Delta F$, we can immediately say that in addition to $K_A$ and $K_I$, $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ must decrease relative to the wild-type value as $\Delta F > 0$ at $c = 0$. When the allosteric parameters are fit to the induction profiles, we indeed see that this is the case, with all four mutations decreasing the energy gap between the active and inactive states. Two of these mutations, Q294R and Q294K, make the inactive state of the repressor *more* stable than the active state, which is not the case for the wild-type repressor [@Razo-Mejia2018].
Our formulation of $\Delta F$ indicates that shifts away from $0$ that are independent of the inducer concentration can only arise from changes to the repressor copy number and/or DNA binding specificity, indicating that the allosteric parameters are untouched. We see that for three mutations in the DNA binding domain, $\Delta F$ is the same irrespective of the inducer concentration. Measurements of $\Delta F$ for these mutants with repressor copy numbers across three orders of magnitude yield approximately the same value, revealing that $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$ is the sole parameter altered via the mutations.
We note that the conclusions stated above can be qualitatively drawn without resorting to fitting various parameters and measuring the goodness-of-fit. Rather, the distinct behavior of $\Delta F$ is sufficient to determine which parameters are changing. Here, these conclusions are quantitatively confirmed by fitting these parameters to the induction profile, which results in accurate predictions of the fold-change and $\Delta F$ for nearly every strain across different mutations, repressor copy numbers, and operator sequence, all at different inducer concentrations. With a collection of evidence as to what parameters are changing for single mutations, we put our model to the test and drew predictions of how double mutants would behave both in terms of the titration curve and free energy profile.
A hypothesis that arises from our formulation of $\Delta F$ is that a simple summation of the energetic contribution of each mutation should be sufficient to predict the double mutants (so long as they are in separate domains). We find that such a calculation permits precise and accurate predictions of the double mutant phenotypes, indicating that there are no epistatic interactions between the mutations examined in this work. With an expectation of what the free energy differences should be, epistatic interactions could be understood by looking at how the measurements deviate from the prediction. For example, if epistatic interactions exist which appear as a systematic shift from the predicted $\Delta F$ independent of inducer concentration, one could conclude that DNA binding energy is not equal to that of the single mutation in the DNA binding domain alone. Similarly, systematic shifts that are dependent on the inducer concentration (i.e. not constant) indicate that the allosteric parameters must be influenced. If the expected difference in free energy is equal to $0$ when $c=0$, one could surmise that the modified parameter must not be $\Delta\varepsilon_{AI}$ nor $\Delta\varepsilon_{RA}$ as these would both result in a shift in leakiness, indicating that $K_A$ and $K_I$ are further modified.
Ultimately, we present this work as a proof-of-principle for using biophysical models to investigate how mutations influence the response of allosteric systems. We emphasize that such a treatment allows one to boil down the complex phenotypic responses of these systems to a single-parameter description which is easily interpretable as a free energy. The general utility of this approach is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:all\_data\_collapse\] where gene expression data from previous work [@Garcia2011; @Brewster2014; @Razo-Mejia2018] along with all of the measurements presented in this work collapse onto the master curve defined by . While our model coarse grains many of the intricate details of transcriptional regulation into two states (one in which the repressor is bound to the promoter and one where it is not), it is sufficient to describe a wide range of regulatory scenarios. Given enough parametric knowledge of the system, it becomes possible to examine how modifications to the parameters move the physiological response along this reduced one-dimensional parameter space. This approach offers a glimpse at how mutational effects can be described in terms of energy rather than Hill coefficients and arbitrary prefactors. While we have explored a very small region of sequence space in this work, coupling of this approach with high-throughput sequencing-based methods to query a library of mutations within the protein will shed light on the phenotypic landscape centered at the wild-type sequence. Furthermore, pairing libraries of protein and operator sequence mutants will provide insight as to how the protein and regulatory sequence coevolve, a topic rich with opportunity for a dialogue between theory and experiment.
![Data collapse of the simple repression regulatory architecture. All data are means of biological replicates. Where present, error bars correspond to the standard error of the mean of five to fifteen biological replicates. Red triangles indicate data from Garcia and Phillips [@Garcia2011] obtained by colorimetric assays. Blue squares are data from Brewster et al.[@Brewster2014] acquired from video microscopy. Green circles are data from Razo-Mejia et al. [@Razo-Mejia2018] obtained via flow cytometry. All other symbols correspond to the work presented here. An interactive version of this figure can be found on the [paper website](https://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/mwc_mutants) where the different data sets can be viewed in more detail.[]{data-label="fig:all_data_collapse"}](Fig6_collapse.pdf)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is dedicated to the study of viscous compressible barotropic fluids in dimension $N\geq2$. We address the question of the global existence of strong solutions for initial data close from a constant state having critical Besov regularity. In a first time, this article show the recent results of [@CD] and [@CMZ] with a new proof. Our result relies on a new a priori estimate for the velocity, where we introduce a new structure to *kill* the coupling between the density and the velocity as in [@H2]. We study so a new variable that we call effective velocity. In a second time we improve the results of [@CD] and [@CMZ] by adding some regularity on the initial data in particular $\rho_{0}$ is in $H^{1}$. In this case we obtain global strong solutions for a class of large initial data on the density and the velocity which in particular improve the results of D. Hoff in [@5H4]. We conclude by generalizing these results for general viscosity coefficients.'
author:
- 'Boris Haspot [^1]'
title: Existence of global strong solutions in critical spaces for barotropic viscous fluids
---
Introduction
============
The motion of a general barotropic compressible fluid is described by the following system: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}\rho+{\rm div}(\rho u)=0,\\
&{\partial}_{t}(\rho u)+{\rm div}(\rho u\otimes u)-{\rm div}(\mu(\rho)D(u))-{\nabla}(\lambda(\rho){\rm div} u)+{\nabla}P(\rho)=\rho f,\\
&(\rho,u)_{/t=0}=(\rho_{0},u_{0}).
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\label{0.1}$$ Here $u=u(t,x)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ stands for the velocity field and $\rho=\rho(t,x)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{+}$ is the density. The pressure $P$ is a suitable smooth function of $\rho$. We denote by $\lambda$ and $\mu$ the two viscosity coefficients of the fluid, which are assumed to satisfy $\mu>0$ and $\lambda+2\mu>0$ (in the sequel to simplify the calculus we will assume the viscosity coefficients as constants). Such a conditions ensures ellipticity for the momentum equation and is satisfied in the physical cases where $\lambda+\frac{2\mu}{N}>0$. We supplement the problem with initial condition $(\rho_{0},u_{0})$ and an outer force $f$. Throughout the paper, we assume that the space variable $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ or to the periodic box ${\cal T}^{N}_{a}$ with period $a_{i}$, in the i-th direction. We restrict ourselves the case $N\geq2$.\
The problem of existence of global solution in time for Navier-Stokes equations was addressed in one dimension for smooth enough data by Kazhikov and Shelukin in [@5K], and for discontinuous ones, but still with densities away from zero, by Serre in [@5S] and Hoff in [@5H1]. Those results have been generalized to higher dimension by Matsumura and Nishida in [@MN] for smooth data close to equilibrium and by Hoff in the case of discontinuous data in [@5H2; @5H3]. All those results do not require to be far from the vacuum. The existence and uniqueness of local classical solutions for (\[0.1\]) with smooth initial data such that the density $\rho_{0}$ is bounded and bounded away from zero (i.e., $0<\underline{\rho}\leq\rho_{0}\leq M$) has been stated by Nash in [@Nash]. Let us emphasize that no stability condition was required there. On the other hand, for small smooth perturbations of a stable equilibrium with constant positive density, global well-posedness has been proved in [@MN]. Many works on the case of the one dimension have been devoted to the qualitative behavior of solutions for large time (see for example [@5H1; @5K]). Refined functional analysis has been used for the last decades, ranging from Sobolev, Besov, Lorentz and Triebel spaces to describe the regularity and long time behavior of solutions to the compressible model [@5So], [@5V], [@5H4], [@5K1]. Let us recall that (local) existence and uniqueness for (\[0.1\]) in the case of smooth data with no vacuum has been stated for long in the pioneering works by J. Nash [@Nash], and A. Matsumura, T. Nishida [@MN].\
Guided in our approach by numerous works dedicated to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation (see e.g [@Meyer]): $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}v+v\cdot{\nabla}v-\mu{\Delta}v+{\nabla}\Pi=0,\\
&{\rm div}v=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\leqno{(NS)}$$ we aim at solving (\[0.1\]) in the case where the data $(\rho_{0},u_{0},f)$ have *critical* regularity.\
By critical, we mean that we want to solve the system functional spaces with norm in invariant by the changes of scales which leaves (\[0.1\]) invariant. In the case of barotropic fluids, it is easy to see that the transformations: $$(\rho(t,x),u(t,x))\longrightarrow (\rho(l^{2}t,lx),lu(l^{2}t,lx)),\;\;\;l\in{\mathbb{R}},
\label{1}$$ have that property, provided that the pressure term has been changed accordingly.
Let $\bar{\rho}>0$. In the sequel we will note: $q=\frac{\rho-\bar{\rho}}{\bar{\rho}}$.
The use of critical functional frameworks led to several new weel-posedness results for compressible fluids (see [@DL; @DW; @H1; @H2]). In addition to have a norm invariant by (\[1\]), appropriate functional space for solving (\[0.1\]) must provide a control on the $L^{\infty}$ norm of the density (in order to avoid vacuum and loss of ellipticity). For that reason, we restricted our study to the case where the initial data $(\rho_{0},u_{0})$ and external force $f$ are such that, for some positive constant $\bar{\rho}$: $$q_{0}\in B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1},\;u_{0}\in B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;f\in L^{1}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\in B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1})$$ with $(p,p_{1})\in [1,+\infty[$ good chosen.\
Concerning the global existence of strong solutions for initial data with high regularity order and close to a stable equilibrium has been proved by Matsumura and Nishida in [@MN] for three-dimensional polytropic ideal fluids and no outer force. More precisely for $\bar{\rho}>0$, the initial data are choosen small in the following spaces $(\rho_{0}-\bar{\rho},u_{0})\in H^{3}\times H^{3}$. More recently D. Hoff in [@5H4; @5H5] stated the existence of global weak solutions with small initial data including discontinuous initial data (namely $q_{0}$ is small in $L^{2}\cap L^{\infty}$ and $u_{0}$ is small in $L^{4}$ if $N=2$ and small in $L^{8}$ if $N=3$). One of the major interest of the results of Hoff is to get some smoothing effects on the incompressible part of the velocity $u$ and on the effective viscous flux $F=(2\mu+\lambda){\rm div}u-P(\rho)+P(\bar{\rho})$ are also pointed out. D. Hoff is the first author to have introduced the notion of effective flux which play a crucial role in the proof of P-L Lions for the existence of global weak solution. However if the results of Hoff are critical in the sense of the scaling for the density, it is not the case for the initial velocity. In [@5H2], D. Hoff show a very interesting theorem of weak-strong uniqueness when $P(\rho)=K\rho$ with $K>0$. To speak roughly under the conditions that two solutions $(\rho,u)$, $(\rho_{1},u_{1})$ check a control $L^{\infty}$ on the density and a control Lipschitz on the velocity, with additional property of regularity on the strong solution $(\rho_{1},u_{1})$ then we obtain $(\rho,u)=(\rho_{1},u_{1})$. D. Hoff use this result to show that the solutions of [@5H2] are unique. We will use this theorem in the sequel, by showing that our solutions verify the hypothesis of D. Hoff in [@5H2]. Finally R. Danchin in [@DG] show for the first time a result of existence of global strong solution close from a stable equilibrium in critical space for the scaling of the system. More precisely the initial data are choose as follows $(q_{0},u_{0})\in (B^{{\frac{N}{2}}}_{2,1}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})\times B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1}$. The main difficulty is to get estimates on the linearized system where the velocity and the density are coupled via the pressure, and what is crucial in this work is the smoothing effect on the velocity and a $L^{1}$ decay on $\rho-\bar{\rho}$ (this play a necessary role to control the pressure term). In this work, R. Danchin use some astucious inequality of energy on the system in variable Fourier where he has decomposed the space in dyadic shell. This explain in particular why the result is obtained in Besov space with a Lebesgue index $p=2$. In the same time of the redaction of this paper, Q. Chen et al in [@CMZ] and F. Charve and R. Danchin in [@CD] improve the previous result by working in more general Besov space by studying the linear part of the system.\
The goal of this article is to make a connection between the article of D. Hoff [@5H4; @5H5] and those of Q. Chen et al and F. Charve and R. Danchin in [@CD] and [@CMZ]. In fact we extend the results [@CD] and [@CMZ] to the case where the Lebesgue index of Besov space are more general, it means $q_{0}\in B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1}$ and $\;u_{0}\in B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}$ with $p$ and $p_{1}$ good choosen. In [@CD] and [@CMZ], the authors obtain global weak solutions when $p=p_{1}<2N$ and strong solution when $p=p_{1}\leq N$, the restriction on the choice of $p$ come from a very strong coupling between the pressure and the velocity. Indeed in this case the coupling is very strong in high frequencies because of the term of pressure, that’s why we need to integrate completly the pressure term in the linear part. In the case of lows frequencies, according the point of view of the Fourier frequencies, the term of pressure is very regular so it does not make problem to consider in the rest. The study of the linear part in this case is crucial to get a gain $L^{1}$ of integrability on the density, and for low frequencies we follow the method of R. Danchin in [@DG]. In [@5H4; @5H5], D. Hoff get global weak solution with a critical regularity on the density in the sense that $\rho_{0}-\bar{\rho}$ is small in $L^{\infty}$. It means that he does not ask any regularity on the initial density which is of this point of view besser than [@DG], [@CD] and [@CMZ]. However the velocity in his case in only $L^{1}$ $log$ Lipschitz, that is why he can not obtain the uniqueness and have only weak solution. In this paper we improve the results of [@5H4; @5H5] by the fact that we get strong solutions, and we will show that it is just enough to ask a arbitrary small ${\varepsilon}$ regularity on the initial density to get uniqueness.\
In [@H2], we improve the results of R. Danchin in [@DL; @DW], in the sense that the initial density belongs to larger spaces $B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1}$ with $p\in[1,+\infty[$. In the present paper, we address the question of global existence of strong solution in the critical functional framework under the assumption that the initial density belongs to critical Besov space with a index of integrability different of this of the velocity. To do that, as in [@H2] we introduce a new variable in high frequencies than the velocity that we call effective velocity in the goal to *kill* the relation of coupling between the velocity and the pressure. We observe that this new notion of effective velocity allow us easily to get as R. Danchin in [@DG] a $L^{1}$ decay on $q$. However this new variable is interesting only in high frequencies, indeed in low frequencies the term ${\nabla}P(\rho)$ is small in Fourier analysis. Moreover in the low frequency regime, the first order terms predominate and the viscous term ${\Delta}u$ may be neglected in Fourier analysis, so that (\[0.1\]) has to be treat by means of hyperbolic energy methods (more particularly the velocity verifies in some way a wave equation). This implies that we can treat the low regime only in space construct on $L^{2}$, it is classical that the hyperbolic system are ill-posed in general $L^{p}$ spaces. So as in [@CMZ] and [@CD], the system has to be handled differently in low and high frequencies. In short, we will use the analysis of R. Danchin in [@DG] in low frequencies and the introduction of this new variable the effctive velocity introduced in [@H2] in high frequencies. To simplify the notation, we assume from now on that $\bar{\rho}=1$. Hence as long as $\rho$ does not vanish, the equations for ($q=\rho-1$,$u$) read: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q+u\cdot{\nabla}q=-(1+q){\rm div}u,\\
&{\partial}_{t}u+u\cdot{\nabla}u-\frac{1}{1+q}{\cal A}u+{\nabla}P(1+q)=f,
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\label{0.6}$$ In the sequel we will note ${\cal A}=\mu{\Delta}+(\lambda+\mu){\nabla}{\rm div}$ and where $g$ is a smooth function which may be computed from the pressure function $P$. One can now state our main result.
Let $P$ a suitably smooth function of the density such that $P^{'}(1)>0$, $f\in\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})$ and $1\leq p_{1}\leq p<+\infty$ such that $\frac{1}{p_{1}}\leq\frac{1}{N}+\frac{1}{p}$. Assume that $u_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}$, $f\in L^{1}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})$ and $q_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}$.Then there exists a constant ${\varepsilon}_{0}$ such that if: $$\|q_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}}+\|u_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\leq{\varepsilon}_{0},$$ then if $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}>\frac{1}{N}$, $p<\max(4,N)$ and $\frac{1}{2}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$ there exists a global solution $(q,u)$ for system (\[0.1\]) with $1+q$ bounded away from zero and, $$\begin{aligned}
&q\in \widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}({\mathbb{R}},
\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})\;\;\;\mbox{and}\\
&\hspace{2cm}\;u\in \widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}};\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})
\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}({\mathbb{R}},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover this solution is unique if $\frac{2}{N}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$. \[theo1\]
This theorem is the same than Chen et al obtained in [@CMZ]. In particular we have strong restrictions on $p$, it means $p<\max(4,2N)$. This fact is due to the interactions between low and high frequencies in the paraproduct laws. However we obtain this result with a new method which seems more flexible and we will explain why in thecorrolary \[corollaire1\].
It seems possible to improve the theorem \[theo1\] by choosing initial data $q_{0}$ in $B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{(2,1),(p,\infty)}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,0}_{(2,1),(\infty,1)}$, however some supplementary conditions appear on $p_{1}$ in this case. Here $B^{s_{1},s_{2}}_{(p_{1},r_{1}),(p_{2},r_{2})}$ is a Besov space where the behavior is $B^{s_{1}}_{p_{1},r_{1}}$ and $B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},r_{2}}$ in high frequencies.
The key to theorem \[theo1\] is to introduce a new variable $v_{1}$ to control the velocity where to avoid the coupling between the density and the velocity, we analyze by a new way the pressure term. More precisely we write the gradient of the pressure as a Laplacian of the variable $v_{1}$, and we introduce this term in the linear part of the momentum equation. We have then a control on $v_{1}$ which can write roughly as $u-{\cal G}P(\rho)$ where ${\cal G}$ is a pseudodifferential operator of order $-1$. We will call $u-{\cal G}P(\rho)$ the effective velocity. By this way, we have canceled the coupling between $v_{1}$ and the density, we next verify easily that we have a control Lipschitz of the gradient of $u$ (it is crucial to estimate the density by the mass equation). In the previous theorem \[theo1\], we have as in [@CMZ] very big restrictions on $p$ ($p<\max(4,2N)$) because the behavior in low frequencies. At the difference with the results of strong solutions in finite time (see [@H2]), we can not choose $p$ arbitrarly big. To overcome this difficulty, we need to add some additional conditions on $(q_{0},u_{0})$ in low frequencies as in [@CD] to avoid these restrictions in the use of the paraproduct laws. We obtain then the following corollary:
Let $P$ a suitably smooth function of the density with $P^{'}(1)>0$, $f\in\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r})$ and $1\leq p_{1}\leq p<+\infty$ such that $\frac{1}{p_{1}}\leq\frac{1}{N}+\frac{1}{p}$. Assume that $u_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}$, $f\in L^{1}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})$ and $q_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r}$ with $r=+\infty$ if $N\geq 3$ and $r=1$ if $N=2$.Then there exists a constant ${\varepsilon}_{0}$ such that if: $$\|q_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r}}+\|u_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r})}\leq{\varepsilon}_{0},$$ then if $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}>\frac{1}{N}$, there exists a global solution $(q,u)$ for system (\[0.1\]) with $1+q$ bounded away from zero and, $$\begin{aligned}
&q\in \widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r})\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}({\mathbb{R}},
\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{2,1}_{2,r})\;\;\;\mbox{and}\\
&\hspace{2cm}\;u\in \widetilde{C}\big({\mathbb{R}};(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap B^{0}_{2,r}\big)
\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}({\mathbb{R}},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{2}_{2,r}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover this solution is unique if $\frac{2}{N}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$. \[corollaire1\]
We can observe that when $p$ tends to infinity, we are close to get weak solution with the following initial data $(q_{0},u_{0})$ in $B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,0}_{2,\infty,1}\times B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,1}_{2,N,1}$. It means that this theorem rely the result of D. Hoff where the initial density is assumed $L^{\infty}$ but where the initial velocity is more regular (it means not critical) and the results of R. Danchin in [@DW].Moreover it is right for general pressure when in the works of D. Hoff the pressure verify $P(\rho)=K\rho$ with $K>0$.
If $r=+\infty$, then we replace above the strong continuity in $B^{s}_{2,r}$ by the weak continuity.
In some some sense, we could consider that the case $p>N$ is not so important because we obtain only the existence of global weak solution as in the works of D. Hoff in [@5H4], [@5H2]. However it stays very interesting, indeed as in the work of F. Charve and R. Danchin in [@CD], we could add some additional condition on the data such $u_{0}\in B^{0}_{N,1}$. In this fact, it would be easy to show some results of persistency as for Navier-Stokes without condition of smallness on $\|u_{0}\|_{B^{0}_{N,1}}$, in particular the fact that $u\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,0}_{2,N,1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})$. And in this case, we will case the existence of global strong solutions but with only a condition of smallness for the density on $\|q_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{2}}}_{2,p,1}\cap \widetilde{B}^{0,1}_{2,r}}$. In particular it improves widely the results of [@CMZ] and [@CD], this result is close from the results of D. Hoff in [@5H4] and [@5H2] except that we are in critical space for the scaling (except concerning the fact that $q_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{0,1}_{2,r}$).\
In particular as in [@CD], we can take $u_{0}(x)=\phi(x)sin({\varepsilon}^{-1}x\cdot\omega)n$ where $\omega$ and $n$ stand for any unit vectors of ${\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ and $\phi$ for any smooth compactly supported function then we have if $p_{1}>N$: $$\|u_{0}\|_{B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{1-\frac{N}{p_{1}}},$$ so that the smallness condition is satisfied by $u_{0}$ if ${\varepsilon}$ small enough. However we remark that $u_{0}$ is arbitrarly big in $L^{3}$. On the other hand, $u_{0}$ belongs to Scwartz class ${\cal S}$ hence also to $B^{0}_{N,1}$ so that uniqueness holds true by persistency results.
We can observe that $u_{0}\in B^{0}_{2,r}$ corresponds exactly to the energy space when $r=2$, in this sense this additional regularity on the velocity seems very natural. We will explain in the corollary \[corollaire2\] why it is perfectly adapted in the case of specific viscosity coefficients. Indeed in the general case $q_{0}\in B^{1}_{2,r}$ is not in the energy space.
We want treat now the special case of the *BD viscosity coefficients*. Indeed in [@BD] Bresch and Desjardins have discovered a new entropy inequality when in (\[0.1\]), we have: $$\lambda(\rho)=\rho\mu^{'}(\rho)-\mu(\rho).$$ In this case they show that we can control $\sqrt{\rho}{\nabla}{\varphi}(\rho)$ in $L^{\infty}(L^{2})$ where ${\varphi}^{'}(\rho)=\frac{\mu^{'}(\rho)}{\rho}$. Roughly it means that we controll the density $\rho$ in $L^{\infty}(H^{1})$. It is the additional condition that we ask in the corollary \[corollaire1\]. In the following result, we prove that we can extend the corollary \[corollaire1\] to the case of general viscosity.
Let $P$ a suitably smooth function of the density with $P^{'}(1)>0$, $f\in\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r})$ and $\mu$, $\lambda$ are general regular functions such that $\mu(1)>0$ and $\mu(1)+\lambda(1)>0$ and $1\leq p_{1}\leq p<+\infty$ such that $\frac{1}{p_{1}}\leq\frac{1}{N}+\frac{1}{p}$. Assume that $u_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}$, $f\in L^{1}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})$ and $q_{0}\in \widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r}$ with $r=+\infty$ if $N\geq 3$ and $r=1$ if $N=2$.Then there exists a constant ${\varepsilon}_{0}$ such that if: $$\|q_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r}}+\|u_{0}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r})}\leq{\varepsilon}_{0},$$ then if $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}>\frac{1}{N}$, there exists a global solution $(q,u)$ for system (\[0.1\]) with $1+q$ bounded away from zero and, $$\begin{aligned}
&q\in \widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r})\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}({\mathbb{R}},
\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{2,1}_{2,r})\;\;\;\mbox{and}\\
&\hspace{2cm}\;u\in \widetilde{C}\big({\mathbb{R}};(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap B^{0}_{2,r}\big)
\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}({\mathbb{R}},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{2}_{2,r}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover this solution is unique if $\frac{2}{N}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$. \[corollaire2\]
This result is very interesting in the case of the *BD viscosity coefficients*. In this case our result is very close of the energy initial data with the optimal condition for the scaling $(q_{0},u_{0})\in B^{0}_{\infty,1}\times B^{0}_{N,1})$. In particular it concerns the shallow-water system.
Moreover our method is more flexible than the proofs of D. Hoff in [@5H2], [@5H3], [@5H4] as these works are based crucially on the notion of effective pressure and on a gain of integrability on the velocity which are right only in the case of constant viscosity coefficients.
Our paper is structured as follows. In section \[section2\], we give a few notation and briefly introduce the basic Fourier analysis techniques needed to prove our result. In section \[section3\], we prove estimate on the transport equation. In section \[section4\], we prove the theorem \[theo1\].In section \[section5\] we prove the corollaries \[corollaire1\] and \[corollaire2\]. Two inescapable technical commutator estimates and the proof of paraproduct in hybrid Besov spacesare postponed in appendix.
Littlewood-Paley theory and Besov spaces {#section2}
========================================
Throughout the paper, $C$ stands for a constant whose exact meaning depends on the context. The notation $A\lesssim B$ means that $A\leq CB$. For all Banach space $X$, we denote by $C([0,T],X)$ the set of continuous functions on $[0,T]$ with values in $X$. For $p\in[1,+\infty]$, the notation $L^{p}(0,T,X)$ or $L^{p}_{T}(X)$ stands for the set of measurable functions on $(0,T)$ with values in $X$ such that $t\rightarrow\|f(t)\|_{X}$ belongs to $L^{p}(0,T)$. Littlewood-Paley decomposition corresponds to a dyadic decomposition of the space in Fourier variables. We can use for instance any $\varphi\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$, supported in ${\cal{C}}=\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N}/\frac{3}{4}\leq|\xi|\leq\frac{8}{3}\}$ such that: $$\sum_{l\in\mathbb{Z}}\varphi(2^{-l}\xi)=1\,\,\,\,\mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\xi\ne 0.$$ Denoting $h={\cal{F}}^{-1}\varphi$, we then define the dyadic blocks by: $${\Delta}_{l}u=\varphi(2^{-l}D)u=2^{lN}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{N}}h(2^{l}y)u(x-y)dy\,\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,S_{l}u=\sum_{k\leq
l-1}{\Delta}_{k}u\,.$$ Formally, one can write that: $$u=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}{\Delta}_{k}u\,.$$ This decomposition is called homogeneous Littlewood-Paley decomposition. Let us observe that the above formal equality does not hold in ${\cal{S}}^{'}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$ for two reasons:
1. The right hand-side does not necessarily converge in ${\cal{S}}^{'}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$.
2. Even if it does, the equality is not always true in ${\cal{S}}^{'}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$ (consider the case of the polynomials).
Homogeneous Besov spaces and first properties
---------------------------------------------
For $s\in{\mathbb{R}},\,\,p\in[1,+\infty],\,\,q\in[1,+\infty],\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,u\in{\cal{S}}^{'}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$ we set: $$\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,q}}=(\sum_{l\in\mathbb{Z}}(2^{ls}\|{\Delta}_{l}u\|_{L^{p}})^{q})^{\frac{1}{q}}.$$ The Besov space $B^{s}_{p,q}$ is the set of temperate distribution $u$ such that $\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,q}}<+\infty$.
The above definition is a natural generalization of the nonhomogeneous Sobolev and H$\ddot{\mbox{o}}$lder spaces: one can show that $B^{s}_{\infty,\infty}$ is the nonhomogeneous H$\ddot{\mbox{o}}$lder space $C^{s}$ and that $B^{s}_{2,2}$ is the nonhomogeneous space $H^{s}$.
\[derivation,interpolation\] The following properties holds:
1. there exists a constant universal $C$ such that:\
$C^{-1}\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}\leq\|{\nabla}u\|_{B^{s-1}_{p,r}}\leq
C\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}.$
2. If $p_{1}<p_{2}$ and $r_{1}\leq r_{2}$ then $B^{s}_{p_{1},r_{1}}\hookrightarrow
B^{s-N(1/p_{1}-1/p_{2})}_{p_{2},r_{2}}$.
3. $B^{s^{'}}_{p,r_{1}}\hookrightarrow B^{s}_{p,r}$ if $s^{'}> s$ or if $s=s^{'}$ and $r_{1}\leq r$.
\[interpolation\]
Let now recall a few product laws in Besov spaces coming directly from the paradifferential calculus of J-M. Bony (see [@BJM]) and rewrite on a generalized form in [@AP] by H. Abidi and M. Paicu (in this article the results are written in the case of homogeneous sapces but it can easily generalize for the nonhomogeneous Besov spaces).
\[produit1\] We have the following laws of product:
- For all $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $(p,r)\in[1,+\infty]^{2}$ we have: $$\|uv\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}\leq
C(\|u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|v\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}+\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}})\,.
\label{2.2}$$
- Let $(p,p_{1},p_{2},r,\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2})\in[1,+\infty]^{2}$ such that:$\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}$, $p_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}$, $p_{2}\leq\lambda_{1}$, $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{\lambda_{1}}$ and $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{2}}+\frac{1}{\lambda_{2}}$. We have then the following inequalities:\
if $s_{1}+s_{2}+N\inf(0,1-\frac{1}{p_{1}}-\frac{1}{p_{2}})>0$, $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda_{2}}<\frac{N}{p_{1}}$ and $s_{2}+\frac{N}{\lambda_{1}}<\frac{N}{p_{2}}$ then: $$\|uv\|_{B^{s_{1}+s_{2}-N(\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}-\frac{1}{p})}_{p,r}}\lesssim\|u\|_{B^{s_{1}}_{p_{1},r}}
\|v\|_{B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},\infty}},
\label{2.3}$$ when $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda_{2}}=\frac{N}{p_{1}}$ (resp $s_{2}+\frac{N}{\lambda_{1}}=\frac{N}{p_{2}}$) we replace $\|u\|_{B^{s_{1}}_{p_{1},r}}\|v\|_{B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},\infty}}$ (resp $\|v\|_{B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},\infty}}$) by $\|u\|_{B^{s_{1}}_{p_{1},1}}\|v\|_{B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},r}}$ (resp $\|v\|_{B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},\infty}\cap L^{\infty}}$), if $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda_{2}}=\frac{N}{p_{1}}$ and $s_{2}+\frac{N}{\lambda_{1}}=\frac{N}{p_{2}}$ we take $r=1$.\
If $s_{1}+s_{2}=0$, $s_{1}\in(\frac{N}{\lambda_{1}}-\frac{N}{p_{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}-\frac{N}{\lambda_{2}}]$ and $\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}\leq 1$ then: $$\|uv\|_{B^{-N(\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}-\frac{1}{p})}_{p,\infty}}\lesssim\|u\|_{B^{s_{1}}_{p_{1},1}}
\|v\|_{B^{s_{2}}_{p_{2},\infty}}.
\label{2.4}$$ If $|s|<{\frac{N}{p}}$ for $p\geq2$ and $-\frac{N}{p^{'}}<s<{\frac{N}{p}}$ else, we have: $$\|uv\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}\leq C\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}\|v\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,\infty}\cap L^{\infty}}.
\label{2.5}$$
In the sequel $p$ will be either $p_{1}$ or $p_{2}$ and in this case $\frac{1}{\lambda}=\frac{1}{p_{1}}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}$ if $p_{1}\leq p_{2}$, resp $\frac{1}{\lambda}=\frac{1}{p_{2}}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}$ if $p_{2}\leq p_{1}$.
\[produit2\] Let $r\in [1,+\infty]$, $1\leq p\leq p_{1}\leq +\infty$ and $s$ such that:
- $s\in(-\frac{N}{p_{1}},\frac{N}{p_{1}})$ if $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}\leq 1$,
- $s\in(-\frac{N}{p_{1}}+N(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}-1),\frac{N}{p_{1}})$ if $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}> 1$,
then we have if $u\in B^{s}_{p,r}$ and $v\in B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{p_{1},\infty}\cap L^{\infty}$: $$\|uv\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}\leq C\|u\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}\|v\|_{B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{p_{1},\infty}\cap L^{\infty}}.$$
The study of non stationary PDE’s requires space of type $L^{\rho}(0,T,X)$ for appropriate Banach spaces $X$. In our case, we expect $X$ to be a Besov space, so that it is natural to localize the equation through Littlewood-Payley decomposition. But, in doing so, we obtain bounds in spaces which are not type $L^{\rho}(0,T,X)$ (except if $r=p$). We are now going to define the spaces of Chemin-Lerner in which we will work, which are a refinement of the spaces $L_{T}^{\rho}(B^{s}_{p,r})$. $\hspace{15cm}$
Let $\rho\in[1,+\infty]$, $T\in[1,+\infty]$ and $s_{1}\in{\mathbb{R}}$. We set: $$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})}=
\big(\sum_{l\in\mathbb{Z}}2^{lrs_{1}}\|{\Delta}_{l}u(t)\|_{L^{\rho}(L^{p})}^{r}\big)^{\frac{1}{r}}\,.$$ We then define the space $\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})$ as the set of temperate distribution $u$ over $(0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ such that $\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})}<+\infty$.
We set $\widetilde{C}_{T}(\widetilde{B}^{s_{1}}_{p,r})=\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}(\widetilde{B}^{s_{1}}_{p,r})\cap
{\cal C}([0,T],B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})$. Let us emphasize that, according to Minkowski inequality, we have: $$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})}\leq\|u\|_{L^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})}\;\;\mbox{if}\;\;r\geq\rho
,\;\;\;\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})}\geq\|u\|_{L^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})}\;\;\mbox{if}\;\;r\leq\rho
.$$
It is easy to generalize proposition \[produit1\], to $\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s_{1}}_{p,r})$ spaces. The indices $s_{1}$, $p$, $r$ behave just as in the stationary case whereas the time exponent $\rho$ behaves according to Hölder inequality.
In the sequel we will need of composition lemma in $\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})$ spaces.
\[composition\] Let $s>0$, $(p,r)\in[1,+\infty]$ and $u\in \widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})\cap L^{\infty}_{T}(L^{\infty})$.
1. Let $F\in W_{loc}^{[s]+2,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$ such that $F(0)=0$. Then $F(u)\in \widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})$. More precisely there exists a function $C$ depending only on $s$, $p$, $r$, $N$ and $F$ such that: $$\|F(u)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})}\leq C(\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}(L^{\infty})}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})}.$$
2. Let $F\in W_{loc}^{[s]+3,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})$ such that $F(0)=0$. Then $F(u)-F^{'}(0)u\in \widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})$. More precisely there exists a function $C$ depending only on $s$, $p$, $r$, $N$ and $F$ such that: $$\|F(u)-F^{'}(0)u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})}\leq C(\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}(L^{\infty})}\|u\|^{2}_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})}.$$
Here we recall a result of interpolation which explains the link of the space $B^{s}_{p,1}$ with the space $B^{s}_{p,\infty}$, see [@DFourier].
\[interpolationlog\] There exists a constant $C$ such that for all $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $1\leq p<+\infty$, $$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}_{T}^{\rho}(B^{s}_{p,1})}\leq C\frac{1+{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}_{T}^{\rho}(B^{s}_{p,\infty})}
\biggl(1+\log\frac{\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}_{T}^{\rho}(B^{s+{\varepsilon}}_{p,\infty})}}
{\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}_{T}^{\rho}(B^{s}_{p,\infty})}}\biggl).$$ \[5Yudov\]
Now we give some result on the behavior of the Besov spaces via some pseudodifferential operator (see [@DFourier]).
Let $m\in{\mathbb{R}}$. A smooth function function $f:{\mathbb{R}}^{N}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is said to be a ${\cal S}^{m}$ multiplier if for all muti-index $\alpha$, there exists a constant $C_{\alpha}$ such that: $$\forall\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N},\;\;|{\partial}^{\alpha}f(\xi)|\leq C_{\alpha}(1+|\xi|)^{m-|\alpha|}.$$ \[smoothf\]
Let $m\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $f$ be a ${\cal S}^{m}$ multiplier. Then for all $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $1\leq p,r\leq+\infty$ the operator $f(D)$ is continuous from $B^{s}_{p,r}$ to $B^{s-m}_{p,r}$. \[singuliere\]
Let us now give some estimates for the heat equation:
\[5chaleur\] Let $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $(p,r)\in[1,+\infty]^{2}$ and $1\leq\rho_{2}\leq\rho_{1}\leq+\infty$. Assume that $u_{0}\in B^{s}_{p,r}$ and $f\in\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{2}}_{T}
(\widetilde{B}^{s-2+2/\rho_{2}}_{p,r})$. Let u be a solution of: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}u-\mu{\Delta}u=f\\
&u_{t=0}=u_{0}\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ Then there exists $C>0$ depending only on $N,\mu,\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ such that: $$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{T}(\widetilde{B}^{s+2/\rho_{1}}_{p,r})}\leq C\big(
\|u_{0}\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}+\mu^{\frac{1}{\rho_{2}}-1}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{2}}_{T}
(\widetilde{B}^{s-2+2/\rho_{2}}_{p,r})}\big)\,.$$ If in addition $r$ is finite then $u$ belongs to $C([0,T],B^{s}_{p,r})$.
Hybrid Besov spaces
-------------------
The homogeneous Besov spaces fail to have nice inclusion properties: owing to the low frequencies, the embedding $B^{s}_{p,1}\hookrightarrow B^{t}_{p,1}$ does not hold for $s>t$. Still, the functions of $B^{s}_{p,1}$ are locally more regular than those of $B^{t}_{p,1}$: for any $\phi\in C^{\infty}_{0}$ and $u\in B^{s}_{p,1}$, the function $\phi u\in B^{t}_{p,1}$. This motivates the definition of Hybrid Besov spaces introduced by R. Danchin in [@DG] where the growth conditions satisfied by the dyadic blocks and the coefficient of integrability are not the same for low and high frequencies. Hybrid Besov spaces have been used in [@DG1] to prove global well-posedness for compressible gases in critical spaces. We generalize here a little bit the definition by distinguishing the coefficients of integrability.
\[def1.9\] Let $s,t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $(p,q)\in[1,+\infty]$. We set: $$\|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s,t}_{p,q,1}}=\sum_{l\leq 0}2^{ls}\|{\Delta}_{l}u\|_{L^{p}}+\sum_{l\leq 0}2^{lt}\|{\Delta}_{l}u\|_{L^{q}}.$$
We will often use the following notation: $$u_{BF}=\sum_{l\leq0}{\Delta}_{l}u\;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\;u_{HF}=\sum_{l>0}{\Delta}_{l}u.$$
We have the following properties:
- We have $\widetilde{B}^{s,s}_{p,p,1}=B^{s}_{p,1}$.
- If $s_{1}\geq s_{3}$ and $s_{2}\geq s_{4}$ then $\widetilde{B}^{s_{3},s_{2}}_{p,q,1}{\hookrightarrow}\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{4}}_{p,q,1}$.
We shall also make use of hybrid Besov-spaces. For them, one can prove results analoguous to proposition \[produit1\], we refer to proposition \[hybrid\] in the appendix.
The mass conservation equation {#section3}
==============================
We begin this section by recalling some estimates in Besov spaces for transport and heat equations. For more details, the reader is referred to [@BCD].
Let $1\leq p_{1}\leq p\leq+\infty$, $r\in[1,+\infty]$ and $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that: $$-N\min(\frac{1}{p_{1}},\frac{1}{p^{'}})<s<1+\frac{N}{p_{1}}.$$ Suppose that $q_{0}\in B^{s}_{p,r}$, $F\in L^{1}(0,T, B^{s}_{p,r})$ and that $q\in
L^{\infty}_{T}(B^{s}_{p,r})\cap
C([0,T];{\cal S}^{'})$ solves the following transport equation: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q+u\cdot{\nabla}q=F,\\
&q_{\ t=0}=q_{0}.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ There exists a constant $C$ depending only on $N$, $p$, $p_{1}$, $r$ and $s$ such that , we have for a.e $t\in[0,T]$: $$\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}\leq e^{CU(t)}\big(\|q_{0}\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}+\int^{t}_{0}e^{-CU(\tau)}
\|F(\tau)\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}d\tau\big),
\label{20}$$ with: $U(t)=\int^{t}_{0}\|{\nabla}u(\tau)\|_{B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{p_{1},\infty}\cap L^{\infty}}d\tau$. \[transport1\]
We want study now the following problem: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q+u\cdot{\nabla}q+\alpha q=F,\\
&q_{\ t=0}=q_{0}.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\leqno{({\cal H})}$$ Above $a$ is the unknown function. We assume that $F\in L^{r}(0,T;B^{s}_{p,r})$, that $v$ is time dependent vector-fields with coefficients in $L^{1}(0,T;B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}+1}_{p_{1},1})$ and $\alpha>0$.\
Indeed we recall that we can rewrite the transport equation on the following form: $${\partial}_{t}q+u\cdot{\nabla}q+(q+1)(P(1+q)-P(1))=-(1+q){\rm div}v_{1},$$ where we refer to the section \[section41\] for the definition of $v_{1}$.
Let $1\leq p_{1}\leq p\leq+\infty$, $r\in[1,+\infty]$ and $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that: $$-N\min(\frac{1}{p_{1}},\frac{1}{p^{'}})<s<1+\frac{N}{p_{1}}.$$ There exists a constant $C$ depending only on $N$, $p$, $p_{1}$, $r$ and $s$ such that for all $a\in L^{\infty}([0,T],B^{\sigma}_{p,r})$ of $({\cal H})$ with initial data $a_{0}$ in $B^{s}_{p,r}$ and $g\in L^{1}([0,T], B^{s}_{p,r})$, we have for a.e $t\in[0,T]$: $$\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}+\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}\leq e^{CU(t)}\big(\|q_{0}\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}+\int^{t}_{0}e^{-CU(\tau)}
\|F(\tau)\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}d\tau\big),
\label{20}$$ with: $U(t)=\int^{t}_{0}\|{\nabla}u(\tau)\|_{B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{p_{1},\infty}\cap L^{\infty}}d\tau$. \[transport2\]
[**Proof:**]{}Applying ${\Delta}_{l}$ to $({\cal H})$ yields: $${\partial}_{t}{\Delta}_{l}q+u\cdot{\nabla}{\Delta}_{l}q+\alpha{\Delta}_{l}q=R_{l}+{\Delta}_{l}F,$$ with $R_{l}=[u\cdot{\nabla},{\Delta}_{l}]q$. Multiplying by ${\Delta}_{l}a|{\Delta}_{l}a|^{p-2}$ then performing a time integration, we easily get: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|{\Delta}_{l}q(t)\|_{L^{p}}+\alpha\int^{t}_{0}\|{\Delta}_{l}q(s)\|_{L^{p}}ds\leq\|{\Delta}_{l}q_{0}\|_{L^{p}}
+\int^{t}_{0}\big(\|R_{l}\|_{L^{p}}+\frac{1}{p}\|{\rm div}u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|{\Delta}_{l}q\|_{L^{p}}\\
&\hspace{11,5cm}+\|{\Delta}_{l}F\|_{L^{p}}\big)d\tau.
\end{aligned}$$ Next the term $\|R_{l}\|_{L^{p}}$may be bounded according to lemma \[alemme2\] in appendix. We get then: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}+\alpha\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}ds\leq\|{\Delta}_{l}q_{0}\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}
+\int^{t}_{0}\big(\|F(\tau)\|_{B^{s}_{p,r}}+C U^{'}(\tau)\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}\big)d\tau.
\end{aligned}$$ We end up with Gronwall lemma by letting $X(t)=\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}+\alpha\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}_{t}(B^{s}_{p,r})}$.
The proof of theorem \[theo1\] {#section4}
==============================
Strategy of the proof {#section41}
---------------------
To improve the results of Danchin in [@DG], Charve and Danchin in [@CD] and Chen et al in [@CMZ], it is crucial to kill the coupling between the velocity and the pressure which exists in these works . In this goal, we need to integrate the pressure term in the study of the linearized equation of the momentum equation as in [@H2]. For making, we will try to express the gradient of the pressure as a Laplacian term, so we set for $\bar{\rho}>0$ a constant state: $${\rm div}v=P(\rho)-P(\bar{\rho}).$$ Let ${\cal E}$ the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator. $$$$ We will set in the sequel: $v={\nabla}{\cal E}*\big(P(\rho)-P(\bar{\rho})\big)={\nabla}\big({\cal E}*[P(\rho)-P(\bar{\rho})]\big)$ ( $*$ here means the operator of convolution). We verify next that: $$\begin{aligned}
{\nabla}{\rm div}v={\nabla}{\Delta}\big({\cal E}*[P(\rho)-P(\bar{\rho})]\big)={\Delta}{\nabla}\big({\cal E}*[P(\rho)-P(\bar{\rho})]\big)={\Delta}v={\nabla}P(\rho).
\end{aligned}$$ By this way we can now rewrite the momentum equation of (\[0.6\]). We obtain the following equation where we have set $\nu=2\mu+\lambda$: $${\partial}_{t}u+u\cdot {\nabla}u-\frac{\mu}{\rho}{\Delta}\big(u-\frac{1}{\nu}v\big)-\frac{\lambda+\mu}{\rho}{\nabla}{\rm div}\big(u-\frac{1}{\nu}v\big)=f.$$ We want now calculate ${\partial}_{t}v$, by the transport equation we get: $${\partial}_{t}v={\nabla}{\cal E}*{\partial}_{t}P(\rho)=-{\nabla}{\cal E}*\big(P^{'}(\rho){\rm div}(\rho u)\big).$$ We have finally: $${\Delta}({\partial}_{t}F)=-P^{'}(\rho){\rm div}(\rho u).$$
To simplify the notation, we will note in the sequel $${\nabla}{\cal E}*\big(P^{'}(\rho){\rm div}(\rho u)\big)={\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}\big(P^{'}(\rho){\rm div}(\rho u)\big).$$
Finally we can now rewrite the system (\[0.6\]) as follows: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q+(v_{1}+\frac{1}{\nu}v)\cdot{\nabla}q+\frac{1}{\nu}(1+q)(P(\rho)-P(1))=-(1+q){\rm div}v_{1},\\
&{\partial}_{t}v_{1}-\frac{1}{1+q}{\cal A}v_{1}=f-u\cdot{\nabla}u+\frac{1}{\nu}{\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}\big(P^{'}(\rho){\rm div}(\rho u)\big),\\
&q_{/ t=0}=a_{0},\;(v_{1})_{/ t=0}=(v_{1})_{0}.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\label{0.7}$$ where $v_{1}=u-\frac{1}{\nu}v$ is called the effective velocity. In the sequel we will study this system by exctracting some uniform bounds in Besov spaces on $(q,v_{1})$. The advantage of the system (\[0.7\]) is that we have *kill* the coupling between $v_{1}$ and a term of pressure. Indeed in the works [@CD] and [@CMZ], the pressure was included in the study of the linear system, it means mandatory a coupling between the density and the velocity. In particular it was impossible to distinguish the index of integration for the Besov spaces.\
However we can remark that this change of variable $v_{1}$ is interesting only in the case of low frequencies, indeed heuristically in low frequencies ${\nabla}P(\rho)$ is small in Fourier variable so it is not a matter.\
It is natural in this case to study the variable $u$ in low frequencies. Moreover as explained in the introduction, the system (\[0.1\]) has a hyperbolic behavior, which means that we can work only with spaces builtet on $L^{2}$ (indeed classicaly the hyperbolic system are ill-posed in space constructed on general $L^{p}$). In the following ssection, we will explain how to treat the case in low frequencies and how we will use the fact that $q$ behaves in low frequencies as an heat equation.
A linear model with convection
------------------------------
In this section, we will explain how we treat the low frequency regime by following the approch of Charve and Danchin in [@CD]. In low frequencies, the first order terms predominate and the viscous term ${\Delta}u$ may be neglected so that (\[0.1\]) has to be treated by means of hyperbolic energy methods. It means that we can only work in spaces constructed on $L^{2}$. Moreover in the case of low frequencies the effective velocity is not a adapted variable in the sense that it is less regular than $u$ as $({\Delta})^{-1}{\nabla}P(\rho)$ is not very regular. It is better in this case to work with $u$.The first idea would be to study the linear system associated to (\[0.1\]), it means:$$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q+{\rm div}u=F^{'},\\
&{\partial}_{t}u-\mu {\Delta}u-\lambda{\nabla}{\rm div}u+{\nabla}q=G^{'}.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\leqno{(PH)}$$ This system has been studied by D. Hoff and K. Zumbrum in [@5HZ]. There, they investigate the decay estimates, and exhibit the parabolic smoothing effect on $u$ and on the low frequencies of $q$, and a damping effect on the high frequencies of $q$.\
The problem is that if we focus on this linear system, it appears impossible to control the term of convection $u\cdot{\nabla}q$ which is one derivative less regular than $q$. However in low frequencies the Green matrix of the linearized systems behaves as the heat kernel (see [@CMZ]), the terms $v\cdot{\nabla}q$ and $v\cdot{\nabla}u$ can be handled as the perturbation terms. We study then the following system: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q+{\rm div}u=-+v\cdot{\nabla}q+F,\\
&{\partial}_{t}d-\mu {\Delta}u-\lambda{\nabla}{\rm div}u+{\nabla}q=-v\cdot{\nabla}u+G,
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\leqno{(LH)^{'}}$$ We obtain then the following proposition:
\[5linear1\] Let $(q,u)$ a solution of $(LH)^{'}$, let $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$. The following estimate holds: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|(q,u)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{s}_{2,1})}+\|(q,u)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{s+2}_{2,1})}\leq
\|(q_{0},u_{0})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s}_{2,1}}+\|(F,G)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{s}_{2,1})}\\
&\hspace{9cm}+\|(v\cdot{\nabla}q,v\cdot{\nabla}u){BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{s}_{2,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{}\
\
In this case for $j\leq 0$, in terms of Green matrix (see [@CMZ]), the solution of $(LH)^{'}$ can be expressed as: $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\Delta}_{j}q(t)\\
{\Delta}_{j} u(t)\\
\end{array}
\right) =W(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\Delta}_{j}q_{0}\\
{\Delta}_{j}u_{0}\\
\end{array}
\right)+\int_{0}^{t}W(t-s)\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\Delta}_{j}F(s)-{\Delta}_{j}(v\cdot{\nabla}q)\\
{\Delta}_{j}G(s)-{\Delta}_{j}(v\cdot{\nabla}u)\\
\end{array}
\right)\ ds\;.$$ with $W$ the Green matrix. From proposition 4.4 in [@CMZ] and Young’s inequality we obtain the result.[$\Box$]{}
Proof of the existence
----------------------
### Construction of approximate solutions {#construction-of-approximate-solutions .unnumbered}
We use a standard scheme:
1. We smooth out the data and get a sequence of global smooth solutions $(q^{n},u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ to (\[0.1\]) on ${\mathbb{R}}$ by using the results of [@CD] and [@CMZ].
2. We prove uniform estimates on $(q^{n},v_{1}^{n})$ in high frequencies and on $(q^{n},u^{n})$ in low frequencies.
3. We use compactness to prove that the sequence $(q^{n},u^{n})$ converges, up to extraction, to a solution of (\[0.1\]).
### First step {#first-step .unnumbered}
We smooth out the data as follows: $$q_{0}^{n}=S_{n}q_{0},\;\;u_{0}^{n}=S_{n}u_{0}\;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\;f^{n}=S_{n}f.$$ Note that we have: $$\forall l\in\mathbb{Z},\;\;\|{\Delta}_{l}q^{n}_{0}\|_{L^{p}}\leq\|{\Delta}_{l}q_{0}\|_{L^{p}}\;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\;\|q^{n}_{0}\|
_{B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{p,1}}\leq \|q_{0}\|_{B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{p,1}},$$ and similar properties for $u_{0}^{n}$ and $f^{n}$, a fact which will be used repeatedly during the next steps. Now, according [@DG], one can solve (\[0.1\]) with the smooth data $(q_{0}^{n},u_{0}^{n},f^{n})$. We get a solution $(q^{n},u^{n})$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
&q^{n}\in\widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}},B^{N}_{2,1}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;u^{n}\in\widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}},B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})\cap
\widetilde{L}^{1}
({\mathbb{R}},B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1}_{2,1}).
\end{aligned}
\label{a26}$$
### Uniform bounds {#uniform-bounds .unnumbered}
We set now $$v_{n}={\nabla}\big({\cal E}*[P(\rho^{n})-P(1)]\big)\;\;\;\mbox{with}\;\;\;{\rm div}v^{n}=P(\rho^{n})-P(1)\;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\;v_{1}^{n}=u^{n}-\frac{1}{\nu}v^{n},$$ with ${\cal E}$ the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator and $\nu=\lambda+\mu$. In the sequel we will note $g(q^{n})=P(\rho^{n})-P(1)$ where $g$ is a regular function. In this part, we aim at getting uniform estimates on $(q^{n}_{HF},(v_{1})_{HF}^{n})$ in high frequencies and on $(q^{n}_{BF},u^{n}_{BF})$ in low frequencies in the following space $E^{'}$ and $F^{'}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&E^{'}=\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})\big)\times\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}
(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})+\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}+1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}+2}_{p,1})\big).\\
&F^{'}=\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})\cap\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1}_{2,1})\big)\times\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}
(B^{\frac{N}{2}-1}_{2,1})+\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{2}+1}_{2,1})\big).\\
\end{aligned}$$ More precisely we will obtain uniform estimates on $(q^{n},u^{n})$ in $E$ and on $(q^{n},v_{1}^{n})$ in $F$ whith: $$\begin{aligned}
E=&\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\big)\times
\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})\\
&\hspace{8cm}\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})\big).
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
F=&\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\times
\big(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})\\
&\hspace{6cm}\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+2,{\frac{N}{p}}+2}_{2,p,1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+2,\frac{N}{p_{1}}+1}_{2,p_{1},1})\big).
\end{aligned}$$ We will work finally in the space $H$ with: $$(q,u)\in H\Leftrightarrow (q,u)_{BF}\in E^{'}\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;(q,v_{1})_{HF}\in F^{'}.$$ We have then: $\|(q,u)\|_{H}=\|(q,u)_{BF}\|_{E^{'}}+\|(q,v_{1})_{HF}\|_{F^{'}}$. We can now check that $(q^{n},v^{n}_{1})$ satisfy the following system: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q^{n}+u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}q^{n}+\frac{P^{'}(1)}{\nu}q^{n}=F^{n}_{1},\\
&{\partial}_{t}v_{1}^{n}-{\cal A}v_{1}^{n}=F^{n}_{2}+f,\\
&q^{n}_{0}=q_{0},\;(v_{1}^{n})_{/ t=0}=u_{0}^{n}-\frac{1}{\nu}v_{0}^{n}.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\label{systemessen}$$ which is a transport equation and a heat equation.$$\begin{aligned}
&F_{1}^{n}=-(1+q^{n}){\rm div}v_{1}^{n}-\frac{1}{\nu}(P(1+q^{n})-P(1)-P^{'}(1)q^{n})-\frac{1}{\nu}q^{n}(P(1+q^{n})-P(1)),\\
&G_{1}^{n}=(\frac{1}{1+q^{n}}-1)
{\cal A}v_{1}^{n}-u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}u^{n}+\frac{1}{\nu}{\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}(P^{'}(\rho^{n}){\rm div}(\rho^{n}u^{n})).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $(q^{n},u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is the solution of the following system: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q^{n}+u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}q^{n}+{\rm div}u^{n}=F^{n}\\
&{\partial}_{t}u^{n}+u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}u^{n}-{\cal A}u^{n}+P^{'}(1){\nabla}q^{n}=G^{n}+f^{n}\\
&(q^{n},u^{n})_{/t=0}=(q^{n}_{0},u^{n}_{0}),
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\label{5grandeequation}$$ which has been studied for low frequencies in proposition \[5linear1\] with: $$\begin{aligned}
&F^{n}=-q^{n}{\rm div}u^{n},\\
&G^{n}=-\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}{\cal A}u^{n}+(P^{'}(1)-P^{'}(1+q^{n})){\nabla}q^{n}.
\end{aligned}$$ Let us set: $$\begin{aligned}
&E(q,u)=\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}+\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1, \frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1, \frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}+\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\\
&\hspace{8cm}+
\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,\frac{N}{p}+1}_{2,p,1})},\\
&E_{1}(q,u)=\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}+\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}+
\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1}_{2,1})}+
\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1}_{2,1})}.\\
&E_{2}(q,u)=\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}+\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{ \frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{ \frac{N}{p}}_{p,1})}+\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}\\
&\hspace{8cm}+
\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}+1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{\frac{N}{p}+2}_{p,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ One can now apply the propositions \[5chaleur\] at our system to obtain uniform bounds, so we have in high frequencies to control $(v_{1}^{n},q^{n})$ and in low frequencies $(q^{n},u^{n})$: $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{2}((q^{n},v_{1}^{n})_{HF})\leq C\big(\|(q_{0})_{HF}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{p,1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1}}+\|(u_{0})_{HF}\|_{B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}}
\\
&\hspace{4cm}+\|(F_{1}^{n})_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}
+\|G_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1})}\big),
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{1}((q^{n},u^{n})_{BF})\leq C\big(\|(q_{0})_{BF}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1}}+\|(u_{0})_{BF}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1}}
\\
&\hspace{4cm}+\|(F^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}
+\|G^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\big),
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it is only a matter of proving appropriate estimates for $F_{1}^{n}$, $G_{1}^{n}$, $F^{n}$ and $G^{n}$ by using properties of continuity on the paraproduct and proposition \[transport\], \[5chaleur\] and \[5linear1\].\
We begin by estimating $\|(F_{1}^{n})_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}$ and $
\|(G_{1}^{n})_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1})}$ , we have to use proposition \[produit1\] and proposition \[hybrid\] and the fact that by interpolation ${\rm div}v_{1}^{n}$ is in $\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$ because $\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{2,p_{1},1}){\hookrightarrow}\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$ as $p_{1}\leq p$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big((1+q^{n}){\rm div}v_{1}^{n}\big)_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}&\leq
\|{\rm div}v_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}+\|q\|_{L^{\infty}(L^{\infty})}\|{\rm div}v_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\\
&\hspace{3cm}+\|{\rm div}v_{1}^{n}\|_{L^{1}(L^{\infty})}\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big[(P(1+q^{n})-P(1)-P^{'}(1)q^{n})\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}\leq C\|q^{n}\|^{2}_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\|\big[q^{n}(P(1+q^{n})-P(1))\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}\leq C\|q^{n}\|^{2}_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})},$$ Next we have to treat the term $[\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}{\cal A}v_{1}^{n}]_{HF}$ in $\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})$, where we can split ${\cal A}v_{1}^{n}$ on the form: $$v_{1}^{n}=h^{n}+g^{n},$$ with: $h^{n}\in \widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+2,\frac{N}{p_{1}}+1}_{2,p_{1},1}) $ and $g^{n}\in \widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+2,\frac{N}{p}+2}_{2,p,1}) $. We obtain then by proposition \[hybrid\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big[\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}{\cal A}g^{n}\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1})}&\leq
\|T_{\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}}{\cal A}g^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}+
\|T_{{\cal A}g^{n}}\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}\\
&\hspace{2cm}+\|R({\cal A}g^{n},\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}})\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})},\\
& \leq C \|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}\|{\cal A}g^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})},
\end{aligned}$$ Next we have to use proposition \[hybrid\] to treat the term $T_{{\cal A}h^{n}}(\frac{1}{1+q^{n}}-1)$ and $R({\cal A}h^{n},\frac{1}{1+q^{n}}-1)$ when $p_{1}>N$, we have then: $$\|T_{{\cal A}h^{n}}\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\leq
\|{\cal A}h^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\|\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,
{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})},$$ where following the proposition \[hybrid\], we have chose $p=2$, $q=p_{1}$ , and as $p\geq p_{1}$ we have $\frac{1}{\lambda^{'}}=\frac{1}{p_{1}}-\frac{1}{p}$ and $\lambda=+\infty$. It means that: $\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1 \leq{\frac{N}{p}}$ (what is assumed) and $2\leq \lambda^{'}$ if $2\geq \frac{p_{1} p}{p-p_{1}}$. It means that we need of the following condition: $$2\leq \frac{p_{1} p}{p-p_{1}}\;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\;\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1 \leq{\frac{N}{p}}.
\label{condi1}$$ Next we have as $\frac{N}{p_{1}}+{\frac{N}{p}}-1>0$ by proposition \[hybrid\] for the rest term on the high frequencies: $$\|\big[R({\cal A}h^{n},(\frac{1}{1+q^{n}}-1))\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1})}\leq
\|h^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\|\frac{1}{1+q^{n}}-1\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,
{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We have seen that we need to treat this term of the condition: $$\frac{N}{p_{1}}+{\frac{N}{p}}-1>0.
\label{condi2}$$ Easily we have by proposition \[hybrid\] as $\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,
{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}){\hookrightarrow}L^{\infty}$: $$\|T_{\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}-1}{\cal A}h^{n}]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1})}\leq
\|{\cal A}h^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\|\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,
{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We treat now the term $u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}u^{n}$ and we have as $u^{n}\in E$, it exists $h_{1}^{n}$ and $g^{n}_{1}$ such that $u^{n}=g^{n}_{1}+h^{n}_{1}$ with $h^{n}_{1}\in \widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})$ and $g^{n}_{1}\in \widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})$. We have then by proposition \[hybrid\]: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\big(h_{1}^{n}\cdot{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}\big)_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1})}\leq
\|T_{h_{1}^{n}}{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}
+\|T_{{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}}h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\\
&\hspace{8cm}+
\|R({\nabla}h_{1}^{n},h_{1}^{n})\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})},\\
&\hspace{4cm}\leq\| h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})}\| h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}
\end{aligned}$$ Next we have to treat the term $T_{g^{n}_{1}}{\nabla}g^{n}_{1}$ by using the proposition \[hybrid\] with $\frac{1}{\lambda^{'}}=\frac{1}{p_{1}}-\frac{1}{p}$, $2\leq \lambda^{'}$ and $\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1\leq{\frac{N}{p}}$ then: $$\|T_{g_{1}^{n}}{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\leq
\|g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}
\|{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We have seen that we need of the conditions: $$\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1\leq{\frac{N}{p}}\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;2\leq\frac{p_{1}p}{p-p_{1}}.
\label{condi6}$$ Easily we have as $\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}{\hookrightarrow}L^{\infty}$ by proposition \[hybrid\]: $$\|T_{{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}\leq
C\|g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}
\|{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ To finish with the term $g^{n}_{1}{\nabla}g^{n}_{1}$, we have to treat the term $\big(R(g^{n}_{1},{\nabla}g^{n}_{1})\big)_{HF}$. By proposition \[hybrid\], as ${\frac{N}{p}}+\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1>0$ we have: $$\|\big(R(g^{n}_{1},{\nabla}g^{n}_{1})\big)_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1})}\leq
C\|g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}
\|{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We have seen that we need of the conditions: $$\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1+{\frac{N}{p}}> 0.
\label{condi5}$$ From the previous inequalities, we have obtained: $$\|\big(g^{n}_{1}\cdot{\nabla}g^{n}_{1}\big)_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1})}\leq
C\|g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}
\|{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We can treat similarly the terms $g^{n}_{1}\cdot{\nabla}h^{n}_{1}$ and $h^{n}_{1}\cdot{\nabla}g^{n}_{1}$. We have finally under the conditions (\[condi1\]), (\[condi2\]), (\[condi6\]) and (\[condi5\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\big(u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}u^{n}\big)_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{\frac{N}{p}}_{p,1})}\leq
C\|u^{n}\|_{E}^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ We finish with the following term where $f$ is a regular function such that $f(0)=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\big[{\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}(P^{'}(\rho^{n}){\rm div}(\rho^{n}u^{n}))\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}\\[2mm]
&\hspace{5cm}\leq
\|\big[{\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}(f(q^{n}){\rm div}(q^{n}u^{n}))\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}\\
&+
\|\big[{\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}({\rm div}(q^{n}u^{n}))\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})}+\|\big[{\nabla}({\Delta})^{-1}{\rm div}(u^{n})\big]_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1})},\\
&\leq C \|{\rm div}(u^{n})\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})}(1+
\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}+
\|q^{n}\|^{2}_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}).
\end{aligned}$$\
\
We have now to treat the case of low frequencies and in particular estimating $\|(F^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}
$ and $\|(G^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}$, we begin with $\|(F^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}$. We have then according proposition \[hybrid\] if $p<\max(4,2N)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|(q^{n}{\rm div}u^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq \|T_{q^{n}}({\rm div}u^{n})\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1})}+
\|T_{{\rm div}u^{n}}q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\\
&\hspace{8cm}+\|\big(R(q^{n},{\rm div}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})},\\
&\leq C\big(\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}
\|u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}+\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}
\|u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,\frac{N}{p}+1}_{2,p,1})}\big).
\end{aligned}$$ Here the only difficulty was to treat the term $R(q^{n},{\rm div}u^{n})$ when $N=2$, we need in this case of the previous condition: $$p<\max(4,2N).
\label{condi4}$$ and: $$\|\big(R(q^{n},{\rm div}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq
C\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}
\|u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ Similarly we have by using proposition \[hybrid\] with condition (\[condi4\]): $$\|(u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}q^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq
C\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}
\|u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}.$$\
\
We now want to estimate $\|G^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}$, we begin with $\|(\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}
{\cal A}u^{n})_{HF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}$, the main difficulty corresponds to treat $T_{{\cal A}u^{n}}\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}$ and $R(\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}},{\cal A}u^{n})$. We have by using proposition \[hybrid\] if: $\frac{1}{2}\leq\frac{2}{p}$, $N-1>0$, $2{\frac{N}{p}}-1>0$. We recall here that $\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}){\hookrightarrow}\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$, we have then: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\big(R(\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}},
{\cal A}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq C\|\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\|{\cal A}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}-1}_{2,p,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ We need then of the following conditions: $$p< \max(4,2N).
\label{condi3}$$ Next we have according proposition \[hybrid\] with $\lambda=\lambda^{'}=+\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big(T_{{\cal A}u^{n}}\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}&\leq
\|T_{{\cal A}u^{n}}\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1})},\\
&\leq C\|\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\|{\cal A}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}-1}_{2,p,1})}
\end{aligned}$$ Finally we have: $$\|(K(q^{n}){\nabla}q^{n})_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq \|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ To finish, it stays in low frequencies the terms: $T_{{\nabla}u^{n}}u^{n}$, $T_{u^{n}}{\nabla}u^{n}$ and $R(u^{n},{\nabla}u^{n})$. We have then by proposition \[hybrid\] if $p<\max(4,2N))$: $$\|(R(h_{1}^{n},{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}))_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq C\|h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1})}\|{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We have seen that we need again of condition (\[condi4\]).\
We want treat now $(R(g_{1}^{n},{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}))_{BF}$, we have then by proposition \[hybrid\] if $\frac{N}{p_{1}}+{\frac{N}{p}}-1>0$ and $\frac{1}{2}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$. $$\|(R(g_{1}^{n},{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}))_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1}_{2,1})}\leq C\|g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p-{1},1})}\|{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We have seen that we need of the following conditions: $$\frac{1}{2}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\frac{N}{p_{1}}+{\frac{N}{p}}-1>0.
\label{condi9}$$ Next we have by proposition \[hybrid\] if: $$\|T_{{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}}h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\leq C\|h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\|{\nabla}h_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ and $$\|T_{{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}\leq C\|g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p-{1},1})}\|{\nabla}g_{1}^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})}.$$ We proced similarly to control $T_{u^{n}}{\nabla}u^{n}$. Therefore the above inequalities with conditions (\[condi1\]), (\[condi2\]), (\[condi6\]), (\[condi5\]), (\[condi4\]), (\[condi3\]) and (\[condi9\]) imply that for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have : $$\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|_{H_{t}}\leq Ce^{C\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|_{H_{t}}}(\|q_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}}+\|u_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1
}_{2,p_{1},1}}+
\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|^{2}_{H_{t}}).$$ From a standard bootstrap argument, it is now easy to conclude that there exists a positive constant $c$ such that if the data has been chosen so small as to satisfy: $$\|q_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}}+\|u_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1
}_{2,p_{1},1}}\leq c.$$ then it exists $C>0$ such that for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$: $$\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|_{H_{t}}\leq C,\;\;\forall t\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$
### Compactness arguments {#compactness-arguments .unnumbered}
Let us first focus on the convergence of $(q^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$. We claim that, up to extraction, $(q^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges in the distributional sense to some function $q$ such that: $$q\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}).
\label{49}$$ The proof is based on Ascoli’s theorem and compact embedding for Besov spaces. As similar arguments have been employed in [@DL] or [@DW], we only give the outlines of the proof. We may write that: $${\partial}_{t} q^{n}=-u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}q^{n}-(1+q^{n}){\rm div}u^{n}.$$ Since $(u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is uniformly bounded in $\widetilde{L}^{2}_{T}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}+B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{2,p_{1},1})$ and $q^{n}\in \widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$, we have $(1+q^{n}){\rm div}u^{n}$ which is bounded in $\widetilde{L}^{2}_{T}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}+B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})$ with the conditions between $p$ and $p_{1}$ in theorem \[theo1\]. Similarly $u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}q^{n}$ is bounded in $\widetilde{L}^{2}_{T}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}+B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})$. Finally as $p\geq p_{1}$, we have proved that ${\partial}_{t}q^{n}$ is bounded in $\widetilde{L}^{2}_{T}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1})$, it means that $(q^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ seen as a sequence of $B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1}$ valued functions is equicontinuous in ${\mathbb{R}}$. In addition $(q^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded in $C({\mathbb{R}},B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$. As the embedding $B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}$ is locally compact (see [@BCD], Chap2), one can thus conclude by means of Ascoli’s theorem and Cantor diagonal extraction process that there exists some distribution $q$ such that up to an omitted extraction $(\psi q^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges to $\psi q$ in ${\mathbb{C}}({\mathbb{R}},B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1})$ for all smooth $\psi$ with compact support in ${\mathbb{R}}^{=}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{N}$. Then by using the so-called Fatou property for the Besov spaces, one can conclude that (\[49\]) is satisfied. (the reader may consult [@BCD], Chap 10 too). By proceeding similarly, we can prove that up to extraction, $(u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges in the distributional sense to some function $u$ such that: $$u\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}+B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p_{1},1})\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}).
\label{51}$$ In order to complete the proof of the existence part of theorem \[theo1\], it is only a matter of checking the continuity properties with respect to time, namely that: $$\begin{aligned}
&q\in\widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;u\in \widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}+\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}).
\end{aligned}$$ As regards $q$, it suffices to notice that, according to (\[49\]), (\[51\]) and to the product laws in the Besov spaces, we have: $${\partial}_{t}q+u\cdot q=-(1+q){\rm div}u\in \widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},NN}_{2,p,1}.$$ As $q_{0}\in B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}$, classical results for the transport equation (see [@BCD], Chap 3) ensure that $q\in
\widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$. And as previously, we have shown that $q\in
\widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,1})$, it means clearly that $q\in
\widetilde{C}({\mathbb{R}}^{+},\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$.\
For getting the continuity result for $u$, one may similarly use the properties of the heat equation on $v_{1}$ in high frequncies and on $u$ in low frequencies.
The proof of the uniqueness {#the-proof-of-the-uniqueness .unnumbered}
---------------------------
In the case $\frac{2}{N}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$, the uniqueness has been established in [@DL; @H2].
Proof of corollary \[corollaire1\] and \[corollaire2\] {#section5}
======================================================
Proof of corollary \[corollaire1\]
----------------------------------
We want here to avoid the condition $p<\max(4,2N)$. For simplicity we will treat only the case $N=3$. This condition appears when we want treat the terms of rest in low frequencies. For resolving this problem as in the paper of F. Charve and R. Danchin in [@CD], we need of additionnal condition in high frequencies on $q_{0}$ and $u_{0}$.\
We want then to follow the same strategy as in the proof of theorem \[theo1\]. It means that we use the same standard scheme which consists in the construction of approximate solutions, some uniform bounds and results of compactness. We will use the same notations as in proofof theorem \[theo1\]. We just want treat the non linear term where appears the condition $p<\max(2N,4)$ in an other way by using the additional hypothesis that we have on $(q_{0},u_{0})\in \widetilde{B}^{0,1}_{2,\infty}\times B^{0}_{2,\infty}$. The rest of the proof will be the same as in theorem \[theo1\]. We will work with the same space as in the proof \[theo1\] except that we attend additional regularity on $(q^{n},u^{n})$ in $E^{'}$ with: $$E_{1}^{'}=(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{0,1}_{2,\infty}\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{2,1}_{2,\infty})\times
(\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\widetilde{B}^{0}_{2,\infty}\cap \widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{2}_{2,\infty}).$$ Here $(q^{n},u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is the solution of the following system: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_{t}q^{n}+u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}q^{n}+{\rm div}u^{n}=F^{n}\\
&{\partial}_{t}u^{n}+u^{n}\cdot{\nabla}u^{n}-{\cal A}u^{n}+P^{'}(1){\nabla}q^{n}=G^{n}+f^{n}\\
&(q^{n},u^{n})_{/t=0}=(q^{n}_{0},u^{n}_{0}),
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}
\label{5grandeequation}$$ which verifies proposition 4 in [@CD] with: $$\begin{aligned}
&F^{n}=-q^{n}{\rm div}u^{n},\\
&G^{n}=-\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}}{\cal A}u^{n}+(P^{'}(1)-P^{'}(1+q^{n})){\nabla}q^{n}.
\end{aligned}$$ We apply exactly the same proof than for theorem \[theo1\], however we have to complete the uniform bounds by showing that $(q^{n},u^{n})$ is uniformly bounded in $H^{'}\cap E^{'}_{1}$, moreover we have to treat differently the term in low frequencies where appears the conditions $p<\max(4,2N)$ and $\frac{1}{2}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$ by using the fact that $(q^{n},u^{n})$ in $E^{'}_{1}$.\
We begin with treatinf the terms $\|F^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0,1}_{2,\infty})}$ and $\|G^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}$ by using properties of continuity on the paraproduct and proposition 4 of [@VD]. We have then: $$\|T^{'}_{q^{n}}{\rm div}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}\leq
\|q^{n}\|_{L^{\infty}(L^{\infty})}\|{\rm div}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}.$$ Similarly: $$\|T^{'}_{q^{n}}{\rm div}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}\leq \|q^{n}\|_{L^{2}(L^{\infty})}\|{\rm div}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}.$$ Next we have: $$\|K(q){\nabla}q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}\leq\|q\|_{L^{2}(L^{\infty})}\|K(q)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}.$$ For the term $(\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{1}{\bar{\rho}}){\Delta}u=J(q){\Delta}u$ with $J$ regular and $J(0)=0$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|T_{J(q)}{\Delta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}\leq\|J(q)\|_{L^{\infty}(L^{\infty})}\|{\Delta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})},\\
&\|T_{{\Delta}u}J(q)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}\leq\|J(q)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}\|{\Delta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,\infty})},
\end{aligned}$$ Concerning the remainder, we have if $p\geq 2$: $$\|R(J(q),{\Delta}u)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}\leq \|J(q)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}\|{\Delta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}-1}_{2,p,\infty})}.$$ We have then obtained: $$\|J(q){\Delta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}\leq \|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}\| u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}+1,{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,\infty})}+\|J(q)\|_{L^{\infty}(L^{\infty})}\|{\Delta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}.$$ It stays now to treat now the terms where appears the conditions $p<\max(4,2N)$ and $\frac{1}{2}\leq\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$ in an other way. As $u^{n}\in \widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1}+B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{2,p_{1},1})$, we set $u^{n}=g^{n}+h^{n}$ with $g^{n}\in
\widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},{\frac{N}{p}}+1}_{2,p,1})$ and $h^{n}\in \widetilde{L}^{2}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{2,p_{1},1})$. According to proposition \[hybrid\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big(R(q^{n},{\rm div}g^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,}_{2,1})}&\leq C \|\big(R(q^{n},{\rm div}g^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,1})},\\
&\leq C\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{1}_{2,\infty})}
\|{\rm div}g^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}-1}_{2,p,1})},\\
&\leq C\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{1}_{2,\infty})}
\|{\rm div}g^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big(R(q^{n},{\rm div}h^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,}_{2,1})}&\leq C \|\big(R(q^{n},{\rm div}h^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{0}_{2,1})},\\
&\leq C\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{1}_{2,\infty})}
\|{\rm div}h^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ Next we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big(R(u^{n},{\nabla}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,}_{2,1})}&\leq C \|\big(R(u^{n},{\nabla}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(L^{B^{0}_{2,1}})},\\
&\leq C
\|u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{0}_{2,\infty})}
\|{\nabla}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}},\frac{N}{p}}_{2,p,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ It stays to control the term $R(\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}},{\Delta}u^{n})$ in low frequencies: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\big(R(\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}},{\Delta}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,}_{2,1})}&\leq C \|\big(R(\frac{q^{n}}{1+q^{n}},{\Delta}u^{n})\big)_{BF}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(L^{2})},\\
&\leq C
\|q^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{1}_{2,\infty})}
\|{\Delta}u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(\widetilde{B}^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p}-1
}_{2,p,1})}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the above nequalities imply that for all $t\in[0,T]$ we have : $$\begin{aligned}
&\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|_{H_{t}\cap (E_{1}^{'})_{t}}\leq Ce^{C\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|_{H_{t}\cap (E_{1}^{'})_{t}}}(\|q_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r}}+\|u_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}}\\
&\hspace{5cm}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}}+
\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|^{2}_{H_{t}\cap (E_{1}^{'})_{t}}).
\end{aligned}$$ From a standard bootstrap argument, it is now easy to conclude that there exists a positive constant $c$ such that if the data has been chosen so small as to satisfy: $$\|q_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1}\cap B^{0,1}_{2,r}}+\|u_{0}\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}}+\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{1}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,\frac{N}{p_{1}}-1}_{2,p_{1},1}\cap B^{0}_{2,r}}\leq c.$$ then it exists $C>0$ such that for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$: $$\|(q^{n},u^{n})\|_{H_{t}\cap E^{'}_{t}}\leq C,\;\;\forall t\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ To conclude we follow the previous proof of theorem \[theo1\]. Compactness results go along the lines of the proof of theorem \[theo1\].
Proof of corollary \[corollaire2\]
----------------------------------
We follow here exactly the lines of the proof of theorem \[theo1\] except that we introduce a new effective velocity. Indeed in our case $v$ verifies the following elliptic equation: $${\rm}(\mu(1)D v)+{\nabla}(\lambda(1){\rm div}v)={\nabla}P(\rho)+{\rm}(f_{1}(q) D v)+{\nabla}(f_{2}(q){\rm div}v),$$ with $f_{1}(q)=\mu(1+q)-\mu(1)$ and $f_{2}(q)=\lambda(1)-\lambda(1+q)$. We can resolve this elliptic equation as $\mu(1)\geq c>0$ and $\mu(1)+\lambda(1)\geq c>0$, indeed in our case we work away from the vacuum. To do this we have to use the estimates on the Lamé operator of the appendix in [@H]. More precisely we have as $q\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(B^{{\frac{N}{2}}-1,{\frac{N}{p}}}_{2,p,1})$ for $r\geq 1$, $p,q\geq1$ and $|s_{1}|<{\frac{N}{2}}$, $|s_{2}|<{\frac{N}{p}}$<: $$\|v\|_{\widetilde{L}^{r}(B^{s_{1},s_{2}}_{p,q,1})}\leq C\|q\|_{\widetilde{L}^{r}(B^{s_{1}-1,s_{2}-1}_{p,q,1})}.$$ Indeed as $q$ is small, the terms of rest with $f_{1}(q)$ and $f_{2}(q)$ are easy to treat. It means as in the proof of theorem \[theo1\], $v$ is one derivative more regular than $q$ in high frequencies and that we can estimate $v$ in function of $q$. Moreover we have ${\partial}_{t}v$ which verifies the following elliptic equation: $${\rm}(\mu(\rho)D{\partial}_{t} v)+{\nabla}(\lambda(\rho){\rm div}{\partial}_{t}v)={\nabla}{\partial}_{t}P(\rho)-{\rm}({\partial}_{t}\mu(\rho)D v)+{\nabla}({\partial}_{t}\lambda(\rho){\rm div}v).$$ We can in a similar way get estimates on ${\partial}_{t}v$ in function of $q$ and $u$. The rest of the proof is exactly similar to the proof of theorem \[theo1\] and is nothing than tedious verifications. It is left to the reader.
Appendix
========
This section is devoted to the proof of proposition \[hybrid\] and of commutators estimates which have been used in section $2$ and $3$. They are based on paradifferentiel calculus, a tool introduced by J.-M. Bony in [@BJM]. The basic idea of paradifferential calculus is that any product of two distributions $u$ and $v$ can be formally decomposed into: $$uv=T_{u}v+T_{v}u+R(u,v)=T_{u}v+T^{'}_{v}u$$ where the paraproduct operator is defined by $T_{u}v=\sum_{q}S_{q-1}u{\Delta}_{q}v$, the remainder operator $R$, by $R(u,v)=\sum_{q}{\Delta}_{q}u({\Delta}_{q-1}v+{\Delta}_{q}v+{\Delta}_{q+1}v)$ and $T^{'}_{v}u=T_{v}u+R(u,v)$.
\[hybrid\] Let $p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4}\in[1,+\infty], (s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ and $(p,q)\in[1,+\infty]^{2}$, we have then the following inequalities:
- If $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{2}}+\frac{1}{\lambda}\leq 1$, $\frac{1}{q}\leq\frac{1}{p_{4}}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{'}}\leq 1$ with $(\lambda,\lambda^{'})\in[1,+\infty]^{2}$ and $p_{1}\leq\lambda^{'}$, $p_{1}\leq\lambda$, $p_{3}\leq\lambda^{'}$ then: $$\|T_{u}v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1}+s_{2}+{\frac{N}{p}}-\frac{N}{p_{1}}-\frac{N}{p_{2}}
,s_{3}+s_{4}+\frac{N}{q}-\frac{N}{p_{3}}-\frac{N}{p_{4}}}_{p,q,r}}\lesssim \|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{3}}_{p_{1},p_{3},1}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{2},s_{4}}_{p_{2},p_{4},r}},
\label{62}$$ if $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}\leq\frac{N}{p_{1}}$, $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda}\leq\frac{N}{p_{1}}$ and $s_{3}+\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}\leq\frac{N}{p_{3}}$.
- If $\frac{1}{q}\leq\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}$ and $s_{3}+s_{4}+N\inf(0,1-\frac{1}{p_{3}}-\frac{1}{p_{4}})>0$ then $$\sum_{l\geq 4}2^{l(s_{3}+s_{4}+\frac{N}{q}-\frac{N}{p_{3}}-\frac{N}{p_{4}})}\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{q}}\lesssim \|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{3}}_{p_{1},p_{3},1}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{2},s_{4}}_{p_{2},p_{4},r}}.
\label{63}$$
- If $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}\leq 1$, $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}\leq 1$, $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}\leq 1$, $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}\leq 1$ and $s_{3}+s_{4}>0$, $s_{3}+s_{2}>0$, $s_{4}+s_{1}>0$, $s_{1}+s_{2}>0$ then $$\sum_{l\leq 4}2^{l(s_{1}+s_{2}+\frac{N}{p}-\frac{N}{p_{1}}-\frac{N}{p_{2}})}\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim \|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},\frac{N}{p_{3}}-\frac{N}{p_{1}}+s_{1}}_{p_{1},p_{3},1}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{2},\frac{N}{p_{4}}-\frac{N}{p_{2}}+s_{2}}_{p_{2},p_{4},r}}.
\label{63}$$ with $s_{3}=\frac{N}{p_{3}}-\frac{N}{p_{1}}+s_{1}$ and $s_{4}=\frac{N}{p_{4}}-\frac{N}{p_{2}}+s_{2}$.
- If $u\in L^{\infty}$, we also have: $$\|T_{u}v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1}
,s_{2}}_{p,q,r}}\lesssim \|u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{2}}_{p,q,r}},
\label{65}$$ and if $\min(s_{1},s_{2})>0$ then: $$\|R(u,v)\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1}
,s_{2}}_{p,q,r}}\lesssim \|u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{2}}_{p,q,r}}.
\label{66}$$
[**Proof:**]{} Let us prove (\[62\]). According to the decomposition of J.-M. Bony [@BJM], we have: $$uv=T_{u}v+T_{v}u+R(u,v),$$ so for all $l>0$: $${\Delta}_{l}T_{u}v=\sum_{|l-l^{'}|\leq3}{\Delta}_{l}(S_{l^{'}-1}u{\Delta}_{l^{'}}v),$$ For $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathbb{R}}$, let us define the following characteristic function on $\mathbb{Z}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}^{\alpha,\beta}=\alpha\;\;\;\mbox{if}\;\;r\leq0,\\
{\varphi}^{\alpha,\beta}=\beta\;\;\;\mbox{if}\;\;r\geq1.
\end{aligned}$$ if $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{2}}+\frac{1}{\lambda}\leq 1$ and $\frac{1}{q}\leq\frac{1}{p_{4}}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{'}}\leq 1$ then $$\|{\Delta}_{l}T_{u}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p,q}(l)}}\lesssim 2^{lN{\varphi}^{\frac{1}{p_{2}}+\frac{1}{\lambda}-\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{p_{4}}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{'}}-\frac{1}{q}}(l)}
\sum_{|l-l^{'}|\leq3}\|S_{l^{'}-1}u\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{\lambda,\lambda^{'}}(l^{'})}}\|
{\Delta}_{l^{'}}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l^{'})}}.$$ We have by Berstein inequalities and as $p_{1}\leq\lambda^{'}$, $p_{3}\leq\lambda^{'}$, $p_{1}\leq\lambda$ and $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda}\leq \frac{N}{p_{1}}$, $s_{1}+\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}\leq \frac{N}{p_{1}}$, $s_{3}+\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}\leq \frac{N}{p_{3}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|S_{l^{'}-1}u\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{\lambda,\lambda^{'}}(l^{'})}}&\lesssim\sum_{k\leq l^{'}-2}2^{k({\varphi}^{\frac{N}{p_{1}},\frac{N}{p_{3}}}(k)-{\varphi}^{\frac{N}{\lambda},\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}}(l^{'}))}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p_{1},p_{3}}(k)}}\\
&\lesssim\sum_{k\leq l^{'}-2}2^{k({\varphi}^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-s_{1},\frac{N}{p_{3}}-s_{3}}(k)-{\varphi}^{\frac{N}{\lambda},\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}}(l^{'}))}2^{k{\varphi}^{s_{1},s_{3}}(k)}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p_{1},p_{3}}(k)}}\\
&\lesssim 2^{l^{'}({\varphi}^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}-s_{1},\frac{N}{p_{3}}-s_{3}}(l^{'})-{\varphi}^{\frac{N}{\lambda},\frac{N}{\lambda^{'}}}(l^{'}))}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{3}}_{p_{1},p_{3},1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|{\Delta}_{l^{'}}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l^{'})}}=c_{l^{'}}2^{-l^{'}({\varphi}^{s_{2},s_{4}}(l^{'}))}
\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{2},s_{4}}_{p_{2},p_{4},1}}$ with $\sum_{l^{'}\in\mathbb{Z}}c_{l^{'}}\leq1$ we finally gather as $l>0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\Delta}_{l}T_{u}v\|_{L^{q}}\lesssim c_{l}2^{l {\varphi}^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}+\frac{N}{p_{2}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{1}-s_{2},
\frac{N}{p_{2}}+\frac{N}{p_{4}}-\frac{N}{q}-s_{3}-s_{4}}(l)}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{3}}_{p_{1},p_{3},1}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{2},s_{4}}_{p_{2},p_{4},1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ And we obtain (\[62\]).\
\
Straightforward modification give (\[65\]). In this case as $\|S_{k-1}u\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \|u\|_{L^{\infty}}$ we have: $$\|{\Delta}_{l}T_{u}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p,q}(l)}}\lesssim \sum_{|l-l^{'}|\leq3}\|u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|
{\Delta}_{l^{'}}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l^{'})}}.$$ Next we have: $$2^{l{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l)}\|{\Delta}_{l}T_{u}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p,q}(l)}}\lesssim \|u\|_{L^{\infty}} \sum_{|l-l^{'}|\leq3}2^{l{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l)-l^{'}{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l^{'}))}2^{{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(
l^{'})}\|
{\Delta}_{l^{'}}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p_{2},p_{4}}(l^{'})}}.$$ We conclude by convolution.\
\
To prove (\[63\]), we write: $${\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)=\sum_{k\geq l-2}{\Delta}_{l}({\Delta}_{k}u\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v).$$ We consider now the case $l>3$. By Bernstein and Hölder inequalities we obtain when $\frac{1}{q}\leq \frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}\leq 1$: $$\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{q}}\lesssim2^{Nl(\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}-\frac{1}{q})}\sum_{k\geq l-2}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{3}}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{4}}}.$$ Next we have: $$\begin{aligned}
2^{l(s_{3}+s_{4}+\frac{N}{q}-\frac{N}{p_{3}}-\frac{N}{p_{4}})}\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{q}}&\lesssim
\sum_{k\geq l-2}
2^{(l-k)(s_{3}+s_{4})}2^{ks_{3}}\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{3}}}2^{ks_{4}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{4}}},\\
&\lesssim (c_{k})*(d_{k^{'}}),
\end{aligned}$$ with $c_{k}=1_{[-\infty,2]}(k)2^{k(s_{3}+s_{4})}$ and $d_{k^{'}}=2^{k^{'}s_{3}}\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{3}}}2^{k^{'}s_{4}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{4}}}$ . We conclude by Young inequality as $s_{3}+s_{4}>0$.\
\
We have to treat now the case when $l<0$. We have then as $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}\leq 1$ and $\frac{1}{p}\leq\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p_{2}}\leq 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim2^{Nl(\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}-\frac{1}{p})}\sum_{k\geq 2}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{3}}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{4}}}\\
&\sum_{0\leq k\leq 1, |k-k^{'}|\leq 1}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u{\Delta}_{k^{'}}v\|_{L^{p}}+2^{Nl(\frac{1}{p_{1}}
+\frac{1}{p_{2}}-\frac{1}{p})}\sum_{l-2\leq k\leq -1}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{2}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ And by convolution on the middle frequencies: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim2^{Nl(\frac{1}{p_{3}}+\frac{1}{p_{4}}-\frac{1}{p})}\sum_{k\geq 2}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{3}}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{4}}}\\
&(2^{l(\frac{N}{p_{3}}
+\frac{N}{p_{2}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{3}-s_{2})}+2^{l(\frac{N}{p_{1}}
+\frac{N}{p_{4}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{1}-s_{4})}
)c_{l}+
2^{Nl(\frac{1}{p_{1}}
+\frac{1}{p_{2}}-\frac{1}{p})}\sum_{l-2\leq k\leq -1}
\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{p_{2}}},
\end{aligned}$$ with $c_{l}\in l^{1}(\mathbb{Z})$. Next by convolution we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim c_{l}(2^{l(\frac{N}{p_{3}}+\frac{N}{p_{4}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{3}-s_{4})}+2^{l(\frac{N}{p_{3}}
+\frac{N}{p_{2}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{3}-s_{2})}+2^{l(\frac{N}{p_{1}}
+\frac{N}{p_{4}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{1}-s_{4})}\\
&\hspace{6cm}+
2^{l(\frac{N}{p_{1}}+\frac{N}{p_{2}}-\frac{N}{p}-s_{1}-s_{2})})
\|u\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{1},s_{3}}_{p_{1},p_{3},1}}\|v\|_{\widetilde{B}^{s_{2},s_{4}}_{p_{2},p_{4},r}}.
\end{aligned}$$ And we can conclude.\
We want prove now the inequality (\[65\]). We have then: $$\begin{aligned}
2^{l{\varphi}^{s_{1},s_{2}}(l)}\|{\Delta}_{l}R(u,v)\|_{L^{p}}&\lesssim\sum_{k\geq l-2}2^{(l-k){\varphi}^{s_{1},s_{2}}(l)}
2^{k{\varphi}^{s_{1},s_{2}}(l)}\|{\Delta}_{k}u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|\widetilde{{\Delta}}_{k}v\|_{L^{{\varphi}^{p,q}(k)}},
\end{aligned}$$ And we conclude by Young inequality. [$\Box$]{}\
\
\[alemme2\] Let $1\leq p_{1}\leq p\leq+\infty$ and $\sigma\in(-\min({\frac{N}{p}},\frac{N}{p_{1}^{'}}),{\frac{N}{p}}+1]$. There exists a sequence $c_{q}\in l^{1}(\mathbb{Z})$ such that $\|c_{q}\|_{l^{1}}=1$ and a constant $C$ depending only on $N$ and $\sigma$ such that: $$\forall q\in\mathbb{Z},\;\;\|[v\cdot{\nabla},{\Delta}_{q}]a\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\leq C c_{q}2^{-q\sigma}\|{\nabla}v\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1}}
\|a\|_{B^{\sigma}_{p_{1},1}}.
\label{52}$$ In the limit case $\sigma=-\min({\frac{N}{p}},\frac{N}{p_{1}^{'}})$, we have: $$\forall q\in\mathbb{Z},\;\;\|[v\cdot{\nabla},{\Delta}_{q}]a\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\leq C c_{q}2^{q{\frac{N}{p}}}\|{\nabla}v\|_{B^{{\frac{N}{p}}}_{p,1}}
\|a\|_{B^{-\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{p,\infty}}.
\label{53}$$ Finally, for all $\sigma>0$ and $\frac{1}{p_{2}}=\frac{1}{p_{1}}-\frac{1}{p}$, there exists a constant $C$ depending only on $N$ and on $\sigma$ and a sequence $c_{q}\in l^{1}(\mathbb{Z})$ with norm $1$ such that: $$\forall q\in\mathbb{Z},\;\;\|[v\cdot{\nabla},{\Delta}_{q}]v\|_{L^{p}}\leq C c_{q}2^{-q\sigma}(\|{\nabla}v\|_{L^{\infty}}\|v\|_{B^{\sigma}_{p_{1},1}}+\|{\nabla}v\|_{L^{p_{2}}}\|{\nabla}v\|_{B^{\sigma-1}_{p,1}}).
\label{54}$$
[**Proof:**]{} These results are proved in [@BCD] chapter $2$. [$\Box$]{}\
H. Abidi and M. Paicu. Équation de Navier-Stokes avec densité et viscosité variables dans l’espace critique. *Annales de l’institut Fourier*, 57 no. 3 (2007), p. 883-917. H. Bahouri and J.-Y. Chemin, Équations d’ondes quasilinéaires et estimation de Strichartz, *Amer. J. Mathematics*. 121 (1999) 1337-1377. H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin and R. Danchin. Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, *to appear in Springer*. J.-M. Bony, Calcul symbolique et propagation des singularités pour les équations aux dérivées partielles non linéaires, *Annales Scientifiques de l’école Normale Supérieure*. 14 (1981) 209-246. D. Bresch and B. Desjardins, Existence of global weak solutions for a 2D Viscous shallow water equations and convergence to the quasi-geostrophic model. *Comm. Math. Phys.*, 238(1-2): 211-223, 2003. F. Charve and R. Danchin, Global existence in critical spaces for compressible Navier-Stokes equations, preprint and submitted. J.-Y. Chemin, Théorèmes d’unicité pour le système de Navier-Stokes tridimensionnel, *J.d’Analyse Math*. 77 (1999) 27-50. J.-Y. Chemin, About Navier-Stokes system, *Prépublication du Laboratoire d’Analyse Numérique de Paris 6*, R96023 (1996). J.-Y. Chemin and N. Lerner, Flot de champs de vecteurs non lipschitziens et équations de Navier-Stokes, *J.Differential Equations*, 121 (1992) 314-328. Q. Chen, C. Miao and Z. Zhang, Global well-posedness for the compressible Navier-Stokes equations with the highly oscillating initial velocity, *arXiv:0907.4540v2*. R. Danchin, Fourier analysis method for PDE’s, *Preprint*, Novembre 2005. R. Danchin, Local Theory in critical Spaces for Compressible Viscous and Heat-Conductive Gases, *Communication in Partial Differential Equations*, 26 (78),1183-1233, (2001). R. Danchin, Global existence in critical spaces for compressible Navier-Stokes equations, *Inventiones Mathematicae*, 141, pages 579-614 (2000). R. Danchin, Global existence in critical spaces for compressible viscous and heat-conductive gases, *Archiv for Rational Mechanics and Analysis*, 160, pages 1-39 (2001). R. Danchin, On the uniqueness in critical spaces for compressible Navier-Stokes equations. *NoDEA Nonlinear Differentiel Equations Appl*, 12(1):111-128, 2005. R. Danchin, Well-Posedness in Critical Spaces for Barotropic Viscous Fluids with Truly Not Constant Density, *Communications in Partial Differential Equations*,32:9,1373-1397. B. Haspot,Cauchy problem for viscous shallow water equations with a term of capillarity , *accepted in HYP 2008*. B. Haspot, Local well-posedness results for density-dependent incompressible fluids, *Arxiv*, 0902.1982 (February 2009). B. Haspot, Well-posedness in critical spaces for barotropic viscous fluids, *Arxiv*, (March 2009). D. Hoff. Global existence for 1D, compressible, isentropic Navier-Stokes equations with large initial data. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc*, 303(1), 169-181, 1987. D. Hoff, Uniqueness of weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations of multidimensional, compressible flow, *SIAM J. Math. Anal*. 37 (6) (2006). D. Hoff. Discontinuous solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for multidimensional flows of the heat conducting fluids. *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*, 139, (1997), p. 303-354. D. Hoff. Global solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for multidimensional compressible flow with discontinuous initial data. *J. Differential Equations*, 120(1), 215-254, 1995. D. Hoff. Strong convergence to global solutions for multidimensional flows of compressible, viscous fluids with polytropic equations of state and discontinuous initial data. *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*, 132(1), 1-14, 1995. D. Hoff and K. Zumbrum. Multi-dimensional diffusion waves for the Navier-Stokes equations of compressible flow, *Indiana University Mathematics Journal*, 1995, 44, 603-676. A. V. Kazhikov. The equation of potential flows of a compressible viscous fluid for small Reynolds numbers: existence, uniqueness and stabilization of solutions. *Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.*, 34 (1993), no. 3, p. 70-80. A. V. Kazhikov and V. V. Shelukhin. Unique global solution with respect to time of initial-boundary value problems for one- dimensional equations of a viscous gas. *Prikl. Mat. Meh.*, 41(2): 282-291, 1977. Akitaka Matsumura and Takaaki Nishida. The initial value problem for the equations of motion of compressible viscous and heat-conductive gases. *J. Math. Kyoto Univ.*, 20(1): 67-104, 1980. Akitaka Matsumura and Takaaki Nishida. The initial value problem for the equations of motion of compressible viscous and heat-conductive fluids. *Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci*, 55(9):337-342, 1979. Y. Meyer. Wavelets,paraproducts, and Navier-Stokes equation. *In Current developments in mathematics, 1996 (Cambridge, MA)*, page 105-212. Int. Press, Boston, MA, 1997. J. Nash. Le problème de Cauchy pour les équations différentielles d’un fluide général. *Bull. Soc. Math. France*, 90: 487-497, 1962. T. Runst and W. Sickel: Sobolev spaces of fractional order, Nemytskij operators, and nonlinear partial differential equations. *de Gruyter Series in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications*, 3. Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin (1996)\
na 21, no. 1 (2005), 1-24. D. Serre. Solutions faibles globales des équations de Navier-Stokes pour un fluide compressible.*Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences*. Série 1, 303(13): 639-642, 1986. V. A. Solonnikov. Estimates for solutions of nonstationary Navier-Stokes systems. *Zap. Nauchn. Sem. LOMI*, 38, (1973), p.153-231; J. Soviet Math. 8, (1977), p. 467-529. V. Valli and W. Zajaczkowski. Navier-Stokes equations for compressible fluids: global existence and qualitative properties of the solutions in the general case. *Commun. Math. Phys.*, 103, (1986) no 2, p. 259-296.
[^1]: Karls Ruprecht Universität Heidelberg, Institut for Applied Mathematics, Im Neuenheimer Feld 294, D-69120 Heildelberg, Germany. Tel. 49(0)6221-54-6112
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Jonathan X. Zheng, Samraat Pawar, Dan F. M. Goodman'
title: Graph Drawing by Stochastic Gradient Descent
---
are a common data structure, used to describe everything from social networks to food webs, from metabolic pathways to internet traffic. Any set of pairwise relationships between entities can be described by a graph, and the ever increasing amount of data being collected means that visualizing graphs for exploratory analysis has become an important task.
Node-link diagrams are an intuitive representation of graphs, where vertices are represented by dots, and edges by lines connecting them. A primary task is then to find suitable coordinates for these dots that represent the data faithfully. However this is far from trivial, and the difficulty behind finding a good layout can be illustrated through a simple example. If we consider the problem of drawing a tetrahedron in 2D space, it is easy to see that no ideal layout exists where all edges have equal lengths. Even for such a small graph with only four vertices, there are too few dimensions available to provide sufficient degrees of freedom. The next logical question is: what layout gets as close as possible to this ideal?
Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a technique to solve exactly this type of problem, that attempts to minimize the disparity between ideal and low-dimensional distances. This is done by defining an equation to quantify the error in a layout, and then minimizing it. While this equation comes in many forms [@cox2000multidimensional], *distance scaling* is most commonly used for graphs [@brandes2008experimental], where the error is defined as $$\label{stress}
\text{stress}(\mathbf{X}) = \sum_{i<j} w_{ij}(||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j|| - d_{ij})^2$$ where $\mathbf{X}$ contains the coordinates of each vertex in low-dimensional space, and $d$ is the ideal distance between them. A weighting factor $w$ is used to either emphasize or dampen the importance of certain pairs. For the problem of graph layout, the most common approach is to set $d_{ij}$ to the shortest path distance between vertices $i$ and $j$, with $w_{ij} = d_{ij}^{-2}$ to offset the extra weight given to longer paths due to squaring the difference [@brandes2008experimental].
This definition was popularized for graph layout by Kamada and Kawai [@kamada1989algorithm] who minimized the function using a localized 2D Newton-Raphson method, while within the MDS community Kruskal [@kruskal1964multidimensional] originally used gradient descent [@kruskal1964nonmetric]. This was later improved upon by De Leeuw [@de1988convergence] with a method known as majorization, which minimizes a complicated function by iteratively finding the true minima of a series of simpler functions, each of which touches the original function and is an upper bound for it [@cox2000multidimensional]. This was applied to graph layout by Gansner et al. [@gansner2004graph] and has been the state-of-the-art for the past decade. For larger graphs, fully computing stress is not feasible, and so we review approximation methods in Section \[sparse\].
This paper describes a method of minimizing stress by using stochastic gradient descent (SGD), which approximates the gradient of a sum of functions using the gradient of its individual terms. In our case this corresponds to moving a single pair of vertices at a time. The simplicity of each term in Equation (\[stress\]) also allows for some modifications to the step size which, combined with the added stochasticity, help to avoid local minima. We show the benefits of SGD over majorization through experiment.
The structure of this paper is as follows: the algorithm is described and its subtleties are explored; an experimental study of its performance compared to majorization is presented; some real-world applications are shown that make use of the unique properties of SGD, including a method of making SGD scalable to large graphs by adapting the sparse approximation of Ortmann et al. [@ortmann2016sparse]; and finally, we end with a discussion and ideas for future work.
Constraint Relaxation
---------------------
The origin of our method is rooted in constrained graph layout, where a relaxation algorithm has gained popularity due to its simplicity and versatility [@dwyer2009scalable; @bostock2011d3]. It was first introduced in video game engines as a technique to quickly approximate the behavior of cloth, which is modeled as a planar mesh of vertices that maintains its edges at a fixed length. A full physics simulation would represent each edge as a stiff spring, summing up and integrating over the resulting forces, but a realistic piece of cloth contains too many edges for this to be feasible. To avoid this bottleneck, Jakobsen [@jakobsen2001advanced] introduced the idea of considering each edge independently, moving a single pair of vertices at a time. While this is a rather simple and perhaps naive idea, in practice the solution converges in very few iterations.
This was utilized by Dwyer [@dwyer2009scalable], who used the method in conjunction with a force-directed layout to achieve effects such as making edges point downwards, or fixing cycles around the edge of a wheel. To define it properly in the case of maintaining a distance $d_{ij}$ between two vertices $X_i$ and $X_j$, this movement, known henceforth as a constraint, can be written as $$\label{constraint}
||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j|| \leftarrow d_{ij}$$ and is satisfied by moving $\mathbf{X}_i$ and $\mathbf{X}_j$ in opposite directions by a vector $$\mathbf{r}
= \frac{||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j||-d_{ij}}{2}\frac{\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j}{||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j||}.$$ This can be seen as a diagram in Figure \[satisfaction\], and is analogous to decompressing an infinitely stiff spring of length $d_{ij}$.
![Satisfaction of the distance constraint described by Equation (\[constraint\]). []{data-label="satisfaction"}](satisfaction.pdf)
Rewriting Equation (\[stress\]) as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{stress-terms}
\text{stress}(\mathbf{X}) = \sum_{i<j} Q_{ij}(\mathbf{X}),\\
\label{qij}
Q_{ij}(\mathbf{X}) = w_{ij}(||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j|| - d_{ij})^2,\end{gathered}$$ it can be seen that if every term $Q_{ij}$ in the summation is satisfied as a constraint (\[constraint\]), then the total stress is zero, corresponding to an ideal layout. This is exactly the idea behind our method—we replace the force-directed component by instead placing a constraint on every possible pair of vertices, satisfying them one by one as above. However zero stress is almost always impossible, for the same reasons that the aforementioned tetrahedron cannot be embedded in 2D. In such situations, simply satisfying constraints as above does not lead to convergence, but we will now describe an extension that does.
Stochastic Gradient Descent {#wcr description}
===========================
Our modifications to the algorithm described above can be understood by first noticing that satisfying a constraint is equivalent to moving both vertices in the direction of the gradient of a stress term $Q_{ij}$ $$\label{gradient}
\frac{\partial Q_{ij}}{\partial\mathbf{X}_i}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathbf{X}_i}w_{ij}(||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j|| - d_{ij})^2
= 4w_{ij}\mathbf{r}.$$ We can compute the full gradient $\partial Q_{ij}/\partial\mathbf{X}$ as $$\frac{\partial Q_{ij}}{\partial\mathbf{X}_k}=\begin{cases}
4w_{ij}\mathbf{r} & \mbox{if $k=i$} \\
-4w_{ij}\mathbf{r} & \mbox{if $k=j$} \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.} \\
\end{cases}$$ Directly applying stochastic gradient descent to minimize stress would involve repeatedly randomly selecting a term $Q_{ij}$ and applying the iterative formula $\mathbf{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{X}-\eta\nabla Q_{ij}(\mathbf{X})$, where $\eta$ is a step size that tends towards 0 as the iteration number increases. Note that since the gradient is zero with respect to all $\mathbf{X}_k$ other than $\mathbf{X}_i$ and $\mathbf{X}_j$, it suffices to update the positions of $\mathbf{X}_i$ and $\mathbf{X}_j$ by $$\label{SGD step}
\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf{X}_i\\\mathbf{X}_j\end{bmatrix}
\leftarrow
\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf{X}_i\\\mathbf{X}_j\end{bmatrix}+
\begin{bmatrix}\Delta \mathbf{X}_i\\\Delta \mathbf{X}_j\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf{X}_i\\\mathbf{X}_j\end{bmatrix}-
4w_{ij}\eta
\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf{r}\\-\mathbf{r}\end{bmatrix}.$$
![Plots of stress for SGD and majorization on the graphs `1138_bus` and `dwt_1005`, each initialized randomly within a 1$\times$1 square. The circles and crosses show stress on each iteration over 10 runs, with the line running through the mean. Initial stress values are omitted. SGD is clearly more consistent, always reaching lower stress levels than majorization ever manages in hundreds of iterations on `1138_bus`. They both reach the same overall minimum on the more mesh-like `dwt_1005`, but majorization often gets stuck on a particularly dangerous local minimum, shown by its diverging paths. A more detailed timing analysis on a wide variety of other examples can be seen in Section \[results\]. []{data-label="stress plots"}](iterations.png){width="\linewidth"}
The constraint relaxation of the previous section is therefore equivalent to a special case of SGD where $w_{ij}=1$ and $\eta=1/4$. Writing $\mu=4w_{ij}\eta$ as the coefficient of $\mathbf{r}$ we can see that $Q_{ij}\leftarrow 0$ when $\mu=1$ and decreases monotonically from $\mu=0$ to $\mu=1$. Since we have this extra geometric structure that is not normally available in SGD settings, we investigated a modified SGD algorithm in which we set a hard upper limit of $\mu\leq 1$: $$\label{mu}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta\mathbf{X}_i &= -\Delta\mathbf{X}_j = -\mu\, \mathbf{r},\\
\mu&=\min\{\,w_{ij}\eta, \, 1\,\}.
\end{aligned}$$ This modified algorithm makes updates that are identical to standard SGD when $\eta$ is sufficiently small, $$\label{eta-sufficiently-small}
\eta<\frac{1}{w_{\max}}.$$ Since this will always eventually be the case, it has the same asymptotic convergence properties as standard SGD, which we discuss in Section \[unlimited iterations\]. However, we find that introducing this upper limit on $\mu$ allows for much larger initial step sizes than standard SGD, yielding much faster convergence without getting stuck in local minima. We show by experiment that this is true for a wide range of graphs (except for a single specific case, see Section \[quality\]). In addition, we use random reshuffling of terms unless otherwise stated (see Section \[randomization\]). We define a full pass through all the terms $Q_{ij}$ as a single *iteration*, while a single application of Equation (\[SGD step\]) will be known as as a *step*. From now on, we will refer to our modified SGD algorithm simply as SGD.
Plots of stress achieved using SGD compared to majorization are presented briefly in Figure \[stress plots\], and in more detail in Section \[results\]. Pseudocode is shown in Algorithm \[pseudocode\] (Figure \[algorithm1\]). All results in this paper have vertex positions initialized uniformly randomly within a 1$\times$1 square. Unless stated otherwise, graph data is from the SuiteSparse Matrix Collection [@davis2011university]. Tests were performed using C\# running in Visual Studio, on an Intel Core i7-4790 CPU with 16GB of RAM.
[latex@errorgobble]{}
Step Size Annealing {#cooling}
-------------------
Choosing a good step size $\eta$ is crucial to the performance of SGD [@darken1992learning], and a typical implementation can involve complex algorithms for tuning the step size to the problem at hand [@ruder2016overview]. Most of these methods do not apply here for two reasons. First, due to the limit on the step size in Equation (\[mu\]), we can and do use much larger step sizes than standard SGD would allow. Second, many of these methods use previous gradients to inform the step size; we only update the positions of the two vertices directly involved, so storing and applying previous gradients is inefficient to the point of increasing the asymptotic complexity of the algorithm.
Even ignoring such adaptive methods, the full space of possible annealing schedules is too large to investigate in full, and the results can differ depending on the graph. We therefore investigated a limited subset of possible schedules, taking the mean final stress across a wide range of graphs as the performance criterion (the full set of graphs considered in Section \[results\]). We consider two use cases: one where time is a limiting factor and so the number of iterations is predetermined, and another where the algorithm may continue until the layout has converged to within a desired accuracy.
### Fixed Number of Iterations {#fixediterations}
We consider a step size that starts at a maximum value $\eta=\eta_\mathrm{max}$ at the first iteration $t=0$, and decreases monotonically to $\eta=\eta_\mathrm{min}$ at the final iteration $t=t_\mathrm{max}-1$. Large values of $\eta$ result in all $\mu$ capped at 1, and very small values will result in little to no movement of vertices. Because we wish to work within the useful range in between these extremes, we set $$\label{etamaxmin}
\eta_{\max} = \frac{1}{w_{\min}} \,,\;\; \eta_{\min} = \frac{\varepsilon}{w_{\max}}.
$$ In our case $w_{ij} = d_{ij}^{-2}$ so $w_{\min}$ is inversely proportional to the diameter of the graph $d_{\max}$, and $w_{\max}$ to the smallest edge length $d_{\min}$. This choice of $\eta_{\max}$ ensures that all $\mu = 1$ for the first iteration, which appears to be desirable in order to avoid local minima, while the choice of $\eta_{\min}$ ensures that even the strongest constraints reach a small value of $\mu = \varepsilon$ for the final iteration.
![Plots of mean stress against iterations over 25 runs for the annealing schedules discussed in Section \[cooling\], with $t_{\max}=15$ and $\varepsilon=0.1$ in all cases. The exact schedules used are shown in the top right of every plot. To approximate behavior given unlimited time, schedules were run for 500 iterations. `1138_bus` shows the typical behavior of $\eta= ae^{-bt}$ reaching lower stress and $\eta= a/(1+bt)$ never quite catching up; `lesmis` shows that this applies to smaller graphs as well; `dwt_1005` emphasizes the importance of larger step sizes, as the constant $\eta=1$ struggles to jump over large local minima. Note that on this easier graph $\eta=a/(1+bt)$ is enough to reach good minima in very few iterations. []{data-label="annealing"}](cooling.png){width="\linewidth"}
We computed the performance for various schedules $\eta(t)$ where $t$ is the iteration number, constrained to $\eta(0)=\eta_{\max}$ and $\eta(t_\mathrm{max}-1)=\eta_{\min}$ (except for the special case $\eta(t)=1$). In each panel of Figure \[annealing\] we vary the form of the function $\eta(t)$ for a fixed choice of $t_\mathrm{max}$ and $\varepsilon$. The best form of $\eta(t)$ appears to be the exponential decay given by the equation $$\label{expodecay}
\eta_1(t) = \eta_{\max} e^{-\lambda t}.$$ In addition we varied the parameters $t_\mathrm{max}$ and $\varepsilon$ for this $\eta(t)$ (see Figure \[parameters\]). Increasing $t_\mathrm{max}$ always improves the quality but also increases computation time, so we chose $t_\mathrm{max}=15$ as a reasonable compromise between speed and quality. The choice $\varepsilon=0.1$ appears to be close to optimal for this $t_{\max}$. With this number of iterations most of the gains had already been made and further ones gave diminishing returns, although for particular applications another choice may be more appropriate.
![Plots of mean stress over 25 runs on all graphs in Section \[results\] when varying the parameters $t_{\max}$ or $\varepsilon$ on Equation (\[expodecay\]), normalized to the best values from Figure \[systematic\]. There are clear diminishing returns when increasing $t_{\max}$, so we chose $t_{\max}=15$ as a trade-off between speed and quality. $\varepsilon=0.1$ is close to optimum for this value. []{data-label="parameters"}](parameters.png){width="\linewidth"}
It is common in SGD to use a schedule $\eta = \Theta(1/t)$ [@darken1992learning], however for the small number of iterations considered here, the large initial step sizes cause $\eta$ to decay too quickly in the beginning, leading to worse local minima. Exponential decay drops faster than $1/t$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$, but $1/t$ drops faster in early iterations given fixed values at $\eta(0)$ and $\eta(t_{\max}-1)$, as shown by the inset panels in Figure \[annealing\].
### Unlimited Iterations/Convergence {#unlimited iterations}
The schedule described above works well in practice for a fixed number of iterations, but given more time it can be desirable to let the algorithm run for longer to produce an optimal layout. Here we describe a schedule that is guaranteed to converge, and a stopping criterion to prevent the algorithm from wasting iterations on negligible movements.
A proof of convergence for SGD is well known in the machine learning literature [@bottou2012stochastic], and requires an annealing schedule that satisfies $$\label{convergence}
\sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\eta(t) = \infty
\quad \text{and} \quad
\sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\eta(t)^2 < \infty.$$ This is guaranteed to reach global minima under conditions slightly weaker than convexity [@bottou1998online]. Intuitively, the first summation ensures the decay is slow enough to reach the minimum no matter how far away we initialize, and the second ensures fast enough decay to converge to, rather than bounce around the minimum [@welling2011bayesian]. In the context of non-convex functions, like the stress equation considered in this paper, such a proof only holds for convergence to a stationary point that may be a saddle [@bottou1998online]. There is also recent work proving convergence to local minima in specific classes of non-convex functions [@ge2015escaping].
Since we cannot guarantee a global minimum with any choice of schedule, the best we can do is to choose a schedule that will converge to a stationary point. A commonly used schedule that guarantees this is $\eta=\Theta(1/t)$, as this satisfies Equation (\[convergence\]). However, in the previous section we noted that this schedule gets stuck in poor local minima. We therefore use a mixed schedule. When $t$ is small, $\eta(t)=\eta_1(t)$ follows the exponential schedule of the previous section, because in practice this avoids poor local minima. When $t$ is large we then switch to a $1/t$ schedule to guarantee convergence to a stationary point: $$\eta_{2}(t + \tau) =
\frac{w_{\max}^{-1}}{1+\lambda t}
\quad \text{when}
\quad t>\tau\: :\:
\eta_{1}(\tau) = w_{\max}^{-1}.
$$ The cross-over value $\tau$ is the iteration at which the limit in Equation (\[mu\]) stops capping $\mu$ and our algorithm becomes standard SGD. Since we have more iterations to work with, we also choose $t_{\max}=30$ in order to further improve avoidance of local minima. This choice is sufficient to give even or better mean performance than majorization after convergence across every graph we tested except for one (see Section \[quality\]), but again depending on the application another choice may be more suitable. Finally, we introduce a suitable stopping criterion. Since SGD does not guarantee the monotonic decrease of stress [@darken1992learning], we cannot use the majorization heuristic adopted by Gansner et al. [@gansner2004graph], which stops when the relative change in stress drops below a certain threshold. However we can guarantee that each time a constraint is satisfied, its corresponding term within the summation does decrease. We therefore estimate how close we are to convergence by tracking the maximum distance a vertex is moved by a single step over the previous iteration, and stop when this crosses a threshold $$\max||\Delta\mathbf{X}|| < \delta.$$ We find that a value of $\delta=0.03$ works well in practice.
Thus we have designed two schedules: one for a fixed number of iterations, and one that continues until convergence. Results using both of these are presented in Section \[results\]. It is important to note that these schedules use simple heuristics, and the exact nature of the data will affect the results. However we find that they are robust across a wide variety of graphs, as all the results shown in this paper use these two schedules.
Randomization
-------------
![Stress against time taken using different degrees of randomization, over 50 runs from different random starting configurations. Markers indicate mean stress, with vertical bars ranging from best to worst over all runs. Both stress and time are normalized to the absolute minimum and maximum respectively over any run []{data-label="random"}](random.png){width="\linewidth"}
An important consideration is the order in which constraints are satisfied, as naive iteration can introduce biases that cause the algorithm to get caught in local minima. The original method behind SGD proposed by Robbins and Monro [@robbins1951stochastic] randomizes with replacement, meaning that a random term is picked every time with no guarantee as to how often a term will be picked. Some variants perform random reshuffling (RR) which guarantees that every term is processed once on each iteration. Under certain conditions it can be proven analytically that RR converges faster [@gurbuzbalaban2015random], and our results support this.
Unfortunately adding randomness incurs a penalty in speed, due to the cost of both random number generation and reduced data cache prefetching. We found that this overhead is non-trivial, with iterations taking up to 60% longer with random reshuffling compared to looping in order. We explored the trade-offs between more randomness for better convergence but slower iterations, versus less randomness for slower convergence but faster iterations. We tried five different degrees of randomness: shuffling only the indices themselves, which removes any bias inherent to the data but still makes use of the cache by iterating in order; randomizing with replacement; shuffling the order of terms once; shuffling twice and alternating between the two orders; and shuffling on every iteration. The results can be seen in Figure \[random\].
We selected five different graphs, each with around 1000 vertices, and show a corresponding good layout for each to visualize the differences between them. More mesh-like graphs such as `dwt_1005` do not benefit much from added randomness, and receive large gains in speed for a small hit to quality. As graphs get more difficult to draw, shuffling only indices quickly becomes ineffective, with mean stress levels off by orders of magnitude on the plots with broken axes. The graph `email` is a social network, which tend to be very difficult to draw as their global minima are difficult to find. The drop in quality when reducing the randomness reflects this. `G47` is a random graph and has the highest stress, but is easier to draw since there are many minima close to global that are all relatively easy to find.
Although RR is the most expensive method, it is only slightly more expensive and consistently performs best. However if speed is the most important concern, alternating between two random shuffles gives stress levels that are in many cases almost as good, at a slightly reduced cost. We use RR for the rest of the results here.
Experimental Comparison {#results}
=======================
To test the effectiveness of our algorithm, we follow Khoury et al. [@khoury2012drawing] and use symmetric sparse matrices from the SuiteSparse Matrix Collection [@davis2011university] as a benchmark. We ran both SGD and majorization on every graph with 1000 or fewer vertices, and compared the range of stress levels reached after 15 iterations and until convergence, using the two schedules described Section \[cooling\]. These results can be seen in Figure \[systematic\]. We also chose a representative selection of larger graphs for more detailed timing results, showing multiple implementations of majorization and the time course of convergence, which can be seen in Figure \[appendix\].
{width="\textwidth"}
![Scatter plots of mean stress relative to the best achieved, against the spread of the stress, measured as the coefficient of variation (standard deviation over mean), using the same results as Figure \[systematic\]. The shaded regions on the top and right of each panel show the density of the mean (right) and spread (top) of the stress, computed using the `gaussian_kde` function of SciPy [@scipy]. []{data-label="summary"}](systematic_summary.png){width="\linewidth"}
Quality
-------
We can see from Figure \[systematic\] that SGD reaches the same low stress levels on almost every run. While majorization is proven to monotonically decrease stress [@gansner2004graph], it can often struggle with local minima. This can be clearly seen in Figure \[summary\], as majorization consistently shows larger variance in its stress trajectories from different starting configurations. The layouts displayed in Figure \[systematic\] were chosen to highlight the effects of different types of graphs. From left to right, top then bottom: `G15` is a random graph with nodes decreasing in mean degree. These random graphs reach consistent stress levels with both algorithms, as their lack of structure results in many minima close to global. `dwt_66` is an example of a graph that majorization struggles with, as it is very long and often has multiple twists that majorization cannot unravel. `orbitRaising_2` is a similar example, but in this case majorization also never reaches the global minimum, even after convergence. `celegans_metabolic` is a metabolic pathway that is around as densely packed as a graph worth drawing gets. SGD consistently outperforms majorization here too. Many of the largest ranges in the plot are from graphs similar to `ex2`; grids are difficult to fully unfold, and majorization often struggles with their many local minima.
On the other hand, `dwt_307` is the one graph (of the 243 we investigated) where majorization reaches lower stress than SGD as a result of our modifications to standard SGD (Figure \[cylinder\]).
`494_bus` is an example of the type of graph where Equation (\[stress\]) produces better layouts than other popular models. Its symmetry is clear here, whereas other force-directed algorithms can fail to show this due to the *peripheral effect* [@hu2005efficient]. `dwt_361` is an example of the type of graph that both SGD and majorization struggle with: long graphs that can twist. A twist in a graph constitutes a deep local minimum that iterative methods struggle with in general, and SGD is still susceptible to this issue. `Sandi_authors` is a small graph, but with some densely packed sections that can become stuck behind each other, something that majorization often struggles with. And finally, `S10PI_n1` is a long graph that does not get twisted and so SGD deals with it perfectly well, but its long strands still tend to give majorization problems.
Speed
-----
Our results show that SGD converges to low stress levels in far fewer iterations than majorization. Graphs are laid out in only 15 iterations in the top plot in Figure \[systematic\], and there is not much improvement to be gained from using the convergent schedule to let the algorithm run for longer. This indicates that most global minima can be found in very few iterations, making SGD especially suited for real-time applications such as interactive layout. Our stopping criterion for majorization was for relative decrease in stress to be less than $10^{-5}$, which is ten times more forgiving than originally suggested by Gansner et al. [@gansner2004graph], as we found $10^{-4}$ was not lenient enough to be confident that it had settled completely. Given enough time, majorization does find good minima more often than not, but can still settle in local minima and in some cases never finds the best configuration regardless of initialization. Majorization also takes many more iterations to converge than SGD, with means of 237 and 106 iterations respectively.
The real-world time per iteration must also be considered, even though both share a complexity $O(n^2)$. We adapted the Cholesky factorization routine from Numerical Recipes [@press1996numerical] to C\#, and found that iterations are around 40% faster than SGD. However the initial decomposition before back-substitution requires $n^3/6$ iterations involving a multiply and a subtract [@press1996numerical], so the total time quickly tips in favor of SGD. Conjugate gradient (CG), with tolerance 0.1 and max iterations 10 as in [@gansner2013maxent], is an iterative method itself to solve the majorizing function and so iterates slower than Cholesky and SGD, but often beats out Cholesky overall when fewer iterations are necessary. CG and Cholesky also both benefit from optimized matrix multiplication routines [@gansner2004graph] that we did not try here. Localized majorization, which is used to majorize the sparse model in Section \[sparse\], iterates fastest of all but converges slower. It is also worth noting that over-shooting has been used before in the context of majorization to achieve an average of 1.5 times speedup [@wang2012fast]. Plots of stress against real time can be seen in Figure \[appendix\].
![Layouts from `dwt_307`, the only one of the 243 graphs considered where majorization (left) yields lower stress than SGD (right). []{data-label="cylinder"}](dwt_307.png){width="\linewidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Applications
============
Some of the properties of SGD, in particular the fact that each edge is considered separately along with the ability to consistently avoid local minima well, make SGD well suited to variants such as constrained layout. We will now describe some recipes for examples of this, each applied to various real-world graphs in order to show the merits of their use. Note that these applications are also possible with majorization, but can require more drastic modifications in order to apply them successfully.
Focusing on a Vertex {#focus}
--------------------
![The London Underground map with a focus on Green Park, created using the method described in Section \[focus\]. The distances are based on travel time rather than real world distance. Data from [@tube].[]{data-label="radial"}](tube.png){height="0.85\linewidth"}
It is often the case that a user will want to examine specific vertices in a graph, especially in an interactive setting. It is therefore important to be able to emphasize distances involving certain vertices. Brandes and Pich [@brandes2011more] presented a general method of doing this in the context of majorization, by interpolating between two stress summations representing general and constrained weights separately.
For SGD, emphasizing specific distances is as simple as weighting the corresponding constraints more heavily. For example to focus on vertex $3$, we simply set the relevant weights to infinity $$w_{ij} \leftarrow \infty \quad \text{if}\ i=3\ \text{or}\ j=3.
$$ This causes only the remaining constraints to decay, but the system still converges in this case as there are no conflicts between the ones emphasized. Setting weights to infinity when using majorization results in the algorithm becoming instantly very stuck, which is why the more complicated interpolation [@brandes2011more] is necessary.
These emphasized distances can also be modified from their graph-theoretic values if a specific separation is desired, for example to constrain in a circle using the distances introduced by Dwyer [@dwyer2009scalable]. Additional constraints such as directed edges or non-overlap boundaries [@dwyer2009scalable] can also be added just as easily by changing the objective function as desired.
Color and Interactivity
-----------------------
Highly connected and small-world graphs such as social networks can often produce dense, entangled layouts colloquially termed ‘hairballs’. In this case, it is often useful to try to uncover some other form of information, such as revealing clusters of similar vertices. Since color is simply a linear mix of red, green, and blue (RGB), it can be used as a three-dimensional space in which Euclidean distances can be embedded, where each color corresponds to a separate axis. Figure \[jaccard\] shows an example of vertices colored by their Jaccard similarity index, defined as $$d_{ij} = 1 - \frac{|N(i) \cap N(j)|}{|N(i) \cup N(j)|}$$ where $N(i)$ are the neighbors of vertex $i$. Since $d_{ij}$ is bounded between 0 and 1, embedded distances fit perfectly within the similarly bounded axes of color. This means that vertices not only have coordinates within normal Euclidean space, but also within RGB space.
![ Co-appearances of characters in Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. Groups of similarly colored vertices indicate clustering based on Jaccard similarity. []{data-label="jaccard"}](lesmis.png){height=".85\linewidth"}
This process can help to reveal groupings, but can also produce ambiguity when applied to larger graphs due to the lack of distinct color combinations, again a problem caused by a lack of output dimensions. One possibility in this case would be to use an interactive form of visualization in which the user selects a smaller group of vertices at a time, and the algorithm embeds only their selection in an RGB space, by considering dissimilarities only between selected vertices.
Interaction could also allow the user to manually adjust the step size $\eta$ from Equation (\[SGD step\]), allowing them to ‘shake’ the graph out of local minima themselves. The step size annealing from Section \[cooling\] is the most ad hoc and data-dependent component of SGD so handing control over to the user can be useful, especially in dynamical situations where the structure of the graph changes with time. Additionally, if frame rate becomes an issue in an interactive setting, the application does not have to wait until the end of an entire iteration before rendering an updated layout because vertices are continually being moved, keeping the user interface smooth and responsive.
Large Graphs {#sparse}
------------
To understand how many layout algorithms tackle scaling to larger graphs, it is convenient to rewrite Equation (\[stress\]) by splitting the summation into two parts: paths that traverse one edge, and paths that traverse multiple. With $\sigma_{ij} = (||\mathbf{X}_i - \mathbf{X}_j|| - d_{ij})^2$ this is $$\label{split stress}
\text{stress}(\mathbf{X}) = \sum_{\{i,j\}\in E}w_{ij}\sigma_{ij}\\
+ \sum_{\{i,j\}\notin E}w_{ij}\sigma_{ij}$$ where $E$ is the set of edges in the graph. Just considering the preprocessing stage for now, it is clear that we can easily compute $d$ and $w$ for the first half of the summation directly from the graph. Real-world graphs are also usually sparse, so for a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, $m \ll n^2$ making the space required to store these values tolerable. However the second half is not so easy—an all-pairs shortest paths (APSP) calculation takes $O(m + n)$ time per vertex for an unweighted graph with a breadth-first search, or $O(m + n\log n)$ for a weighted graph using Dijkstra’s algorithm [@cormen2009introduction]. Combined with requiring $O(n^2)$ space to store all the values of $d_{ij}$, this makes the preprocessing stage alone intractable for large graphs.
The second stage is iteration, where the layout is gradually improved towards a good minimum. Again, computing the first summation is tolerable, but the number of longer distance contributions quickly grows out of control. Many notable attempts have been made at tackling this second half. A common approach is to ignore $d_{ij}$, and to approximate the summation as an $n$-body repulsion problem, which can be efficiently well approximated using $k$-d trees [@barnes1986hierarchical]. Hu [@hu2005efficient] and independently Hachul and Jünger [@hachul2004drawing] used this in the context of the force-directed model of Fruchterman and Reingold [@fruchterman1991graph], along with a multilevel coarsening scheme to avoid local minima. Gansner et al. [@gansner2013maxent] use it with majorization by summing over $-\alpha \log||X_i - X_j||$ instead. Brandes and Pich [@brandes2006eigensolver] even ignore the second half completely and capture the long-range structure by first initializing with a fast approximation to *classical scaling* [@brandes2008experimental], which minimizes the inner product rather than Euclidean distance.
There are a couple of issues with this idea, one being that treating all long-range forces equally is unfaithful to graph-theoretic distances, and another being that the relative strength of these forces depends on an extra parameter that can strongly affect the final layout of the graph [@hu2005efficient]. Keeping these dependent on their graph-theoretic distance sidesteps both of these issues, but brings back the problem of computing and storing shortest paths. One approach to maintaining this dependence comes from Khoury et al. [@khoury2012drawing], who use a low-rank approximation of the distance matrix based on its singular value decomposition. This can work extremely well, but still requires APSP unless $w_{ij} = d_{ij}^{-1}$.
[latex@errorgobble]{}
### Sparse Approximation {#sparseexplanation}
The approach we use is that of Ortmann et al. [@ortmann2016sparse], who pick a set of pivots whose shortest paths are used as an approximation for the shortest paths of vertices close to them. Since this approach actually reduces the number of terms in the summation, using it in the context of SGD also reduces the amount of work per iteration.
To approximate the full model well it is important to choose pivots that are well distributed over the graph, and in their original paper Ortmann et al. [@ortmann2016sparse] present an experimental evaluation of various methods for doing so. Our implementation uses *max/min random sp* to select pivots. Non-random *max/min sp* starts by picking one or more pivots and computing their shortest paths to all other vertices, with subsequent pivots chosen by picking the vertex with the maximum shortest path to any pivot chosen so far [@de2004sparse]. The random extension instead samples for subsequent pivots with a probability proportional to this shortest path to any pivot, rather than simply always picking the maximum.
These pivots $p\in P$ are then each assigned a region $R(p)$, which is the set of vertices closer to that pivot than any other. The relevant weights $w_{ip}$ are then adapted depending on the composition of the region, resulting in a new decomposed second half of the summation $$\label{pivot stress}
\begin{split}
\text{stress}(\mathbf{X}) = \sum_{\{i,j\}\in E}w_{ij}\sigma_{ij}
+ \sum_{i\in V}\sum_{p\in P\setminus N(i)}w_{ip}'\sigma_{ij}
\end{split}$$ where $N(i)$ are the neighbors of $i$ to prevent overlap with any edges in the first summation. The adapted weight $w_{ip}'$ is then set to $s_{ip} w_{ip}$, where $s_{ip}$ is the number of vertices in $R(p)$ at least as close to $p$ as to $i$: $$\label{s}
s_{ip}=|\{j\in R(p): d_{jp} \leq d_{ip}/2\}|$$ The reason the weight on vertex $i$ is increased like this is because its contribution acts as an approximation for the stress to all vertices in $R(p)$, and (\[s\]) is required to prevent the weight on closer vertices from being overestimated. It is important to note that if both vertices $p$ and $q$ are pivots then $w_{pq}'$ may not equal $w_{qp}'$ and if only $p$ is a pivot then $w_{pq}'=0$ as $q$ should not contribute to the position of $p$. Resulting layouts are presented in Figures \[pivots\] and \[showcase\], and pseudocode can be seen in Algorithm \[sparse pseudo\] (Figure \[algorithm2\]).
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Discussion
==========
One of the major reasons why previous force-directed algorithms, such as in [@fruchterman1991graph; @kamada1989algorithm; @dwyer2009scalable], have become popular is how simple and intuitive the concept is. The idea of a physical system pushing and pulling vertices, modeled as sets of springs and electrical forces, makes them easy to understand and quick to implement for practical use.
The geometric interpretation of the SGD algorithm we have presented shares these qualities, as the concept of moving pairs of vertices one by one towards an ideal distance is just as simple. In fact the stress formulation (\[stress\]) is commonly known as the spring model [@kamada1989algorithm; @hu2005efficient], and the physical analogy of decompressing one spring at a time very naturally fits this intuition. The implementation also requires no equation solver, and there is no need to consider smart initialization, which can often be just as complex a task [@brandes2008experimental]. Considering only a single pair of vertices at a time also makes further constrained layouts easy to implement, and allows an appropriate sparse approximation to grant scalability up to large graphs.
But perhaps the most important benefit of SGD is its consistency regardless of initialization, despite being non-deterministic due to the shuffling of the order of terms. By contrast, the plots in Section \[results\] clearly show how vastly the results from majorization can differ depending on initialization, especially when restricted to a limited number of iterations. This reliability of SGD can be crucial for real-time applications with fixed limits on computation time, such as within an interactive visualization.
However there are still situations where SGD can struggle with local minima, such as `dwt_2680` which is susceptible to twisting in the middle. This can be seen in Figure \[appendix\] where we purposefully included a twisted layout to illustrate this pitfall. A potential solution to this is overshooting, or in other words allowing values of $0 < \mu < 2$ in Equation (\[mu\]). This greatly reduces the chance of a twist, but results in poorer local minima in most other cases and can also bring back the problem of divergence, so is a potential avenue for future work, perhaps to be used in conjunction with an adaptive annealing schedule to further optimize performance depending on the input data.
Conclusion
----------
In this paper we have presented a modified version of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to minimize stress as defined by Equation (\[stress\]). An investigation comparing the method to majorization shows consistently faster convergence to lower stress levels, and the fact that only a single pair of vertices is considered at a time makes it well suited for variants such as constrained layout or the pivot-based approximation of Ortmann et al. [@ortmann2016sparse]. This improved performance—combined with a simplicity that forgoes an equation solver or smart initialization—makes SGD a strong candidate for general graph layout applications.
Code used for timing experiments, along with some example Jupyter notebooks, is open source and available at [www.github.com/jxz12/s\_gd2](www.github.com/jxz12/s_gd2).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We thank Tim Davis and Yifan Hu for maintaining the SuiteSparse Matrix Collection [@davis2011university], where most of the graph data used in this paper was obtained. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to improve the paper.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Jonathan X. Zheng]{} (corresponding author) is a PhD student in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London. His interests lie in the visualization of complex networks, along with its application to serious games to crowdsource research through public engagement. Zheng received his MEng in Electronic Information Engineering from Imperial College London.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Samraat Pawar]{} is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London. His main research interests are in computational and theoretical biology, with particular focus on the dynamics of complex ecosystems and underlying interaction networks. Pawar received his PhD in Biology from the University of Texas at Austin.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Dan F. M. Goodman]{} is a Lecturer in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London. His main research interests are in computational neuroscience, and he is also interested in studying dynamically evolving network structures such as ecosystems. Goodman received his PhD in Mathematics from the University of Warwick.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Bayesian approaches have become increasingly popular in causal inference problems due to their conceptual simplicity, excellent performance and in-built uncertainty quantification (‘posterior credible sets’). We investigate Bayesian inference for average treatment effects from observational data, which is a challenging problem due to the missing counterfactuals and selection bias. Working in the standard potential outcomes framework, we propose a data-driven modification to an arbitrary (nonparametric) prior based on the propensity score that corrects for the first-order posterior bias, thereby improving performance. We illustrate our method for Gaussian process (GP) priors using (semi-)synthetic data. Our experiments demonstrate significant improvement in both estimation accuracy and uncertainty quantification compared to the unmodified GP, rendering our approach highly competitive with the state-of-the-art.'
author:
- |
Kolyan Ray\
Department of Mathematics\
King’s College London\
`[email protected]` Botond Szabó\
Mathematical Institute\
Leiden University\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Debiased Bayesian inference for average treatment effects
---
Introduction
============
Inferring the causal effect of a treatment or condition is an important problem in many applications, such as healthcare [@futoma2017; @hill2013; @urteaga2017], education [@kern2016], economics [@heckman1998], marketing [@brodersen2015] and survey sampling [@green2012] amongst others. While carefully designed experiments are the gold standard for measuring causal effects, these are often impractical due to ethical, financial or time-constraints. For example, when evaluating the effectiveness of a new medicine it may not be ethically feasible to randomly assign a patient to a particular treatment irrespective of their particular circumstances. An alternative is to use *observational data* which, while typically much easier to obtain, requires careful analysis.
A common framework for causal inference is the *potential outcomes* setup [@imbens2015], where every individual possesses two ‘potential outcomes’ corresponding to the individual’s outcomes with and without treatment. For every subject in the observation cohort we thus observe only one of these two outcomes and not the ‘missing’ *counterfactual* outcome, without which we cannot observe the true treatment effect. This problem differs from standard supervised learning in that we must thus account for the missing counterfactuals, which is the well-known missing data problem in causal inference.
A further complication is that in practice, particularly in observational studies, individuals are often assigned treatments in a biased manner [@stuart2010] so that a simple comparison of the two groups may be misleading. A common way to deal with selection bias is to measure features, called *confounders*, that are believed to influence both the treatment assignment and outcomes. The discrepancy in feature distributions for the treated and control subject groups can be expressed via the *propensity score*, which is then used to apply a correction to the estimate. Under the assumption of *unconfoundedness*, namely that the treatment assignment and outcome are conditionally independent given the features, one can then identify the causal effect. Widely used methods include propensity score matching [@rosenbaum1983; @rubin1978; @stuart2010] and double robust methods [@athey2017; @robins1995; @rotnitzky1995].
In recent years, Bayesian methods have become increasingly popular for causal inference due to their excellent performance, for example Gaussian processes [@alaa2018; @alaa2017; @alaa2017b; @antonelli2018; @futoma2017; @mueller2017; @urteaga2017] and BART [@green2012; @hahn2017; @hill2013; @hill2011; @kern2016; @sivaganesan2017] amongst other priors [@brodersen2015]. Apart from excellent estimation precision, advantages of the Bayesian approach are its conceptual simplicity, ability to incorporate prior knowledge and access to uncertainty quantification via posterior credible sets.
In this work we are interested in Bayesian inference for the *(population) average treatment effect* (ATE) of a causal intervention, which is relevant when policy makers are interested in evaluating whether to apply a single intervention to the entire population. This may be the case when one no longer observes feature measurements of new individuals outside the dataset. This problem is an example of estimating a one-dimensional functional (the ATE) of a complex Bayesian model (the full response surface). In such situations, the induced marginal posterior for the functional can often contain a significant bias in its centering, leading to poor estimation and uncertainty quantification [@castillo2012; @castillo2015; @rivoirard2012]. This is indeed the case in our setting, where it is known that a naive choice of prior can yield badly biased inference for the ATE in casual inference/missing data problems [@hahn2016; @ritov2014; @robins1997]. For instance, Gaussian process (GP) priors will typically not be correctly centered, see Figure \[fig:ATE\_post\] below. Correcting for this is a delicate issue since even when the prior is perfectly calibrated (i.e. all tuning parameters are set optimally to recover the treatment response surface), the posterior can still induce a large bias in the marginal posterior for the ATE [@ray2018].
Our main contribution is to propose a data-driven modification to an arbitrary nonparametric prior based on the estimated propensity score that corrects for the first-order posterior bias for the ATE. By correctly centering the posterior for the ATE, this improves performance for both estimation accuracy and uncertainty quantification. We numerically illustrate our method on simulated and semi-synthetic data using GP priors, where our prior correction corresponds to a simple data-driven alteration to the covariance kernel. Our experiments demonstrate significant improvement in performance from this debiasing. This method should be viewed as a way to increase the efficiency of a given Bayesian prior, selected for modelling or computational reasons, when estimating the ATE.
Our method provides the same benefits for inference on the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). We further show that randomization of the feature distribution is not necessary for accurate uncertainty quantification for the CATE, but is helpful for the ATE. Since this approach provides similar estimation accuracy irrespective of whether the feature distribution is randomized, this highlights that care must be taken when using finer properties of the posterior, such as uncertainty quantification.
*Organization*: in Section \[sec:problem\] we present the causal inference problem, in Section \[sec:main\_results\] our main idea for debiasing an arbitrary Bayesian prior, with the specific case of GPs treated in Section \[sec:GP\]. Simulations and further discussion are in Sections \[sec:simulations\] and \[sec:discussion\], respectively. Additional technical details, some motivation based on semiparametric statistics and further simulation results are in the supplement.
Problem setup {#sec:problem}
=============
Consider the situation where a binary treatment with heterogeneous treatment effects is applied to a population. Working in the *potential outcomes* setup [@imbens2015], every individual $i$ possesses a $d$-dimensional feature $X_i \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and two ‘potential outcomes’ $Y_i^{(1)}$ and $Y_i^{(0)}$, corresponding to the individual’s outcomes with and without treatment, respectively. We wish to make inference on the treatment effect $Y_i^{(1)}-Y_i^{(0)}$, but since we only observe one out of each pair of outcomes, and not the corresponding (missing) *counterfactual* outcome, we do not directly observe samples of the treatment effect. In this paper we are interested in estimating the *average treatment effect* (ATE) $\psi = E[Y^{(1)} - Y^{(0)}]$.
For $R_i\in \{0,1\}$ the treatment assignment indicator, we observe outcome $Y_i^{(R_i)}$, which can also be expressed as observing $Y = R_iY^{(1)} + (1-R_i)Y^{(0)}$. The treatment assignment policy generally depends on the features $X_i$ and is expressed by the conditional probability $\pi(x) = P(R=1|X=x)$ called the *propensity score* (PS). We assume *unconfoundedness*, namely $Y_i^{(1)},Y_i^{(0)} {\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}R_i|X_i$ for all $X_i\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, which is a standard assumption in the potential outcomes framework [@imbens2015]. Unconfoundedness (or *strong ignorability*) says that the outcomes $Y_i^{(1)},Y_i^{(0)}$ are independent of the treatment assignment $R_i$ given the measured features $X_i$, i.e. any dependence can be fully explained through $X_i$. Without such an assumption the ATE is typically not even identifiable [@rosenbaum1983].
We work in the standard nonparametric regression framework for causal inference with mean-zero additive errors [@alaa2017; @hahn2016; @hahn2017; @hill2011; @mueller2017] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{model}
Y_i = m(X_i,R_i)+ {\varepsilon}_i,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}_i \sim^{iid} N(0,\sigma_n^2)$, $R_i \in \{0,1\}$ is the indicator variable for whether treatment is applied and $X_i \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ represents measured feature information about individual $i$. We assume the general feature information is unbiased $X_i \sim^{iid} F$, but the treatment assignment $\pi(x) = P(R=1|X=x)$ may be heavily biased. Our goal is to estimate the *average treatment effect* (ATE) $$\label{ATE}
\begin{split}
\psi = E[Y^{(1)} - Y^{(0)}] & = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} E[Y|R=1,X=x] - E[Y|R=0,X=x] dF(x)\\
& = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} m(x,1) - m(x,0) dF(x)
\end{split}$$ based on an observational dataset ${\mathcal{D}}_n$ consisting of $n$ i.i.d. samples of the triplet $(X_i,R_i,Y_i)$. A related quantity is the *conditional average treatment effect* (CATE) $$\label{CATE}
\psi_c = \psi_c(X_1,\dots,X_n) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n E[Y_i^{(1)}-Y_i^{(0)}|X_i] = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n m(X_i,1)- m(X_i,0),$$ which represents the average treatment effect over the measured individuals. Compared to the ATE, this quantity ignores the randomness in the feature data, replacing the true population feature distribution $F$ in the definition of $\psi$ with its empirical counterpart $n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{X_i}$ with $\delta_x$ the Dirac measure (point mass) at $x$.
Bayesian causal inference for average treatment effects {#sec:main_results}
=======================================================
We fit a nonparametric prior to the model $(F,\pi,m)$ and consider the ATE $\psi$ as a functional of these three components, studying the one-dimensional marginal posterior for $\psi$ induced by the full nonparametric posterior. More concretely, one can sample from the marginal posterior for $\psi$ by drawing a full posterior sample $(F,\pi,m)$ and computing the corresponding draw $\psi$ according to the formula . Note that this yields the full posterior for the ATE $\psi$, which is much more informative than simply the posterior mean, for instance also providing credible intervals for $\psi$. This is the natural Bayesian approach to modelling $\psi$ and it is indeed typically necessary to fully model $(F,\pi,m)$ rather than $\psi$ directly when considering heterogeneous treatment effects.
Assuming the distribution $F$ has a density $f$, the likelihood for data $\mathcal{D}_n$ arising from model is $$\prod_{i=1}^n f(X_i) \pi(X_i)^{R_i} (1-\pi(X_i))^{1-R_i}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_n} e^{-\tfrac{1}{2\sigma_n^2}R_i(Y_i - m(X_i,1))^2 - \tfrac{1}{2\sigma_n^2}(1-R_i)(Y_i-m(X_i,0))^2}.$$ Since this factorizes in the model parameters $(f,\pi,m)$, placing a product prior on these three parameters yields a product posterior, i.e. $f$, $\pi$, $m$ are (conditionally) independent under the posterior. As this is particularly computationally efficient, we pursue this approach. In this case, since $\pi$ does not appear in the ATE $\psi$, the $\pi$ terms will cancel from the marginal posterior for $\psi$ and the prior on $\pi$ is irrelevant for estimating the ATE. We thus need not specify the $\pi$ component of the prior. These properties hold even when $F$ has no density and so a likelihood cannot be defined, see the supplement.
A Bayesian will typically endow the response surface $m$ with a nonparametric prior for either modelling or computational reasons. As already mentioned, the induced marginal posterior for $\psi$ will then often have a significant bias term in its centering, see Figure \[fig:ATE\_post\] for an example arising from a standard GP prior. Our main idea is to augment a given Bayesian prior for $m$ by efficiently using an estimate $\hat{\pi}$ of the PS, since it is well-known that using PS information can improve estimation of the ATE [@rosenbaum1983]. We model $(F,m)$ using the following prior: $$\label{prior}
m(x,r) = W(x,r) + \nu_n \lambda \left( \frac{r}{\hat{\pi}(x)} - \frac{1-r}{1-\hat{\pi}(x)} \right),\qquad \quad F\sim DP,$$ where $W:{\mathbb{R}}^d \times \{0,1\} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a stochastic process, $DP$ denotes the Dirichlet process with a finite base measure [@vandervaartbook2017], $\nu_n >0$ is a scaling parameter and $\lambda$ is a real-valued random variable, with $W,F,\lambda$ independent. Estimating the PS is a standard binary classification problem and one can use any suitable estimator $\hat{\pi}$, from logistic regression to more advanced machine learning methods. It may be practically advantageous to truncate the estimator $\hat{\pi}$ away from 0 and 1 for numerical stability. For estimating the CATE, we propose the same prior but with the Dirichlet process prior for $F$ replaced by a plug-in estimate consisting of the empirical distribution $F_n = n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{X_i}$.
The prior increases/decreases the prior correlation within/across treatment groups in a heterogeneous manner compared to the unmodified prior ($\nu_n = 0$). For example, in regions with few observations in the treatment group (small $\pi(x)$), significantly increases the prior correlation with other treated individuals, thereby borrowing more information across individuals to account for the lack of data. Conversely, in observation rich areas (large $\pi(x)$), borrows less information, instead using the (relatively) numerous local observations.
Using an unmodified prior ($\nu_n =0$), the posterior will make a bias-variance tradeoff aimed at estimating the full regression function $m$ rather than the smooth one-dimensional functional $\psi$. In particular, the bias for the ATE $\psi$ will dominate, leading to poor estimation and uncertainty quantification unless the true $m$ and $f=F'$ are especially easy to estimate. The idea behind the prior is to use a data-driven correction to (first-order) debias the resulting marginal posterior for $\psi$. The quantity $r/\pi(x) - (1-r)/(1-\pi(x))$ corresponds in a specific technical sense to the ‘derivative’ of the ATE $\psi$ with respect to the model , the so-called ‘least favorable direction’ of $\psi$. Heuristically, Taylor expanding $\psi|{\mathcal{D}}_n - \psi_0$, where $\psi|{\mathcal{D}}_n$ and $\psi_0$ are the posterior and ‘true’ ATE, the hyperparameter $\lambda$ is introduced to help the posterior remove the first-order (bias) term in this expansion, see Figure \[fig:ATE\_post\] for an illustration. Since the true $\pi$ is unknown, the natural approach is to replace it with an estimator $\hat{\pi}$. A more technical explanation can be found in the supplement.
![Plot of marginal posterior distributions for the ATE with true ATE (red), histogram of 10,000 posterior draws (blue), posterior mean (solid black), 90% credible interval (dotted black) and best fitting Gaussian distribution (orange). Data arises from the synthetic simulation (HOM) in Section \[sec:simulations\] with $n=500$ and Gaussian process prior described in Section \[sec:GP\]. Left/right: without/with bias correction. Note the incorrect centering on the left-hand side.[]{data-label="fig:ATE_post"}](GP.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Plot of marginal posterior distributions for the ATE with true ATE (red), histogram of 10,000 posterior draws (blue), posterior mean (solid black), 90% credible interval (dotted black) and best fitting Gaussian distribution (orange). Data arises from the synthetic simulation (HOM) in Section \[sec:simulations\] with $n=500$ and Gaussian process prior described in Section \[sec:GP\]. Left/right: without/with bias correction. Note the incorrect centering on the left-hand side.[]{data-label="fig:ATE_post"}](GP_PS.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Such a bias correction will help most when $(F,m)$ are difficult to estimate, for instance in high-dimensional feature settings. Higher-order bias corrections have also been considered using estimating equations [@robins2008; @robins2017], but it is unclear how to extend this to the Bayesian setting. A similar idea has been investigated theoretically in [@ray2018], where it is shown that in a related idealized model, priors correctly calibrated to the unknown true functions (i.e. non-adaptive) satisfy a semiparametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem, i.e. the marginal posterior for the ATE is asymptotically normal with optimal variance in the large data setting. Figure \[fig:ATE\_post\] suggests the shape also holds in the present setting.
A good choice of prior for $W$ is still essential, since poor modelling of $m$ can also induce bias. In particular, $\nu_n$ should be picked so that the second term in is of smaller order than $W$ in order to have relatively little effect on the full posterior for $m$. If the Bernstein-von Mises theorem holds, the marginal posterior for $\psi$ fluctuates on a $1/\sqrt{n}$ scale (see [@ray2018] for a related model), which suggests taking $\nu_n \sim 1/\sqrt{n}$. On this scale the bias correction is sufficiently large to meaningfully affect the marginal posterior, but not so large as to dominate. Simulations indicate that taking $\nu_n$ significantly larger than this can cause the bias correction to dominate in small data situations, reducing performance. In a data-rich situation, larger values of $\nu_n$ are also admissible since the posterior can calibrate the value of $\lambda$ based on the data. Thus correct calibration of $\nu_n$ is mainly important for small or moderate sample performance, see Section \[sec:GP\].
One can also take a fully Bayesian approach by placing a prior on $\pi$ in . While such an approach may be philosophically appealing, it can cause computational difficulties since the priors for $(\pi,m)$, and hence also the corresponding posteriors, are no longer independent. For Gaussian processes (GPs), considered in detail in Section \[sec:GP\], one can then only sample from the fully Bayesian posterior using a Metropolis-Hastings-within-Gibbs-sampling algorithm, which is far slower in practice. In contrast, the ‘empirical Bayes’ approach we advocate in maintains this independence and is thus computationally more efficient, e.g. in the GP case, the resulting prior for $m$ remains a GP.
It is known that for estimating a smooth one-dimensional functional of a nonparametric model, selecting an undersmoothing prior can be advantageous [@castillo2015]. As well as being computationally efficient due to conjugacy, the choice of Dirichlet process for $F$ is thus also theoretically motivated, since it can be viewed as a considerable undersmoothing ($f=F'$ does not even exist as $F$ is a discrete probability measure with prior probability one).
One can also directly plug-in an estimator $F_n$ of $F$ in , such as the empirical distribution, and randomize only $m$ from its posterior. This provides an estimate of both the ATE and CATE , but is only suitable for uncertainty quantification regarding the CATE. Not randomizing $F$ causes the posterior to ignore the uncertainty in the features, leading to an underestimation of the variance for $\psi$. The resulting credible intervals will then be too narrow, giving wrong uncertainty quantification as we see in the supplementary material. The message here is that even when different (empirical) Bayes methods give equally good estimation, as these two do, one must be careful about assuming that finer aspects of the posteriors behave similarly well, for example uncertainty quantification.
In summary, we view the prior modification as a way to increase the efficiency of a given Bayesian prior for estimating the ATE and CATE.
A related approach is Bayesian Causal Forests (BCF) [@hahn2017], where the estimated PS is directly added as an additional input feature to a BART model, yielding better performance. This approach is designed to improve nonparametric estimation of the *entire* response surface (i.e. the heterogeneous treatment effects themselves), which will also lead to some improvement when estimating the ATE. However, it is known that even when the prior is perfectly calibrated (i.e. all tuning parameters are set optimally) and recovers the entire response surface at the optimal rate, the posterior can still induce a bias in the *marginal posterior* for the ATE $\psi$ that prevents efficient estimation and destroys uncertainty quantification (see e.g. [@ray2018]).
As discussed above, the specific form in which we include the PS in our prior is very deliberate, being motivated by semiparametric statistical theory and specifically designed for estimating the ATE. When either the PS or response surface are especially difficult to estimate, we expect that incorporating the PS as a feature as in BCF will still induce a bias for the ATE (the theory in [@ray2018] predicts this). We emphasize, however, that the main goal of BCF is to estimate the *entire* response surface, which is a different problem to estimating the ATE we consider here. An alternative Bayesian approach to estimating the ATE is to reparametrize the model to force $\pi$ into the likelihood [@hahn2016; @ritov2014].
Gaussian process priors {#sec:GP}
=======================
In recent years, Gaussian process (GP) priors have found especial uptake in causal inference problems [@alaa2018; @alaa2017; @alaa2017b; @antonelli2018; @mueller2017], for example in healthcare [@futoma2017; @urteaga2017]. We therefore concretely illustrate the prior for $W$ a mean-zero GP with covariance kernel $K$, $\lambda \sim N(0,1)$ independent and scaling parameter $\nu_n>0$ to be defined below. Under the prior , $m$ is again a mean-zero GP with data-driven covariance kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GP_cov}
Em(x,r)m(x',r') = K ((x,r),(x',r')) + \nu_n^2 \left( \frac{r}{\hat{\pi}(x)} - \frac{1-r}{1-\hat{\pi}(x)} \right) \left( \frac{r'}{\hat{\pi}(x')} - \frac{1-r'}{1-\hat{\pi}(x')} \right).\end{aligned}$$ For GPs, our debiasing corresponds to a simple and easy to implement modification to the covariance kernel. One should use the original covariance kernel $K$ that was considered suitable for estimating $m$ (e.g. squared exponential, Matérn), since accurately modelling the regression surface is also necessary.
For our simulations in Section \[sec:simulations\], we compute $\hat{\pi}$ using logistic regression based on the same data, truncating our estimator to $[0.1,0.9]$ for numerical stability in . We take $K$ equal to the *squared exponential* kernel (also called *radial basis function*) with automatic relevance determination (ARD), $$K((x,r),(x'r')) = \rho_m^2 \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^d \frac{(x_i-x_i')^2}{\ell_i^2} \right) \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(r-r')^2}{\ell_{d+1}^2} \right)$$ with $(\ell_i)_{i=1}^{d+1}$ the length scale parameters and $\rho_m^2>0$ the kernel variance [@rasmussen2006]. The data-driven length scales $\ell_i$ can be interpreted as the relevance of the $i^{th}$ feature to the regression surface $m$ and are particularly important for high-dimensional data, where some features may play little role. ARD has been used successfully for removing irrelevant inputs by several authors (see Chapter 5.1 [@rasmussen2006]) and can thus be viewed as a form of automatic (causal) feature selection. We optimize the hyperparameters $(\ell_i)_{i=1}^{d+1}$, $\rho_m$ and $\sigma_n$ (noise variance) by maximizing the marginal likelihood (using the scaled conjugate gradient method option in the GPy package). We set $\nu_n = 0.2 \rho_m/(\sqrt{n}M_n)$ for $M_n = n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n [R_i/\hat{\pi}(X_i) + (1-R_i)/(1-\hat{\pi}(X_i))]$ the average absolute value of the last part of . This places the second term in on the same scale as the original covariance kernel $K$.
We assign $F|\mathcal{D}_n$ the Bayesian bootstrap (BB) distribution [@vandervaartbook2017], namely a Dirichlet process with base measure equal to the rescaled empirical measure $\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{X_i}$ of the observations. When $n$ is moderate or large, the BB distribution will be very close to that of the true DP posterior. The advantage of the BB is that samples are particularly easy to generate: using that $F|\mathcal{D}_n$ can be represented as $\sum_{i=1}^n V_i \delta_{X_i}$ for $(V_1,\dots,V_n) \sim \text{Dir}(n;1,\dots,1)$ and that $m$ and $F$ are independent under the posterior, the posterior mean and draws for the ATE can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ATE_post_draw}
E[\psi|\mathcal{D}_n ] = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n E \left[ m(X_i,1)-m(X_i,0) | \mathcal{D}_n \right], \quad \psi|\mathcal{D}_n = \sum_{i=1}^n V_i \left( m(X_i,1)-m(X_i,0) \right),\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Using the representation $V_i = U_i /\sum_{j=1}^n U_j$ for $U_i \sim^{iid} \exp(1)$, sampling $(V_1,\dots,V_n)$ is particularly simple. One also needs to generate an $n$-dimensional multivariate Gaussian random variable $(m(X_i,1)-m(X_i,0))_{i=1}^n$, whose covariance can be directly obtained from the posterior GP process $(m(x,r):x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d,r\in\{0,1\}) |\mathcal{D}_n$ evaluated at the observations and their counterfactual values. This follows from the usual formula for the mean and covariance of a posterior GP in regression with Gaussian noise (Chapter 2.2 of [@rasmussen2006]) and the whole procedure is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:GP\_PS\][^1]. Using this scheme, we may sample directly from the marginal posterior for the ATE $\psi$.
To show the importance of randomizing $F$ for uncertainty quantification, we also consider the posterior where one plugs in the empirical measure $n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{X_i}$ for $F$ in . This yields the same posterior mean as in , while sampling $\psi|\mathcal{D}_n$ corresponds to the right-hand side of with $V_i$ replaced by $1/n$. We expect this to yield similar prediction to the posterior mean in but worse uncertainty quantification for the ATE (but not CATE). This is indeed what we see in the supplement.
Simulations {#sec:simulations}
===========
We numerically illustrate the improved performance of our debiased GP method (GP+PS) versus the original GP approach, both with (GP and GP+PS) and without randomization (GP (noRand) and GP + PS (noRand)) of the feature distribution $F$. The methods are implemented as described in Section \[sec:GP\]. Credible intervals are computed by sampling 2,000 posterior draws and taking the empirical 95% credible interval, see Figure \[fig:ATE\_post\]. We measure estimation accuracy via the absolute error between the posterior mean and true (C)ATE. We also report the average size and coverage of the resulting credible/confidence intervals (CI) and the Type II error, which measures the fraction of times the method does not identity a statistically significant (C)ATE.
We further compare their performance with standard state-of-art-methods for estimating the ATE and CATE, namely Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) [@chipman2010; @hill2011; @hahn2017] both with and without using the PS as a feature, Bayesian Causal Forests (BCF) [@hahn2017], Causal Forests (CF) with average inverse propensity weighting (AIPW) and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) [@wager2015], Propensity Score Matching (PSM) [@stuart2010], ordinary least squares (OLS), and Covariate Balancing (CB) with the standard inverse PS weights and weights computed by constrained minimization (CM) [@chan2016globally]. Details of these benchmarks are provided in the supplementary material. We ran all simulations 200 times and report average values.
**Synthetic dataset.** We consider two versions of synthetic data generated following the protocol used in [@li2017; @li2016; @sun2015causal]. We take sample sizes $n=500,1000$ and $d=100$ features $x_1,x_2,...,x_{100}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}N(0,1)$. The response surface and treatment assignments are defined via the following ten functions: $g_1(x)= x-0.5$, $g_2(x)=(x-0.5)^2+2$, $g_3(x)=x^2-1/3$, $g_4(x)=-2\sin(2x)$, $g_5(x)=e^{-x}-e^{-1}-1$, $g_6(x)=e^{-x}$, $g_7(x)=x^2$, $g_8(x)=x$, $g_9(x)=I_{x>0}$, $g_{10}(x)=\cos(x)$. A subject with features $x=(x_1,...,x_{100})$ is assigned (non-randomly) to the treatment group if $\sum_{k=1}^5 g_k(x_k)>0$ and otherwise to the control group. Given the features and treatment assignment, in case (HOM) the outcome $Y$ is generated as $Y|X=x,R=r \sim N(\sum_{k=1}^{5}g_{k+5}(x_k) +r,1)$, which models a homogeneous treatment effect. In case (HET), $Y$ is generated as $Y|X=x,R=r \sim N(\sum_{k=1}^{5}g_{k+5}(x_k) +r(1+2x_2x_5),1)$, which models heterogeneous treatment effects. In both cases, the first five features affect both the treatment and outcome, representing confounders, while the remaining 95 features are noise. The ATE is 1 in both cases. Some results are in Table \[table:Hetn1000\] with the remainder in the supplement.
Method Abs. error$\,\pm$sd Size CI$\pm$sd Coverage Type II error
---------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
GP $0.321\pm 0.027$ $ 0.613\pm0.027$ 0.38 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP (noRand) $0.321\pm 0.027$ $0.427\pm0.017$ 0.00 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS $\boldsymbol{0.063\pm0.042}$ $0.883\pm0.040$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS (noRand) $\boldsymbol{0.063\pm0.042}$ $0.766\pm0.037$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BART $0.225\pm 0.168$ $1.705\pm 0.474$ $0.99$ 0.47
BART (PS) $0.139\pm 0.096$ $0.747\pm0.080$ 0.98 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BCF $0.147\pm 0.105$ $0.529\pm0.063$ 0.83 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CF (AIPW) $0.138\pm 0.098$ $\boldsymbol{0.697\pm 0.103}$ 0.96 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CF (TMLE) $0.136\pm 0.100$ $0.891\pm0.152$ 0.99 $0.01$
OLS $0.715\pm 0.166$ $0.363\pm 0.035$ 0.00 0.24
CB (IPW) $0.607\pm0.332$ $ 1.504\pm0.425$ 0.71 0.01
PSM $0.218\pm0.173$ $ 1.281\pm0.165$ 0.97 0.06
: Results for synthetic dataset (HET) with $n=1000$.[]{data-label="table:Hetn1000"}
**IHDP dataset with simulated outcomes.** Since simulated covariates often do not accurately represent “real world” examples, we consider a semi-synthetic dataset with real features and treatment assignments from the Infant Health and Development Programn (IHDP), but simulated responses. The IHDP consisted of a randomized experiment studying whether low-birth-weight and premature infants benefited from intensive high-quality child care. The data contains $d=25$ pretreatment variables per subject. Following [@hill2011] (also used in [@alaa2017; @li2017]), an observational study is created by removing a non-random portion of the treatment group, namely all children with non-white mothers. This leaves a dataset of 747 subjects, with 139 in the treatment group and 608 in the control group.
We consider a slight modification of the non-linear “Response Surface B” of [@hill2011], taking $$Y^{(0)}|X=x \sim N(e^{(x+w)\beta},1)\quad\text{and}\quad Y^{(1)}|X =x \sim N(x^T\beta-\omega_\beta,1),$$ where $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ are the features, $w=(0.5,\dots,0.5)$ is an offset vector, $\beta$ is a vector of regression coefficients with each entry randomly sampled from $\{0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4\}$ with probabilities $(0.6,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1)$. For each simulation of $\beta$, $\omega_\beta$ is then selected so that the CATE equals 4. Here, we can only measure estimation quality of the CATE and not the ATE since the true feature distribution $F$ is unknown. Results are in Table \[table:IHDP\].
Method Abs. error$\,\pm$sd Size CI$\pm$sd Coverage Type II error
----------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
GP $0.246\pm0.398$ $ 1.383\pm1.458$ $0.95$ 0.01
GP (noRand) $0.246\pm0.398$ $ 1.096\pm1.305$ $0.89$ 0.01
GP + PS $0.189\pm0.234$ $ 1.445\pm1.013$ $0.97$ 0.01
GP +PS (noRand) $0.189\pm0.234$ $ 1.162\pm0.822$ $0.93$ 0.01
BART $0.256\pm 0.332$ $0.925\pm 0.707$ 0.87 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BART (PS) $0.249\pm 0.353$ $0.876\pm 0.644$ 0.87 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BCF $\boldsymbol{0.109\pm 0.106}$ $\boldsymbol{0.520\pm 0.126}$ 0.95 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CF (AIPW) $0.243\pm 0.265$ $1.030\pm 0.778$ 0.90 0.01
CF (TMLE) $0.244\pm 0.274$ $1.057\pm 0.782$ 0.90 0.01
OLS $0.134\pm0.112$ $0.801\pm 0.526$ $0.97$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CB (IPW) $0.238\pm 0.199$ $1.200\pm0.850 $ 0.90 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CB (CM) $0.138\pm 0.120$ $0.967\pm0.786 $ 0.94 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
PSM $0.133\pm0.105$ $ 2.002\pm1.681$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ 0.01
: Results for semi-synthetic IHDP dataset.[]{data-label="table:IHDP"}
Both of these simulations contain unbalanced treatment groups, with roughly 90% and 20% of subjects in the treatment group in the synthetic and IHDP simulations, respectively. Like PS reweighting-based methods, our bias corrected GP method is designed with problems satisfying the standard *overlap* assumption [@imbens2015] (namely $0<P(R=1|X=x)<1$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$) in mind. In the synthetic simulation the treatment assignment is fully deterministic so this condition is not satisfied; in particular the data generation process was not selected to favour our method.
**Results.** We see from Tables \[table:Hetn1000\] and \[table:IHDP\] that our methods (GP + PS and GP + PS (noRand)) substantially improve upon the performance of the vanilla GP methods (GP and GP (noRand)) \[also true in the additional simulations in the supplement\]. In both cases we obtain significantly improved estimation accuracy and uncertainty quantification. As an example of what can go wrong, in the synthetic simulation the absolute errors of the vanilla GP methods barely decrease as the sample size increases (Table \[table:Hetn1000\] and the supplementary tables) since the posterior for the ATE contains a non-vanishing bias. Moreover, since the posterior variance shrinks rapidly with the sample size (at rate $1/n$ for the ATE [@ray2018]), the posterior will concentrate tightly around the wrong value, giving poor uncertainty quantification that actually worsens with increasing data, see Figure \[fig:ATE\_post\] and Table \[table:Hetn1000\]. This is a typical aspect of causal inference problems with difficult to estimate PS and response surfaces, particularly in high feature dimensions. In contrast, our debiased method explicitly corrects for this bias at the expense of a (smaller) increase in variance, as can be seen from the average CI length. The substantially improved coverage from our method is the result of the debiasing rather than the increase in posterior variance.
Asymptotic theory predicts the frequentist coverage of our method should converge to exactly 0.95 as the sample size increases due to the semiparametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem [@ray2018]. However, it is a subtle question as to when the asymptotic regime applies and our examples seem insufficiently data rich for this to be the case (e.g. $d=100$ input features, but only $n=1000$ observations).
We see that our method makes the previously underperforming GP method highly competitive with state-of-the-art methods, even outperforming them in certain cases. In the synthetic simulation, our method performs best yielding substantially better estimation accuracy. It further provides reliable and informative uncertainty quantification, performing similarly to BART (PS), CF (AIPW) and CF (TMLE). On the IHDP dataset, our debiased methods outperform the widely used BART and CF for estimation accuracy, but BCF performs best. While OLS and CB (CM) also performed well here, we note that in the synthetic simulation, OLS performed especially badly while CB (CM) did not even run. Regarding uncertainty quantification, our method provides excellent coverage though larger CIs than BART (whose coverage is slightly lower), but BCF again performs best.
We lastly note that not randomizing the feature distribution (noRand) yields narrower CIs and lower coverage as expected. This does not make a substantial difference in Tables \[table:Hetn1000\] and \[table:IHDP\], but can have a significant impact, see the tables in the supplement. We recall that randomization is generally helpful for uncertainty quantification for the ATE, but is conservative for the CATE.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have introduced a general data-driven modification that can be applied to any given prior that corrects for first-order posterior bias when estimating (conditional) average treatment effects (ATEs) in a causal inference regression model. We illustrated this experimentally on both simulated and semi-synthetic data for the example of Gaussian process (GP) priors. We showed that by correctly incorporating an estimate of the propensity score into the covariance kernel, one can substantially improve the precision of both the posterior mean and posterior uncertainty quantification. In particular, this makes the modified GP method highly competitive with state-of-the-art methods.
There are many avenues for future work. First, GP methods scale poorly with data size and there has been extensive research on scalable alternatives, including sparse GP approximations, variational Bayes and distributed computing approaches. Since in the GP case our approach simply returns a GP with modified covariance kernel, all these existing methods should be directly applicable and can be investigated. Second, it would be particularly interesting to see if our prior correction can be efficiently implemented to improve the already excellent performance of BART and its derivatives in causal inference problems [@hahn2017; @hill2011]. Third, it is unclear if and how one can perform higher order bias corrections using Bayes for especially difficult problems as has been done using estimating equations [@robins2008; @robins2017].
**Acknowledgements**: Botond Szabó received funding from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under Project number: 639.031.654. We thank 3 reviewers for their useful comments that helped improve the presentation of this work.
Appendix A: A product prior leads to a product posterior {#appendix-a-a-product-prior-leads-to-a-product-posterior .unnumbered}
========================================================
Suppose that we place an independent prior on the three model parameters $F$, $\pi$ and $m$. Assuming the feature distribution $F$ has a density $f$, we recall that the likelihood for data $\mathcal{D}_n = \{(X_i,R_i,Y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ arising from model is $$\label{likelihood}
\prod_{i=1}^n f(X_i) \pi(X_i)^{R_i} (1-\pi(X_i))^{1-R_i}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_n} e^{-\tfrac{1}{2\sigma_n^2}R_i(Y_i - m(X_i,1))^2 - \tfrac{1}{2\sigma_n^2}(1-R_i)(Y_i-m(X_i,0))^2}.$$ Since this factorizes as $L_n^f L_n^\pi L_n^m$, where each term is a function of only $f$, $\pi$ and $m$, respectively, the posterior will again factorize so that $f$, $\pi$ and $m$ are also independent under the posterior (i.e. conditional on the data). We assign $F$ a Dirichlet process prior, which does not give probability one to a dominated set of measures, meaning that the posterior of $(F,\pi,m)$ cannot be derived using Bayes formula. Nonetheless, we can still obtain the form of the posterior, in particular establishing the posterior independence of the three parameters.
The following argument is found in Section 3 of [@ray2018] and we reproduce it for the convenience of the reader. It is well-known that in the model consisting of sampling $F$ from the Dirichlet process prior with base measure $\alpha$ and next sampling observations $X_1,\dots, X_n$ from $F$, the posterior of $F|X_1\dots,X_n$ is again a Dirichlet process with updated base measure $\alpha+nP_n$, where $P_n=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{X_i}$ is the empirical distribution of $X_1,\dots,X_n$ (see Chapter 4 of [@vandervaartbook2017] for further details). Let $Q$ denote the prior distribution of $(\pi,m)$. The parameters $(F,\pi,m)$ and data are generated via the hierarchical scheme:
- $F\sim DP (\alpha)$ and $(\pi,m) \sim Q$ independently.
- The features satisfy $X_1,\dots,X_n|(F,\pi,m) \sim^{iid} F$.
- $R_i |(F,\pi,m,X_1,\dots,X_n) \sim \text{Bin}(1,\pi(X_i))$ and $Y_i^{(t)} |(F,\pi,m,X_1,\dots,X_n) \sim N(m(X_i,t),\sigma_n^2)$, $t=0,1$, are (conditionally) independent.
- The observations are $\mathcal{D}_n = \{(X_1,R_1,Y_1),\dots,(X_n,R_n,Y_n)\}$ with $Y_i = R_iY_i^{(1)} + (1-R_i)Y_i^{(0)}$.
Using this scheme, we can observe that $F$ and $(R_1,\dots,R_n,Y_1,\dots,Y_n)$ are conditionally independent given $(\pi,m,X_1,\dots,X_n)$. Similarly, $F$ and $(\pi,m)$ are conditionally independent given $\mathcal{D}_n$. It thus follows that the posterior distribution of $F$ given $\mathcal{D}_n$ is identical to the posterior of $F$ given $X_1,\dots,X_n$, namely the $DP(\alpha+nP_n)$ distribution. Moreover, the posterior of $(\pi,m)$ given $(F,\mathcal{D}_n)$ can then be obtained using Bayes rule with the likelihood of $(R_1,\dots,R_n,Y_1,\dots,Y_n)$ given $X_1,\dots,X_n$, which is indeed dominated. Denoting the full prior by $\Pi$, this yields posterior distribution $$\Pi \left( (\pi,m) \in A, F\in B|\mathcal{D}_n\right) = \int_B \frac{\int_A L_n^\pi L_n^m d\Pi(\pi,m)}{\int L_n^\pi L_n^m d\Pi(\pi,m)} d\Pi(F|X_1,\dots,X_n),$$ where $L_n^\pi L_n^m$ is the likelihood with $f$ set to 1. Since the above integrals separate, the three parameters are independent under the posterior (since also $\pi$ and $m$ were assumed independent under the prior). The above formula also extends to the Bayesian bootstrap (BB), which has base measure $\alpha = 0$, which we consider in our simulations.
Appendix B: A technical motivation for the prior correction {#appendix-b-a-technical-motivation-for-the-prior-correction .unnumbered}
===========================================================
We provide a brief technical motivation for readers familiar with semiparametric estimation theory (see for example Chapter 25 of [@vandervaart1998]). Recall that we work in the nonparametric regression model: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{model}
Y_i = m(X_i,R_i)+ {\varepsilon}_i,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}_i \sim^{iid} N(0,\sigma_n^2)$, $R_i \in \{0,1\}$ and $X_i \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ represents measured feature information about individual $i$. We further assume that $X_i \sim^{iid} F$ and define the propensity score $\pi(x) = P(R=1|X=x)$. Our goal is to estimate the ATE $\psi = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} m(x,1) - m(x,0) dF(x)$.
We very briefly summarize some facts concerning the semiparametric estimation theory of the ATE $\psi$ in the model (see e.g. [@robins2017]). Let $\Psi(t) = 1/(1+e^{-t})$ denote the logistic function. Consider the one-dimensional submodels $t\mapsto (f_t,\pi_t,m_t)$ of defined via the paths $$\begin{aligned}
\label{paths}
f_t = f e^{t\phi - \log\int fe^{t\phi}}, \quad \pi_t = \Psi(\Psi^{-1}(\pi) + t\alpha), \quad m_t(x,r) = m(x,r) +t\gamma(x,r),\end{aligned}$$ for given ‘directions’ (functions) $(\phi,\alpha,\gamma)$ with $\int \phi f = 0$. Set $q_t = (f_t,\pi_t,m_t)$. The difficulty of estimating $\psi(q)$ in the one-dimensional submodel $\{q_t:t\in (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})\}$ depends on the functions $(\phi,\alpha,\gamma)$. This can be quantified via the best possible asymptotic variance achievable by any estimator when estimating $\psi(q)$ in this model, with larger such variance indicating a more difficult problem. The most difficult such submodel, if it exists, has the largest asymptotically optimal variance for estimating $\psi$ and the corresponding functions $(\phi,\alpha,\gamma)$ are called the ’least favourable direction’. In model this equals $$(\phi,\alpha,\gamma)= \left( m(X,1)-m(X,0) - \psi(q) ,0, \frac{R\sigma_n^2}{\pi(X)}- \frac{(1-R)\sigma_n^2}{1-\pi(X)} \right),$$ where one can see the third term mirrors our prior correction.
It is known from the Bayesian nonparametric asymptotics literature that a condition for the semiparametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem (Chapter 12 of [@vandervaartbook2017]) to hold, and hence for the marginal posterior for $\psi$ to be statistically optimal in a frequentist sense, is that the prior be invariant under a shift of the nonparametric component in the least favourable direction [@castillo2012b; @castillo2015]. The prior correction for our method, which takes the form of the (estimated) least favourable direction, exactly provides such an invariance by giving the prior an explicit component in this direction (otherwise the shift may be in some sense ‘orthogonal’ to the underlying prior). One can thus view the bias correction as an attempt to provide additional robustness against posterior inaccuracy in the ‘most difficult direction’, namely the one which will induce the largest bias in the ATE $\psi$. For a theoretical analysis of such an idea in a related idealized model, see [@ray2018].
Appendix C: Brief description of the benchmark methods {#appendix-c-brief-description-of-the-benchmark-methods .unnumbered}
======================================================
The BART method consists of two parts: a sum-of-trees model on the response surface and a prior distribution on the trees for regularization. One can use MCMC methods to compute summary statistics (e.g. point estimators, credible sets), which in practice provides a stable solution. For implementation we use the “bartCause” R package and consider two alternatives. First, we fit a BART model to both the treatment variable and response surface (we call the bartc() function with arguments method.rsp=“bart” and method.trt=“bart”). Second, we fit a BART to the response surface with the propensity score (estimated with logistic regression) included as a predictor, and use propensity score weighted averages of the treatment effect to estimate the ATE (we call the bartc() function with arguments method.rsp=“p.weight” and method.trt=“glm”).
In Bayesian Causal Forests (BCF) the estimated PS is added as an additional input feature to a BART model. In the implementation we use the “bcf” R package to estimate the ATE and call the bcf() function with $nsim=2000$ and $nburn=2000$. The propensity score is estimated via logistic regression using the $glm()$ function.
In the Causal Forest methods, we train a random forest to estimate the response surface and then estimate the ATE by using either average inverse propensity weighting (AIPW) or targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). In the implementation we use the “grf” R package and call the average\_treatment\_effect() function with arguments model=“AIPW” and model=“TMLE”, respectively.
In the propensity score matching algorithm, the PS $\pi(x)$ is first estimated, for instance by logistic regression, and then the samples in the treatment and control groups are matched based on the estimated PS. The key idea behind this approach is that“if a subclass of units or a matched treatment-control pair is homogeneous in $\pi(x)$, then the treated and control units in that subclass or matched pair will have the same distribution of $x$” [@rosenbaum1983], or in other words the treatment and control groups will be balanced in the covariates. Then the average treatment effect can be easily estimated using the matched pairs even in case of large dimensional feature spaces. To obtain balanced covariates, one typically has to use an iterative algorithm while assessing at each iteration the balance of the features in the control and treatment groups and correcting the propensity score estimates accordingly. In the implementation we use the “Matching” R package and call the Match() function with arguments estimand= “ATE”, $Z=x$ and $M=1$.
Ordinarily Least Squares estimator for ATE is the difference between the predicted value of the linear least squares estimators in the treatment and control groups. This is a simple, straightforward method which works well only for models close to linear.
In our analysis we consider two type of CB methods, one based on the standard inverse propensity score weighting and the other on the constrained optimization method. For the former one we used the “balanceHD” R package calling the ipw.ate() with arguments prop.method = “elnet”, fit.method = “none”, prop.weighted.fit = T and targeting.method = “AIPW”. For the second one we have applied the “ATE” R package and called the ATE() function.
Appendix D: Additional simulation results {#appendix-d-additional-simulation-results .unnumbered}
=========================================
We provide the remaining numerical results for the synthetic simulations with heterogeneous treatment effects ($n=500$) and homogeneous treatment effects ($n=500,1000$). Note that for $n=500$ (Tables \[table:het500\] and \[table:hom500\]) not randomizing the feature distribution $F$ (noRand) leads to a dramatic drop in coverage when using a vanilla GP to perform uncertainty quantification for the ATE.
Method Abs. error$\,\pm$sd Size CI$\pm$sd Coverage Type II error
---------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
GP $0.319\pm 0.042$ $ \boldsymbol{0.871\pm0.043}$ 0.98 $\boldsymbol{0.0}$
GP (noRand) $0.319\pm 0.042$ $0.606\pm0.029$ 0.36 $\boldsymbol{0.0}$
GP PS $\boldsymbol{0.106\pm0.081}$ $ 1.368\pm0.090$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS (noRand) $\boldsymbol{0.106\pm0.081}$ $ 1.218\pm0.086$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BART $0.703\pm 0.377$ $2.267\pm 0.596$ $0.98$ 0.9
BART (PS) $0.252\pm 0.195$ $1.225\pm0.149$ 0.95 $0.26$
BCF $0.230\pm 0.180$ $0.828\pm0.132$ 0.83 $0.06$
CF (AIPW) $0.185\pm 0.144$ $1.059\pm 0.200$ 0.98 $0.10$
CF (TMLE) $0.185\pm 0.144$ $1.223\pm0.262$ 0.99 $0.08$
OLS $0.452\pm 0.264$ $0.859\pm 0.115$ 0.48 0.27
CB (IPW) $0.434\pm 0.324$ $1.735\pm 0.457$ 0.93 0.10
PSM $0.309\pm0.237$ $ 1.741\pm0.244$ 0.98 0.28
: Results for synthetic dataset (HET) with $n=500$.[]{data-label="table:het500"}
Method Abs. error$\,\pm$sd Size CI$\pm$sd Coverage Type II error
---------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------
GP $0.314\pm 0.036$ $ 0.826\pm0.048$ 0.98 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP (noRand) $0.314\pm 0.036$ $ 0.575\pm0.034$ 0.29 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS $\boldsymbol{0.119\pm 0.095}$ $ 1.305\pm0.090$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS (noRand) $\boldsymbol{0.119\pm 0.095}$ $ 1.161\pm0.088$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BART $0.242\pm 0.179$ $1.794\pm 0.619$ $0.99$ 0.55
BART (PS) $0.129\pm 0.101$ $\boldsymbol{0.688\pm0.064}$ 0.97 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BCF $0.209\pm 0.298$ $0.657\pm0.140$ 0.825 $0.02$
CF (AIPW) $0.193\pm 0.154$ $0.895\pm 0.145$ 0.92 0.01
CF (TMLE) $0.191\pm 0.156$ $1.054\pm0.195$ 0.95 0.03
OLS $0.444\pm 0.229$ $0.816\pm 0.095$ 0.44 0.28
CB (IPW) $0.508\pm 0.273$ $1.434\pm0.248 $ 0.72 $0.03$
PSM $0.300\pm0.212$ $ 1.475\pm0.197$ 0.96 0.25
: Results for synthetic dataset (HOM) with $n=500$.[]{data-label="table:hom500"}
Method Abs. error$\,\pm$sd Size CI$\pm$sd Coverage Type II error
---------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------
GP $0.312\pm 0.025$ $ 0.584\pm0.022$ 0.23 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP (noRand) $0.312\pm 0.025$ $ 0.406\pm0.016$ 0.00 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS $\boldsymbol{0.057 \pm 0.042}$ $ 0.841\pm0.038$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
GP PS (noRand) $\boldsymbol{0.057 \pm 0.042}$ $ 0.726\pm0.035$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BART $0.155\pm 0.141$ $1.167\pm 0.424$ $\boldsymbol{1.00}$ 0.17
BART (PS) $0.060\pm 0.026$ $\boldsymbol{0.443\pm0.026}$ 0.97 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
BCF $0.100\pm 0.077$ $0.420\pm0.065$ 0.89 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CF (AIPW) $0.129\pm 0.096$ $0.591\pm 0.099$ 0.90 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
CF (TMLE) $0.126\pm 0.092$ $0.786\pm0.151$ 0.97 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
OLS $0.703\pm 0.152$ $0.351\pm 0.029$ 0.00 0.20
CB (IPW) $0.644\pm 0.283$ $1.181\pm0.515 $ 0.38 $\boldsymbol{0.00}$
PSM $0.221\pm0.170$ $ 1.103\pm0.113$ 0.95 0.01
: Results for synthetic dataset (HOM) with $n=1000$.[]{data-label="table:hom1000"}
[^1]: Lines 8-9 in Algorithm \[alg:GP\_PS\] are the usual predictive mean and covariance computations for a posterior GP. In particular, these can be more efficiently solved using for example Cholesky factorization, see Chapter 2.2 of [@rasmussen2006]. Similarly, $\boldsymbol{m}$ can be efficiently generated by once taking the Cholesky factor $L_\Sigma$ of $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$, generating $W \sim N_{2n}(0,I_{2n})$ and setting $\boldsymbol{m} = \boldsymbol{\mu} + L_\Sigma W$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Generally, the dynamics of test particles around galaxies, as well as the corresponding mass deficit, is explained by postulating the existence of a hypothetical dark matter. In fact, the behavior of the rotation curves shows the existence of a constant velocity region, near the baryonic matter distribution, followed by a quick decay at large distances. In this work, we consider the possibility that the behavior of the rotational velocities of test particles gravitating around galaxies can be explained within the framework of the recently proposed hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory. The latter is constructed by modifying the metric Einstein-Hilbert action with an $f(R)$ term in the Palatini formalism. It was shown that the theory unifies local constraints and the late-time cosmic acceleration, even if the scalar field is very light. In the intermediate galactic scale, we show explicitly that in the hybrid metric-Palatini model the tangential velocity can be explicitly obtained as a function of the scalar field of the equivalent scalar-tensor description. The model predictions are compared model with a small sample of rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies, respectively, and a good agreement between the theoretical rotation curves and the observational data is found. The possibility of constraining the form of the scalar field and the parameters of the model by using the stellar velocity dispersions is also analyzed. Furthermore, the Doppler velocity shifts are also obtained in terms of the scalar field. All the physical and geometrical quantities and the numerical parameters in the hybrid metric-Palatini model can be expressed in terms of observable/measurable parameters, such as the tangential velocity, the baryonic mass of the galaxy, the Doppler frequency shifts, and the stellar dispersion velocity, respectively. Therefore, the obtained results open the possibility of testing the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational models at the galactic or extra-galactic scale by using direct astronomical and astrophysical observations.\
\
[**Keywords**]{}: modified gravity: galactic rotation curves: dark matter:
author:
- 'Salvatore Capozziello$^{1.2}$'
- Tiberiu Harko$^3$
- 'Tomi S. Koivisto$^{4}$'
- 'Francisco S.N. Lobo$^{5}$'
- 'Gonzalo J. Olmo$^{6}$'
title: 'Galactic rotation curves in hybrid metric-Palatini gravity'
---
Introduction
============
A long outstanding challenge in modern astrophysics is the intriguing observational behavior of the galactic rotation curves, and the mass discrepancy in clusters of galaxies. Both these observations suggest the existence of a (non or weakly interacting) form of dark matter at galactic and extra-galactic scales. Indeed, according to Newton’s theory of gravitation, at the boundary of the luminous matter, the rotation curves of test particles gravitating around galaxies or galaxy clusters should show a Keplerian decrease of the tangential rotational speed $v_{tg}$ with the distance $r$, so that $v_{tg}^2\propto M(r)/r$, where $M(r)$ is the dynamical mass within the radius $r$. However, the observational evidence indicates rather flat rotation curves [@dm; @BT08]. The tangential rotational velocities $v_{tg}$ increase near the galactic center, as expected, but then intriguingly remain approximately constant at a value of $v_{tg\infty }\sim 200-300$ km/s. Therefore, observations provide a general mass profile of the form $M(r)\approx rv_{tg\infty }^2/G$ [@dm; @BT08]. Consequently, the mass around a galaxy increases linearly with the distance from the center, even at large distances, where very little or no luminous matter can be observed.
As mentioned above, the observed behavior of the galactic rotation curves is explained by assuming the existence of some dark (invisible) matter, distributed in a spherical halo around the galaxies, and interacting only gravitationally with ordinary matter. The dark matter is usually described as a pressureless and cold medium. A recently proposed model considered the possibility that dark matter is a mixture of two non-interacting perfect fluids, with different four-velocities and thermodynamic parameters. The two-fluid model can be described as an effective single anisotropic fluid, with distinct radial and tangential pressures [@Harko:2011nu]. In fact, many possible candidates for non-luminous dark matter have been proposed in the literature ranging from $10^6$ solar mass black holes, running through low mass stars to $10^{-6}$ eV axions, although the most popular being the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) (for a review of the particle physics aspects of dark matter see [@OvWe04]). Indeed, the interaction cross section of WIMPs with normal baryonic matter, although practically negligible, is expected to be non-zero, and therefore there is a possibility of detecting them directly. Nevertheless, despite several decades of intense experimental and observational effort, there is presently still no direct evidence of dark matter particles [@Wexp].
However, it is important to emphasize that the masses in galaxies and clusters of galaxies are deduced from the observed distances and velocities of the system under consideration. These relationships are based on Newton’s laws of dynamics, thus the Newtonian dynamical masses of galactic systems are not consistent with the observed masses. Indeed, Newton’s laws have proven extremely reliable in describing local phenomena, that there is an overwhelming tendency to apply them in the intermediate galactic scales. Note that the mass discrepancy is interpreted as evidence for the existence of a [*missing mass*]{}, i.e., dark matter in galactic systems. Therefore, one cannot [*a priori*]{} exclude the possibility that Einstein’s (and Newtonian) gravity breaks down at the galactic or extra-galactic scales. Indeed, a very promising way to explain the recent observational data [@Ri98; @PeRa03] on the recent acceleration of the Universe and on dark matter is to assume that at large scales Einstein’s general relativity, as well as its Newtonian limit, breaks down, and a more general action describes the gravitational field. Several theoretical models, based on a modification of Newton’s law or of general relativity, including Modified Newtonian Orbital Dynamics (MOND) [@Mond], scalar fields or long range coherent fields coupled to gravity [@scal1], brane world models [@brane], Bose-Einstein condensates [@bose], modified gravity with geometry-matter coupling [@gmc], non-symmetric theories of gravity [@scal3], and Eddington-inspired Born-Infeld gravity [@Ed] have been used to model galactic “dark matter”.
From a theoretical point of view a very attractive possibility is to modify the form of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian, so that such a modification could naturally explain dark matter and dark energy, without resorting to any exotic forms of matter. The simplest extension of the Einstein-Hilbert action consists in modifying the geometric part of the action, through the substitution of the Ricci scalar with a generic function $f(R)$. This change in the action introduces higher order terms in the gravitational field action. The so-called $f(R)$ gravitational theories were first proposed in [@carroll], and later used to find a non-singular isotropic de Sitter type cosmological solution [@staro]. Detailed reviews of $f(R)$ theories can be found, for instance, in [@rev]. The most serious difficulty of $f(R)$ theories is that, in general, these theories cannot pass the standard Solar System tests [@badfR]. However, there exists some classes of theories that can solve this problem [@goodfR]. Using phase space analysis of the specific involved gravitational model, it was shown that $f(R)$ theories, in general, can explain the evolution of the Universe, from a matter dominated early epoch up to the present, late-time self accelerating phase [@phasefR]. $f(R)$ type gravity theories can be generalized by including the function $f(R)$ in the bulk action of the brane-world theories [@shahab]. It has been shown in [@dynam] that this type of generalized brane world theories can describe a Universe beginning with a matter-dominated era, and ending in an accelerated expanding phase. The classical tests of this theory were considered in [@zahra].
On the other hand, $f(R)$ theories have also been studied in the Palatini approach, where the metric and the connection are regarded as independent fields [@P]. In fact, these approaches are certainly equivalent in the context of general relativity, i.e., in the case of the linear Einstein-Hilbert action. On the other hand, for a general $f(R)$ term in the action, they seem to provide completely different theories, with very distinct field equations. The Palatini variational approach, for instance, leads to second order differential field equations, while the resulting field equations in the metric approach are fourth order coupled differential equations. These differences also extend to the observational aspects. All the Palatini $f(R)$ models aimed at explaining the cosmic speedup studied so far lead to microscopic matter instabilities, and to unacceptable features in the evolution patterns of cosmological perturbations [@P1].
Hence, in order to cure some of the pathologies of the $f(R)$ gravity models in both their metric and Palatini formulation, a novel approach was recently proposed [@fX], that consists of adding to the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian an $f(R)$ term constructed within the framework of the Palatini formalism. Using the respective dynamically equivalent scalar-tensor representation, even if the scalar field is very light, the theory can pass the Solar System observational constraints. Therefore the long-range scalar field is able to modify the cosmological and galactic dynamics, but leaves the Solar System unaffected. The absence of instabilities in perturbations was also verified, and explicit models, which are consistent with local tests and lead to the late-time cosmic acceleration, were also found. Furthermore, the cosmological applications of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory were investigated in [@fX1], where specific criteria to obtain the cosmic acceleration were analyzed, and the field equations were formulated as a dynamical system. Indeed, several classes of dynamical cosmological solutions, depending on the functional form of the effective scalar field potential, describing both accelerating and decelerating Universes, were explicitly obtained. The cosmological perturbation equations were also derived and applied to uncover the nature of the propagating scalar degree of freedom and the signatures these models predict in the large-scale structure. The general conditions for wormhole solutions according to the null energy condition violation at the throat in the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory were also presented in [@fX2].
A new approach to modified gravity which generalizes the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity was introduced in [@Bo]. The gravitational action is taken to depend on a general function of both the metric and Palatini curvature scalars. The dynamical equivalence with a non-minimally coupled bi-scalar field gravitational theory was proved. The evolution of the cosmological solutions in this model was studied by using dynamical systems techniques. In [@TT] a method was developed to analyse the field content of “hybrid” gravity theories whose actions involve both the independent Palatini connection and the metric Levi-Civita connection, and, in particular, to determine whether the propagating degrees of freedom are ghosts or tachyons. New types of second, fourth and sixth order derivative gravity theories were investigated, and from this analysis it follows that the metric-Palatini theory is singled out as a viable class of “hybrid” extensions of General Relativity. In addition to this, the stability of the Einstein static Universe was analysed in [@Boehmer:2013oxa]. In the latter, by considering linear homogeneous perturbations, the stability regions of the Einstein static universe were parameterized by the first and second derivatives of the scalar potential, and it was explicitly shown that a large class of stable solutions exists in the respective parameter space. For a brief review of the hybrid metric-Palatini theory, we refer the reader to [@IJMPD].
Thus, the hybrid metric-Palatini theory opens up new possibilities to approach, in the same theoretical framework, the problems of both dark energy and dark matter. In [@Capozziello:2012qt], the generalized virial theorem in the scalar-tensor representation of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity was analysed. More specifically, taking into account the relativistic collisionless Boltzmann equation, it was shown that the supplementary geometric terms in the gravitational field equations provide an effective contribution to the gravitational potential energy. Indeed, it was shown that the total virial mass is proportional to the effective mass associated with the new terms generated by the effective scalar field, and the baryonic mass. This shows that the geometric origin in the generalized virial theorem may account for the well-known virial theorem mass discrepancy in clusters of galaxies. In addition to this, the astrophysical applications of the model were considered and it was shown that the model predicts that the mass associated to the scalar field and its effects extend beyond the virial radius of the clusters of galaxies. In the context of the galaxy cluster velocity dispersion profiles predicted by the hybrid metric-Palatini model, the generalized virial theorem can be an efficient tool in observationally testing the viability of this class of generalized gravity models. Thus, hybrid metric-Palatini gravity provides an effective alternative to the dark matter paradigm of present day cosmology and astrophysics.
In this latter context, it is the purpose of the present paper to investigate the possibility that the observed properties of the galactic rotation curves could be explained in the framework of hybrid metric-Palatini gravity, without postulating the existence of the hypothetical dark matter. As a first step in this study, we obtain the expression of the tangential velocity of test particles in stable circular orbits around galaxies. Since we assume that the test particles move on the geodesic lines of the space-time, their tangential velocity is determined only by the radial distance to the galactic center, and the metric, through the derivative of the $g_{00}$ metric component with respect to the radial coordinate. The metric in the outer regions of the galaxy is largely shaped by the energy contained in the effective scalar field of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory. Therefore the behavior of the neutral hydrogen gas clouds outside the galaxies, and their flat rotation curves, can be explained by the presence of the scalar field generated in the model. By using the weak field limit of the gravitational field equations in the hybrid metric-Palatini model we obtain the explicit form of the tangential velocity, and show that the existence of a constant velocity region is possible for some specific values of the model parameters.
Since the observations on the galactic rotation curves are obtained from the Doppler frequency shifts, we generalize the expression of the frequency shifts by including the effect of the scalar field. We also consider the velocity dispersion of the stars in the galaxy, and obtain the stellar velocity dispersion as a function of the scalar field. Thus, at least in principle, all the basic parameters of the model can be obtained directly from astronomical observations. The knowledge of the tangential velocity allows the complete determination of the functional form of the scalar field from the observational data. The basic parameters of the model can be immediately obtained in the flat rotation curves region, which is determined by the derivative of the scalar field potential. Hence the functional form of the scalar field can be obtained exactly, within the weak field limit of the model, for the entire galactic space-time, and tested at the galactic scale. Therefore, all the physical parameters of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory can be either obtained directly, or severely constrained by astronomical observations.
The present paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:b\], the field equations of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model, as well as the general fluid representation of the stress-energy tensor are presented. In Section \[sect3\], the tangential velocity of test particles in stable circular orbits are derived and in Section \[sect4\], the tangential velocities of test particles in the galactic halos in the hybrid model are discussed. The comparison of the theoretical predictions for the rotational velocity and the observational data for four Low Surface Brightness galaxies is considered in Section \[sect5\]. The velocity dispersion of the stars in the galaxy, representing important observational tests of the model, as well as the red and blue shifts of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the gas clouds are also investigated. We discuss and conclude our results in Section \[sect6\]. In this paper, we use the Landau-Lifshitz [@LaLi] sign conventions and definitions of the geometric quantities.
Field equations of the scalar-tensor version of hybrid metric-Palatini $f(X)$-gravity {#sec:b}
=====================================================================================
In this Section, we briefly present the basic formalism, for self-completeness and self-consistency, and the field equations of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory within the equivalent scalar-tensor representation (we refer the reader to [@fX; @fX1] for more details), and furthermore obtain the perfect fluid form of the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field.
Scalar-tensor representation for hybrid metric-Palatini gravity
---------------------------------------------------------------
The action for hybrid metric-Palatini gravity is obtained by adding an $f(\R)$ term, constructed within the framework of the Palatini formalism, to the metric Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian [@fX], and is given by $$\label{action}
S= \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ R + f(\R)\right] +S_m \ ,$$ where $\kappa =8\pi G$ is the gravitational coupling constant, and the scalar curvature $\R$, depending on both the metric and an independent dynamical connection $\hat{\Gamma}^\alpha_{\mu\nu}$, is defined as $$\label{Palatini_curvature}
\R
\equiv g^{\mu\nu}\R_{\mu\nu} \equiv g^{\mu\nu}\lp
\hat{\Gamma}^\alpha_{\mu\nu , \alpha}
- \hat{\Gamma}^\alpha_{\mu\alpha , \nu} +
\hat{\Gamma}^\alpha_{\alpha\lambda}\hat{\Gamma}^\lambda_{\mu\nu} -
\hat{\Gamma}^\alpha_{\mu\lambda}\hat{\Gamma}^\lambda_{\alpha\nu}\rp \,.$$ $\R_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor obtained from the connection $\hat{\Gamma}^\alpha_{\mu\nu}$.
The hybrid metric-Palatini theory may be expressed in a purely scalar-tensor representation, by the following action $$\label{scalar2}
S= \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ (1+\phi)R +\frac{3}{2\phi}\nabla_\mu \phi \nabla ^\mu \phi
-V(\phi)\right] +S_m \,,$$ which differs fundamentally from the $w=-3/2$ Brans-Dicke theory in the coupling of the scalar to the scalar curvature, where $w$ is the dimensionless Brans-Dicke coupling constant. The variation of this action with respect to the metric tensor gives the field equations \[einstein\_phi\] G\_=\^2(T\_ +T\_\^[()]{}), where $T_{\mu \nu}$ is the ordinary matter stress-energy tensor, and T\_\^[()]{}&=&, is the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field. The variation of the action with respect to the scalar field gives \[variation\_phi\] R - +\_\^- =0 .
Moreover, one can show that the identity $$\label{eq:phi(X)}
2V-\phi \frac{dV}{d\phi}=\kappa^2T+R \,,$$ also holds, and that the scalar field $\phi$ is governed by the second-order evolution equation $$\label{eq:evol-phi}
-\Box\phi+\frac{1}{2\phi}\nabla _\mu \phi \nabla ^\mu
\phi+\frac{1}{3}\phi\left[2V-(1+\phi)\frac{dV}{d\phi}\right]=\frac{\phi\kappa^2}{3}T\,,$$ with $T=T_{\mu }^{\mu }$, which is an effective Klein-Gordon equation.
The perfect fluid representation of the scalar field stress-energy tensor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stress-energy tensor of a fluid can be generally represented as T\_=(+p)u\_u\_-pg\_+q\_u\_+q\_u\_+S\_, where $u_{\mu }$ is the four-velocity of the fluid, $\rho $ and $p$ are the energy density and isotropic pressure, respectively, $q_{\mu }$ is the heat flux, and $S_{\mu \nu}$ is the tensor of the anisotropic dissipative stresses. The heat flux four-vector and the anisotropic stress tensor satisfy the conditions $u^{\mu }q_{\mu }=0$, $S_{\mu }^{\mu }=0$, and $S_{\mu }^{\nu }u_{\nu }=0$, respectively. The four-velocity is normalized so that $u_{\mu }u^{\mu }=1$, and $u_{\nu }\nabla _{\mu }u^{\nu }=0$. By introducing the projection tensor $h^{\mu \nu}=g^{\mu \nu}-u^{\mu \nu}$, with the properties $g_{\mu \nu}h^{\mu \nu}=3$, $h^{\mu \nu}u_{\nu }=0$, and $h_{\mu \nu}u^{\mu }u^{\nu }=0$, the thermodynamic parameters of the fluid can be obtained from the stress-energy tensor as \[ex\] &&=u\^u\^T\_, p=-h\^T\_,\
&&q\_=u\^h\^\_T\_, S\_=h\^\_h\^\_T\_+ph\_.
In order to obtain the perfect fluid representation of the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field in hybrid metric-Palatini gravity, we introduce first the four-velocity of the scalar field as u\^\_[()]{} =, which satisfies the relation $u^{\mu }_{(\phi)}u_{(\phi)\mu}=1$. Therefore, with the use of Eqs. (\[ex\]) we obtain the effective energy density $\rho _{\phi }$ and pressure $p_{\phi }$ in the scalar field description of hybrid metric-Palatini gravity as \_ &=&{\^\_(\_\^)-\_\^\
&&-+T-V()}, p\_&=&{--\_\^\
&&+-T+V()}, q\^[()]{}=u\^\_[() ]{}\_u\^\_[() ]{}, S\^[()]{}&=&\
&& , where $\Theta =\nabla _{\alpha }u^{\alpha }_{(\phi )}$ is the expansion of the fluid. It is interesting to note that the fluid-equivalent stress-energy tensor in hybrid metric-Palatini gravity is not of a perfect fluid form, but contains “heat transfer” terms, as well as an anisotropic dissipative component.
Therefore, the stress-energy of the scalar field can be written in a form equivalent to a general fluid as T\^[()]{}&=&(\_+p\_)u\^\_[()]{}u\^\_[()]{}-p\_g\^+\
&&q\^[()]{}u\^\_[()]{}+q\^[()]{}u\^\_[() ]{}+S\^[()]{}, which will be useful in determining the galactic geometry in the context of the tangential velocity curves analysis outlined below.
Stable circular orbits of test particles around galaxies {#sect3}
========================================================
The most direct method for studying the gravitational field inside a spiral galaxy is provided by the galactic rotation curves. They are obtained by measuring the frequency shifts $z$ of the 21-cm radiation emission from the neutral hydrogen gas clouds. The 21-cm radiation also originates from stars. The 21-cm background from the epoch of reionization is a promising cosmological probe: line-of-sight velocity fluctuations distort redshift, so brightness fluctuations in Fourier space depend upon angle, which linear theory shows can separate cosmological from astrophysical information (for a recent review see [@21cm]). Instead of using $z$ the resulting redshift is presented by astronomers in terms of a velocity field $v_{tg}$ [@dm].
In the following, we will assume that the gas clouds behave like test particles, moving in the static and spherically symmetric geometry around the galaxy. Without a significant loss of generality, we assume that the gas clouds move in the galactic plane $\theta =\pi /2$, so that their four-velocity is given by $u^{\mu }=\left( \dot{t},
\dot{r},0,\dot{\phi}\right)$, where the overdot stands for derivation with respect to the affine parameter $s$.
The static spherically symmetric metric outside the galactic baryonic mass distribution is given by the following line element $$ds^{2}=e^{\nu \left( r\right) }c^2dt^{2}-e^{\lambda \left( r\right)
}dr^{2}-r^{2}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) ,
\label{line}$$ where the metric coefficients $\nu (r)$ and $\lambda (r)$ are functions of the radial coordinate $r$ only. The motion of a test particle in the gravitational field with the metric given by Eq. (\[line\]), is described by the Lagrangian [@Nuc01] $$L=\left[ e^{\nu \left( r\right) }\left( \frac{cdt}{ds}\right)
^{2}-e^{\lambda \left( r\right) }\left( \frac{dr}{ds}\right)
^{2}-r^{2}\left( \frac{d\Omega }{ds}\right) ^{2}\right] ,$$ where $d\Omega ^{2}=d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}$, which simplifies to $d\Omega ^{2}=d\phi ^{2}$ along the galactic plane $\theta=\pi /2$. From the Lagrange equations it follows that we have two constants of motion, namely, the energy $E$ per unit mass, and the angular momentum $l$ per unit mass, given by $E=e^{\nu (r)}c^3\dot{t}$ and $l=cr^{2}\dot{\phi}$, respectively. The normalization condition for the four-velocity $u^{\mu }u_{\mu }=1$ gives $1=e^{\nu \left( r\right) }c^2\dot{t}^{2}-e^{\lambda (r)}\dot{r}^{2}-r^{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}$, from which, with the use of the constants of motion, we obtain the energy of the particle as $$\frac{E^{2}}{c^2}=e^{\nu +\lambda }\dot{r}^{2}+e^{\nu }\left( \frac{l^{2}}{c^2r^{2}}%
+1\right) . \label{energy}$$
From Eq. (\[energy\]) it follows that the radial motion of the test particles is analogous to that of particles in Newtonian mechanics, having a velocity $\dot{r}$, a position dependent effective mass $m_{\rm eff}=2e^{\nu +\lambda }$, and an energy $E^{2}$, respectively. In addition to this, the test particles move in an effective potential provided by the following relationship $$V_{\rm eff}\left( r\right) =e^{\nu (r)}\left( \frac{l^{2}}{c^2r^{2}}+1\right) .$$
The conditions for circular orbits, namely, $\partial V_{\rm eff}/\partial r=0$ and $\dot{r}=0$ lead to $$\label{cons1}
l^{2}=\frac{c^2}{2}\frac{r^{3} \nu ^{\prime } }{1-r\nu ^{\prime }/2},$$ and $$\label{cons2}
\frac{E^{2}}{c^4}=\frac{e^{\nu } }{1-r\nu ^{\prime }/2},$$ respectively.
Note that the spatial three-dimensional velocity is given by [@LaLi] $$v^{2}(r)=e^{-\nu }\left[ e^{\lambda }\left( \frac{dr}{dt}\right)
^{2}+r^{2}\left( \frac{d\Omega }{dt}\right) ^{2}\right] .$$ For a stable circular orbit $dr/dt=0$, and the tangential velocity of the test particle can be expressed as $$v_{tg}^{2}(r)=e^{-\nu }r^{2}\left( \frac{d\Omega }{dt}\right) ^{2}=e^{-\nu }r^{2}\left( \frac{d\Omega }{ds}\right) ^{2}\left(\frac{ds}{dt}^2\right).$$ In terms of the conserved quantities, and along the galactic plane $\theta =\pi /2$, the angular velocity is given by $$\frac{v_{tg}^{2}(r)}{c^2}=c^2\frac{e^{\nu }}{r^{2}}\frac{l^{2}}{E^{2}}\,,$$ and taking into account Eqs. (\[cons1\]) and (\[cons2\]), we finally obtain the following relationship [@Nuc01] $$\frac{v_{tg}^{2}(r)}{c^2}=\frac{r \nu ^{\prime }}{2}. \label{vtg}$$
Therefore, once the tangential velocity of test particles is known, the metric function $\nu(r)$ outside the galaxy can be obtained as (r)=2. \[metricnu\]
The tangential velocity $v_{tg}/c$ of gas clouds moving like test particles around the center of a galaxy is not directly measurable, but can be inferred from the redshift $z_{\infty }$ observed at spatial infinity, for which $1+z_{\infty}=\exp \left[ \left( \nu _{\infty }-\nu \right) /2 \right] \left( 1\pm v_{tg}/c\right) /\sqrt{1-v_{tg}^{2}/c^2}$ [@Nuc01]. Due to the non-relativistic velocities of the gas clouds, with $v_{tg}/c\leq \left( 4/3\right) \times 10^{-3}$, we observe that $v_{tg}/c\approx z_{\infty }$, as the first part of a geometric series. The observations show that at distances large enough from the galactic center the tangential velocities assume a constant value, i.e., $v_{tg}/c\approx $ constant [@dm]. In the latter regions of the constant tangential velocities, Eq. (\[metricnu\]) can be readily integrated to provide the following metric tensor component \[nu\] e\^=()\^[2v\_[tg]{}\^2/c\^2]{}1+2(), where $R_{\nu }$ is an arbitrary constant of integration. If we match the metric given by Eq. (\[nu\]) with the Schwarzschild metric on the surface of the galactic baryonic matter distribution, having a radius $R_B$, $\left.e^{\nu}\right|_{r=R_B}=1-2GM_B/c^2R_B$, we obtain the following relationship R\_=.
An important physical requirement for the circular orbits of the test particle around galaxies is that they must be stable. Let $r_{0}$ be the radius of a circular orbit and consider a perturbation of it of the form $r=r_{0}+\delta $, where $\delta \ll r_{0}$ [@La03]. Taking expansions of $V_{\rm eff}\left(
r\right) $ and $\exp \left( \nu +\lambda \right) $ about $r=r_{0} $, it follows from Eq. (\[energy\]) that $$\ddot{\delta}+\frac{1}{2} e^{\nu \left( r_{0}\right)
+\lambda \left( r_{0}\right) }V_{\rm eff}^{\prime \prime }\left( r_{0}\right)
\delta =0.$$ The condition for stability of the simple circular orbits requires $V_{\rm eff}^{\prime \prime }\left(
r_{0}\right) >0$ [@La03]. Hence, with the use of the condition $V_{\rm eff}^{\prime}\left (r_0\right)=0$, we obtain the condition of the stability of the orbits as $\left[3\nu '+r\nu ''>r\nu '^2/2\right]|_{r=r_0}$. By taking into account Eq. (\[vtg\]), it immediately follows that for massive test particles whose velocities are determined by the $g_{00}$ component of the metric tensor only the stability condition of the circular orbits is always satisfied.
Galactic geometry and tangential velocity curves in hybrid metric-Palatini gravity {#sect4}
==================================================================================
The rotation curves only determine one, namely $\nu (r)$, of the two unknown metric functions, $\nu (r)$ and $\lambda (r)$, which are required to describe the gravitational field of the galaxy. Hence, in order to determine $\lambda(r)$ we proceed to solve the gravitational field equations for the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational theory outside the baryonic matter distribution. This allows us to take all the components of the ordinary matter stress-energy tensor as being zero. Taking into account the stress-energy tensor for the equivalent scalar field representation of hybrid metric-Palatini gravity the gravitational field equations describing the geometry of the galactic halo take the form \[f1b\] -e\^[-]{}( -) +&=&(\_+p\_)u\_[() t]{}u\^t\_[()]{}-p\_\
&& +q\^[()t]{}u\_[()t]{}+q\^[()]{}\_tu\_[()]{}\^t+S\^[()t]{}\_t, \[f2b\] e\^[-]{}( +) - &=&-(\_+p\_)u\_[() r]{}u\^r\_[()]{}+p\_\
&& -q\^[()r]{}u\_[()r]{}-q\^[()]{}\_ru\_[()]{}\^r-S\^[()r]{}\_r, &&e\^[-]{}( \^++-) =- S\^[()]{}\_\
&& -(\_+p\_)u\_[() ]{}u\^\_[()]{}+p\_- q\^[()]{}u\_[()]{}-q\^[()]{}\_u\_[()]{}\^ , where there is no summation upon the pair of indices $\left(t,r,\phi \right)$.
Weak field limit of the gravitational field equations
-----------------------------------------------------
The weak field limit of the gravitational theories at the Solar System level is usually obtained by using isotropic coordinates. However, it is useful to apply Schwarzschild coordinates in studying exact solutions and in the context of galactic dynamics. In the following, we will adopt in our analysis the Schwarzschild coordinate system. We assume that the gravitational field inside the halo is weak, so that $\nu (r)\sim \lambda (r)\sim (v_{tg}/c)^2$, which allows us to linearise the gravitational field equations retaining only terms linear in $(v_{tg}/c)^2$. Moreover, we assume that the scalar field $\phi $ is also weak, so that $\phi \ll 1$. By representing the scalar field as $\phi
=\phi _0+\varphi $, where $\varphi \ll 1$ is a small perturbation around the background value $\phi _0>0$ of the field, in the first order of perturbation, the scalar field potential $V(\phi )$ and its derivative with respect to $\phi $ can be represented as V()=V(\_0+)V(\_0)+V’(\_0)+...., and V’()V’(\_0)+ V”(\_0) , respectively. In the linear approximation we have $e^{\nu +\lambda }\approx 1$. Therefore the effective Klein-Gordon type equation of the scalar field, Eq. (\[eq:evol-phi\]) takes the form \[yuk\] (\^2 -)=0, where a constant on the right-hand side of this equation has been absorbed into a redefinition of $\phi_0$, and the following parameter has been defined for notational simplicity = . From a physical point of view $r_{\varphi }$ represents (in natural units) the inverse of the mass $m_{\varphi}$ of the particle associated with the scalar field, $r_{\varphi}=1/m_{\varphi}$. The hybrid metric-Palatini gravity theory can pass the Solar System observational constraints even if the scalar field is very light, that is, $m_{\varphi}$ is very small [@fX]. Within this linear approximation the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field is given by T\_\^[()]{}=, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined by =- V’(\_0) , =-V(\_0).
Therefore the linearized gravitational field equations take the form \[f1\] (r)=+&=&\^[(eff)]{},\
\[f2\] -+=”++&=&-p\_r\^[(eff)]{},\
\[f3\] -(”+)=+&=&-p\_\^[(eff)]{}.
Tangential velocity of test particles in hybrid metric-Palatini gravity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Using spherical symmetry, Eq. (\[yuk\]) takes the form r-=0 , which yields the following general solution (r)=\_0, where $\Psi _0$ is an integration constant. Comparing this expression with the results obtained in [@fX] for the weak-field limit (taking into account the transformation from isotropic to Schwarzschild coordinates), we find that \[Psi0\] \_0=-\_0<0, where $M_B$ and $R_B$ are the mass and the radius of the galactic baryonic distribution, respectively.
Eq. (\[f1\]) can be immediately integrated to provide (r)&=&+\^r[(+)\^2d]{}\
&=&+r\^2-(1+) , where $\lambda_0$ is an integration constant. Comparing again with the results obtained in [@fX] for the weak-field limit, we find that $\lambda_0=2GM/c^2$. The tangential velocity of the test particles in stable circular orbits moving in the galactic halo can be derived immediately from Eq. (\[f2\]), and is given by ==-r\^2-r\^2-r\^2, which in terms of the solutions found above becomes &=& r\^2 + -\
&&, where $V_0=-\beta =V\left(\phi _0\right)/2$. The term proportional to $r^2$ corresponds to the cosmological background, namely the de Sitter geometry, and we assume that it has a negligible contribution on the tangential velocity of the test particles at the galactic level.
On the surface of the baryonic matter distribution the tangential velocity must satisfy the boundary condition , which, with the use of Eq. (\[Psi0\]), gives the following constraint on the parameters of the model, (1+)(2+r\_\^2)+(1+r\_\^2)0. In order to satisfy the above condition would require that $-2<\alpha r_{\varphi }^2<-1$, or, equivalently, V’(\_0)>0, and 2<V’(\_0)r\_\^2<3, respectively.
In the regions near the galactic baryonic matter distribution, where $R_B\leq r \ll r_{\varphi}$, we have $e^{-r/r_{\varphi}}\approx 1$, to a very good approximation. Hence in this region the tangential velocity can be approximated as &&-\_0\
&&-(1+r\_\^2)r, R\_Br r\_.
If the parameters of the model satisfy the condition 2GM\_B-c\^2\_0(r\_\^2+2)0, the term proportional to $1/r$ becomes negligible, while for small values of $\Psi _0$, and $\left|\alpha r_{\varphi ^2}\right|\approx 1$, the term proportional to $r$ can also be neglected. Therefore for the tangential velocity of test particles rotating in the galactic halo we obtain -\_0-, R\_Br r\_. Since according to our assumptions, $r_{\varphi} \gg 1$, the coefficient $\alpha $ can be approximated as $\alpha
\approx -V'\left(\phi _0\right)/2$, which provides for the rotation curve, in the constant velocity region, the following expression , R\_Br r\_. Since $\Psi_0<0$, the scalar field potential must satisfy the condition $V'\left(\phi _0\right)<0$. In the first order of approximation, with $\exp\left(-r/r_{\varphi}\right)\approx1-r/r_{\varphi}$, for the tangential velocity we obtain the expression +r+r\^2.
Alternatively, in general we can write the tangential velocity as follows, \[vfin\] &=& r\^2 + {1+e\^}. As compared to our previous results, in this representation we have $e^{\frac{GM_B/c^2-r}{r_\varphi}}$ instead of $e^{\frac{R_B-r}{r_\varphi}}$. Since we are working in a regime in which $R_B\ll r_\varphi$, the choice of the constants $R_B$ or $M_B$ does not seem very relevant, since it just amounts to a rescaling of $\phi_0$. From now on we will also assume that $e^{GM_B/c^2r_\varphi}\approx 1$.
From the above equation we want to find the constraints on the model parameters that arise from the expected behavior at different scales. For that purpose, it is convenient to write the equation, equivalently, as follows: &=& +\
&& (2+r\_\^2) e\^[-]{}+ (1+r\_\^2) () e\^[-]{} .
At intermediate scales, the asymptotic tangential velocity tends to a constant. If we expand the exponential as $e^{-\frac{r}{r_\varphi}}\approx 1-r/r_\varphi$, then we obtain the following three constraints on the free parameters of the model, &&a) 1+(2+r\_\^2 )0,\
&&b) (2+r\_\^2 )(1-)C= [constant]{},\
&&c) () |C|.
With increasing $r$, and by assuming that the condition $r \ll r_{\varphi}$ still holds, the rotation curves will decay, at very large distances from the galactic center, to the zero value.
Astrophysical tests of hybrid metric-Palatini gravity at the galactic level {#sect5}
===========================================================================
In the present Section, we will present some observational possibilities of directly checking the validity of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational model. More specifically, we will first compare the theoretical predictions of the model with a sample of rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies, respectively. Then we consider the possibility of observationally determining the functional form of the scalar field $\varphi $ by using the velocity dispersion of stars in galaxies, and the red and blue shifts of gas clouds moving in the galactic halo.
Low surface brightness galaxy rotation curves in the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to test our results we compare the predictions of our model with the observational data on the galactic rotation curves, obtained for a sample of low surface luminosity galaxies in [@LSB1]. Generally, in a realistic situation, a galaxy consists of a distribution of baryonic (normal) matter, consisting of stars of mass $M_{star}$, ionized gas of mass $M_{gas}$, neutral hydrogen of mass $M_{HI}$ etc., and the “dark matter” of mass $M_{DM}$, which, in the present model, is generated by the extra contributions to the total energy-momentum, due to the contribution of the effective scalar field. Hence the total mass of the galactic baryonic matter is $M_B= M_{star}+ M_{gas}+ M_{HI}+...$. As for the distribution of the baryonic mass, we assume that it is concentrated into an inner core of radius $r_c$, and that its mass profile $m_B(r)$ can be described by the simple relation m\_B (r) = M\_B()\^[3]{}, rR\_B, R\_B r\_c, where $\beta = 1$ for High Surface Brightness galaxies (HSB) and $\beta = 2$ for Low Surface Brightness (LSB) and dwarf galaxies, respectively [@mprof]. For $r=R_B$ we have $m\left(R_ B\right)\approx M_B$. By representing the coefficient $\alpha $ as $\alpha =\alpha _0/r_{\varphi }^2$, where $\alpha _0=1-r_{\varphi }^2V'\left(\phi _0\right)/2>>1$, from Eq. (\[vfin\]) we obtain the tangential velocity of the massive particles in stable galactic circular orbits as v\_[tg]{}\^2=v\_[Kepl]{}\^2+v\_[Kepl]{}\^2e\^[-r/r\_]{}(1++),rR\_B, where $v_{Kepl}^2=GM_B/r$. Hence, by also taking into account the baryonic matter contribution, we obtain the total tangential velocity of a massive test particle as \[comp\] v\_[tgtot]{}\^2([km/s]{})&=&4.3310\^4 ()\^[6 ]{}\
&&+2.7710\^4 \_0 \_0\
&& (1++), rR\_B , where we have used the value $\beta =2$.
In order to compare the prediction of Eq. (\[comp\]) with the observed rotation curves of the LSB galaxies in the following we assume $V'\left(\phi _0\right)<0$, and we fix the numerical values of the universal parameters $\left(\alpha _0, \phi _0,r_{\varphi}\right)$ as $\left(\alpha _0=50, \phi _0=6\times 10^{-4}, r_{\varphi }=20\;{\rm kpc}\right)$. Then any variability in the behavior of the rotation curves is due to the variation of the baryonic mass of the galaxy $M_B$, and of its baryonic mass distribution in the core, described by $r_c$. In Fig. \[fig1\], we have compared the predictions of Eq. (\[comp\]) for the behavior of the rotation curves in the “dark matter” region for four LSB galaxies, DDO189, UGC1281, UGC711, and UGC10310, respectively [@LSB1].
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"} {width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
The comparison of the predictions of the theoretical model with the observational results show that the contribution of the scalar field energy density to the tangential velocity of the test particles can explain the existence of a constant rotational velocity region around the baryonic matter, without requiring the presence of the dark matter. Of course, in order to gain a better understanding of the behavior of the galactic rotation curves in the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model, the qualitative approach considered in the present Section must be reconsidered by taking into account more realistic galactic baryonic matter distributions, and a much larger sample of galaxies having different morphologies.
Constraining hybrid metric-Palatini gravity with velocity dispersions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In hybrid metric-Palatini gravity one can formally associate an approximate “dark matter” mass profile $M_{DM}(r)$ to the tangential velocity profile, which taking into account Eq. (\[f1\]), is given by $$\label{darkmass}
\frac{2GM_{DM}(r)}{c^2}=\int_{R_B}^r{\left(\alpha \varphi +\beta \right)r^2dr},$$ so that the metric tensor component $\lambda(r)$ can be written as (r)=. The effective “dark matter” density profile $\rho _{DM}$ is obtained as \_[DM]{}(r)==(+).
In order to observationally constrain $M_{DM}$ and $\rho _{DM}$, we assume that each galaxy consists of a single, pressure-supported stellar population that is in dynamic equilibrium and traces an underlying gravitational potential, which is created due to the presence of the scalar field $\varphi $. By assuming spherical symmetry, the equivalent mass profile induced by the scalar field (the mass profile of the “effective dark matter” halo) can be obtained from the moments of the stellar distribution function via the Jeans equation [@BT08] $$\frac{d}{dr}\left[ \rho _{s}\left\langle v_{r}^{2}\right\rangle \right] +
\frac{2\rho _{s}\left( r\right) \beta _{an}(r)}{r}=-\frac{G\rho _{s}M_{DM}(r)}{r^{2}},$$where $\rho _{s}(r)$, $\left\langle v_{r}^{2}\right\rangle $, and $\beta _{an}
(r)=1-\left\langle v_{\theta }^{2}\right\rangle /\left\langle
v_{r}^{2}\right\rangle $ describe the three-dimensional density, the radial velocity dispersion, and the orbital anisotropy of the stellar component, where $\left\langle v_{\theta }^{2}\right\rangle$ is the tangential velocity dispersion. With the assumption of constant anisotropy, $\beta _{an}={\rm constant}$, the Jeans equation can be solved to give $\rho _s$ as [@MaLo05] $$\rho _{s}\left\langle v_{r}^{2}\right\rangle =Gr^{-2\beta _{an}
}\int_{r}^{\infty }s^{2(1-\beta _{an} )}\rho _{s}\left( s\right) M_{DM}\left(
s\right) ds.$$ With the use of Eq. (\[darkmass\]) we obtain for the stellar velocity dispersion the equation \[integral\] \_[s]{}v\_[r]{}\^[2]{}&& r\^[-2\_[an]{}]{}\_[r]{}\^s\^[2(2-\_[an]{})]{}\_[s]{}( s)\
&& {\_[R\_B]{}\^s[\^2 d]{}}ds.
The “effective dark matter” mass profile can be related through the projection along the line of sight to two observable quantities, the projected stellar density $I(R)$, and to the stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma _p(R)$, respectively, according to the relation [@BT08] $$\sigma _{P}^{2}(R)=\frac{2}{I(R)}\int_{R}^{\infty }\left( 1-\beta _{an}\frac{R^{2}
}{r^{2}}\right) \frac{\rho _{s}\left\langle v_{r}^{2}\right\rangle r}{\sqrt{
r^{2}-R^{2}}}dr.$$
Given a projected stellar density model $I(R)$, one recovers the three-dimensional stellar density from [@BT08] $$\rho _{s}(r)=- \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{r}^{\infty } \,\frac{dI}{dR} \left( R^{2}-r^{2}\right) ^{-1/2}dR \,.$$ Therefore, once the stellar density profile $I(R)$, the stellar velocity dispersion $\left\langle v_{r}^{2}\right\rangle$, and the quantities $\alpha $, $\beta $, $R_B$ and $M_B$, determining the geometry of the space-time outside the baryonic matter distribution, are known, with the use of the integral equation Eq. (\[integral\]) one can constrain the explicit functional form of the scalar field $\varphi$, the two free parameters of the model, $\Psi _0$ and $r_{\varphi}$, as well as the equivalent mass and density profiles induced by the presence of the scalar field. The simplest analytic projected density profile is the Plummer profile [@BT08], given by $I(R)={\cal L}\left(\pi r_{half}^2\right)^{-1}\left(1+R^2/r_{half}^2\right)^{-2}$, where ${\cal L}$ is the total luminosity, and $r_{half}$ is the projected half-light radius (the radius of the cylinder that encloses half of the total luminosity).
Red and blue shifts of the electromagnetic radiation
----------------------------------------------------
The rotation curves of spiral galaxies are inferred from the astrophysical observations of the red and blue shifts of the radiation emitted by gas clouds moving in circular orbits on both sides of the central region in the galactic plane. The light signal travels on null geodesics in the galactic geometry with tangent $k^{\mu }$. We may, without a significant loss of generality, restrict $k^{\mu }$ to lie in the equatorial plane $\theta =\pi /2$, and evaluate the frequency shift for a light signal emitted from the observer $O_{E}$ in circular orbit in the galactic halo, and detected by the observer $O_{\infty }$ situated at infinity. The frequency shift associated to the emission and detection of the light signal from the gas cloud is defined as $$z=1-\frac{\omega _{E}}{\omega _{\infty }},$$ where $\omega _{I}=-k_{\mu }u_{I}^{\mu }$, and the index $I$ refers to emission ($I=E$) or detection ($I=\infty $) at the corresponding space-time point [@Nuc01; @La03]. We can associate with light propagation two frequency shifts, corresponding to maximum and minimum values, in the same and opposite direction of motion of the emitter, respectively. From an astrophysical point of view such shifts are frequency shifts of a receding or approaching gas cloud, respectively. In terms of the tetrads $e_{(0)}=e^{-\nu /2}\partial /\partial t$, $e_{(1)}=e^{-\lambda /2}\partial /\partial r$, $e_{(2)}=r^{-1}\partial /\partial \theta $, $e_{(3)}=\left( r\sin \theta \right) ^{-1}\partial
/\partial \phi $, the frequency shifts can be represented as [@Nuc01] $$\label{60}
z_{\pm }=1-e^{\left[ \nu _{\infty }-\nu \left( r\right) \right] /2}\left(
1\mp v\right) \Gamma ,$$ where $v=\left[ \sum_{i=1}^{3}\left( u_{(i)}/u_{(0)}\right) ^{2}\right]^{1/2}$, with $u_{(i)}$ the components of the particle’s four velocity along the tetrad (i.e., the velocity measured by an Eulerian observer whose world line is tangent to the static Killing field). In Eq. (\[60\]), $\Gamma =\left( 1-
v^{2}\right)^{-1/2}$ is the usual Lorentz factor, and $\exp \left( \nu _{\infty }\right)$ represents the value of $\exp \left[ \nu \left( \left( r\right) \right) \right] $ for $r\rightarrow \infty $. In the case of circular orbits in the $\theta =\pi /2$ plane, we obtain $$z_{\pm }=1-e^{\left[ \nu _{\infty }-\nu \left( r\right) \right] /2}\frac{%
1\mp \sqrt{r \nu ^{\prime } /2 }}{\sqrt{1-r \nu ^{\prime } /2 }}.$$
It is convenient to define two other quantities, $z_{D}=\left(z_{+}-z_{-}\right) /2$, giving the differences in the Doppler shifts for the receding and approaching gas clouds, and $z_{A}=\left(
z_{+}+z_{-}\right) /2$, representing the mean value of the Doppler shifts, respectively [@Nuc01]. These redshift factors are given by $$\label{zd}
z_{D}\left( r\right) =e^{\left[ \nu _{\infty }-\nu \left( r\right) \right]
/2}\frac{\sqrt{r\nu ^{\prime } /2
}}{\sqrt{1-r \nu ^{\prime }/2 }},$$ and $$\label{za}
z_{A}\left( r\right) =1-\frac{e^{\left[ \nu _{\infty }-\nu \left( r\right) %
\right] /2}}{\sqrt{1-r \nu ^{\prime } /2 }},$$ respectively, and they can be easily connected to the astrophysical observations [@Nuc01]. $z_{A}$ and $z_{D}$ satisfy the relation $\left( z_{A}-1\right)^{2}-z_{D}^{2}=\exp \left[ 2\left( \nu _{\infty }-\nu
\left( r\right)\right) \right] $, and thus in principle, the metric tensor component $\exp \left[ \nu \left(
r\right) \right] $ can be directly determined from observations. From Eq. (\[f2\]) we obtain r’=-(”++)r\^2, and (r)=\_[R\_B]{}\^r[dr]{}, respectively. By substituting these expressions of the metric tensor and of its derivative in Eqs. (\[zd\]) and (\[za\]), in principle we obtain a direct observational test of the galactic geometry, of the functional form of the scalar field, and, implicitly, of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravitational model.
Discussions and final remarks {#sect6}
=============================
The behavior of the galactic rotation curves, especially their constancy, and the mass deficit in clusters of galaxies, continues to pose a major challenge to present day physics. It is essential to have a better understanding of some of the intriguing phenomena associated with them, such as their universality, the very good correlation between the amount of dark matter and the luminous matter in the galaxy, as well as the nature of the dark matter particle, if it really does exist. To explain these intriguing observations, the commonly adopted models are based on exotic, beyond the standard model, particle physics in the framework of Newtonian gravity, or of some extensions of general relativity.
In the present paper, we have considered the observational implications of the model proposed in [@fX], and proposed an alternative view to the dark matter problem, namely, the possibility that the galactic rotation curves and the mass discrepancy in galaxies can naturally be explained in gravitational models in which an $f(\R)$ term, constructed within the framework of the Palatini formalism, is added to the metric Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. The extra-terms in the gravitational field equations, which can be described as a function of an equivalent scalar field, modify, through the metric tensor components, the equations of motion of test particles, and induce a supplementary gravitational interaction, which can account for the observed behavior of the galactic rotation curves. Due to the presence of the scalar field, the rotation curves show a constant velocity region, which decay to zero at large distances from the galactic center, a behavior which is perfectly consistent with the observational data [@dm], and is usually attributed to the existence of dark matter. By using the weak field limit of the gravitational field equations, the rotation curves can be completely reconstructed as functions of the scalar field, without any supplementary assumption. If the galactic rotation velocity profiles are known from observations, the galactic metric can be derived theoretically, and the scalar field function can be reconstructed exactly over the entire mass distribution of the galactic halo.
The formalism developed in the present paper could also be extended to the case of the galaxy clusters. The latter are cosmological structures consisting of hundreds or thousands of galaxies. We emphasize that the analysis of the geometric properties of the galaxy clusters can also be done in weak field approximation considered in the present paper. The comparison of the observed velocity dispersion profiles of the galaxy clusters and the velocity dispersion profiles predicted by the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model can provide a powerful method for the observational test of the theory, and for observationally discriminating between the different modified gravity theoretical models.
The nature and dynamics of the cosmological evolution can be investigated by using a variety of cosmological observations. One of the important methods for the study of the cosmic history relies on extracting the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) in the high-$z$ galaxy power spectrum. The baryon acoustic oscillations imprint a characteristic scale on the galaxy distribution that acts as a standard ruler. The origin of the BAO in the matter power spectrum can be understood as the velocity fluctuation of the baryonic fluid at the decoupling time. The characteristic scale of the baryon oscillation is determined by the sound speed and horizon at decoupling, which is a function of the total matter and baryon densities [@BAO]. Since this scale can be measured in both the transverse and radial directions, the BAO yields both the angular diameter distance, and the Hubble parameter at that redshift. Therefore, the precise measurement of the BAO scale from the galaxy power spectrum can impose important constraints on the cosmic expansion history. Different expansion histories in modified gravity models shifts the peak positions of oscillations relative to the $\Lambda $CDM model [@BAO1]. Therefore the predicted shifts in the BAO can potentially be used to distinguish between the $\Lambda$CDM models and modified gravity models. Thus, by using the BAO analysis it can be shown that the original Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model [@DGP] is disfavored by observations, unless the matter density parameter exceeds 0.3 [@BAO1].
The recently released Planck satellite data [@Planck], as combined with the BAO measurements [@BAOO] provide strong constraints on the modified $f(R)$ gravity model [@Up]. In the $f(R)$ modified gravity models the lensing amplitude return to be compatible with $A_L = 1$ at 68% confidence limit (c.l.) if one consider the Planck or Planck combined with the Hubble Space Telescope measurement data, and even at 95% c.l. if we consider Planck data combined with BAO data. Moreover, in the framework of the considered $f(R)$ models the standard value of the lensing amplitude $A_L = 1$ is in agreement with the Planck measurements, oppositely to what happens in the $\Lambda $CDM scenario.
The study of the BAO and of the CMB data can provide very powerful and high precision constraints in discriminating between the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model, and alternative gravity models, as well as the standard dark matter model. Weak gravitational lensing, whereby galaxy images are altered due to the gravitational field influence of the mass along the line of sight, is a powerful probe of the dark matter in cosmology, with promising results obtained in recent years [@Lens]. In standard general relativity, the weak lensing distortion field provides a direct tracer of the underlying matter distribution. However, modifications to gravity theory can conceivably alter the way that mass curves spacetime, and thus the way that null geodesics behave in a given matter distribution. The possibilities of constraining modified gravity theories with weak lensing were considered recently in [@modlens]. Due to its sensitivity to the growth rate of the structure, weak lensing can be very useful to constrain modified gravity theories, and to distinguish between various modified gravity and standard dark matter models, when combined with CMB observations. Future weak lensing surveys as Euclid can constrain modified gravity models, as those predicted by scalar-tensor and $f(R)$ theories. Since the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model can be formulated in terms of an equivalent scalar-tensor theory, the analysis of the future weak lensing observational data, such as those provided by the Euclid mission, may provide a powerful method to observationally constrain the free parameters of this theoretical model. Even that the effective scalar field of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model provides a gravitational “mass” equivalent to the dark matter, due to the specific functional form and numerical values of the model parameters, its imprint on the weak lensing properties on a cosmological scale is different from that of the standard dark matter.
In the present model all the relevant physical quantities, including the “dark mass” associated to the equivalent scalar-tensor description, and which plays the role of dark matter, its corresponding density profile, as well as the scalar field and its potential, are expressed in terms of observable parameters – the tangential velocity, the baryonic (luminous) mass, the Doppler frequency shifts of test particles moving around the galaxy, and the velocity dispersions of the stars. Therefore, this opens the possibility of directly testing the modified gravitational models with Palatini type $f(\R)$ terms added to the gravitational action by using direct astronomical and astrophysical observations at the galactic or extra-galactic scale. In this paper we have provided some basic theoretical ideas, which, together with the virial theorem considered in [@Capozziello:2012qt], are the necessary tools for the in depth comparison of the predictions of the hybrid metric-Palatini gravity model with the observational results.
We would like to thank to the anonymous referee for comments and suggestions that helped us to significantly improve our manuscript. SC is supported by INFN (iniziative specifiche QGSKY and TEONGRAV). TSK is supported by the Research Council of Norway. FSNL acknowledges financial support of the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the grants CERN/FP/123615/2011 and CERN/FP/123618/2011. GJO is supported by the Spanish grant FIS2011-29813-C02-02, the Consolider Programme CPAN (CSD2007-00042), and the JAE-doc program of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC).
Isotropic versus Schwarzschild coordinates {#app}
==========================================
By convention, the weak-field limit of theories of gravity in the Solar System is discussed using isotropic coordinates. However, exact solutions and galactic dynamics are usually considered in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinates. Since we have already obtained the form of the weak-field limit in [@fX], in order to translate those results to the current problem we just need to transform our metric from isotropic to Schwarzschild coordinates. This will give coherence to these series of papers. What we need to do is just to compare the Schwarzschild-like line element used in the study of the galactic dynamics with the isotropic results, and find the change of coordinates.\
In Schwarzschild coordinates the linearized line element is ds\^2&=&e\^dt\^2-e\^dr\^2-r\^2d\^2\
&&(1+)dt\^2-(1+)dr\^2-r\^2d\^2 .
In isotropic coordinates the linearized line element is $$ds^2\approx(\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu})dx^\mu dx^\nu= (1+h_{00})dt^2-(\delta_{ij}-h_{ij})dx^i dx^j .$$ Defining $h_{ij}=\Lambda \delta_{ij}$, it follows that $$ds^2= (1+h_{00})dt^2-(1-\Lambda)d\rho^2-(1-\Lambda)\rho^2 d\Omega^2\ .$$
The comparison of the coordinates gives the relations $$\begin{aligned}
(1+\lambda)dr^2&=&(1-\Lambda)d\rho^2, \label{81}\\
r^2 &=& (1-\Lambda)\rho^2.\end{aligned}$$ The second of these equations allows to express $h_{00}(\rho)$ and $\Lambda(\rho)$ in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinate $r$. It also allows us to find an expression for $dr/d\rho$ as follows, $$\left(\frac{dr}{d\rho}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\rho}{r}\right)^2\left[(1-\Lambda)-\frac{\rho}{2}\frac{d\Lambda}{d\rho}\right]^2.$$ Inserting this result in Eq. (\[81\]), and expanding to leading order, we find $$(1+\lambda)=\left[1+{\rho}\frac{d\Lambda}{d\rho}\right].$$ Therefore, $\nu=h_{00}$ and $\lambda={\rho}d\Lambda/d\rho $. Taking into account the explicit form of $h_{00}$ and $\Lambda$ [@fX], $$\begin{aligned}
h_{00}^{(2)}(\rho)&=&- \frac{2G_{eff} M}{\rho} -\frac{V_0}{(1+\phi_0)}\frac{\rho^2}{6},\\
\Lambda(\rho)&=& -\frac{2\gamma G_{eff} M}{\rho} +\frac{V_0}{(1+\phi_0)}\frac{\rho^2}{6} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
G_{eff}&\equiv & \frac{G}{(1+\phi_0)}\left(1-\frac{\phi_0}{3}e^{-m_\varphi \rho}\right), \\
\gamma &\equiv & \frac{\left(1+\frac{\phi_0}{3}e^{-m_\varphi \rho}\right)}{\left(1-\frac{\phi_0}{3}e^{-m_\varphi \rho}\right)} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ we find that $$\begin{aligned}
r^2&=&\rho^2\Bigg[1+\frac{G}{(1+\phi_0)}\frac{2M}{\rho}\left(1+\frac{\phi_0}{3}e^{-m_\varphi \rho}\right)-\nonumber\\
&&\frac{V_0}{\left(1+\phi_0\right)}\frac{\rho^2}{6}\Bigg ].\end{aligned}$$ Here we can consider some simplifications. As a first approximation we can assume $V_0$ to be very small, which is equivalent to consider scales much smaller than the cosmological horizon. We can also assume $\phi_0$ small, but we keep $m_\varphi \rho$ non-negligible. In this case, we find the same relation between coordinates as in GR, namely, r\^2\^2(1+), which leads to r(1+)=GM+. With this result, we find $$\begin{aligned}
&&\nu(r)=\left.h_{00}(\rho)\right|_{\rho=r-GM}, \\
&&\lambda(r) = \left.\frac{G}{(1+\phi_0)}\frac{2M}{\rho}\left[1+\phi_0(1+\rho m_\varphi)\frac{e^{-m_\varphi \rho}}{3}\right]\right|_{\rho=r-GM}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Note that even though at galactic scales we have $r\gg GM$ and $\rho\approx r$, the exponential corrections $\phi_0 e^{-m_\varphi \rho}$ experience a magnification of the [*apparent*]{} value of $\phi_0$ by an exponential factor: $(\phi_0 e^{m_\varphi GM})e^{-m_\varphi r}$, i.e., $\phi_0 \to \phi_0 e^{GM/r_\varphi}$.
[99]{}
V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford, and N. Thonnard, Astrophys. J. [**238**]{}, 471 (1980); M. Persic, P. Salucci, and F. Stel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**281**]{}, 27 (1996); A. Boriello and P. Salucci, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**323**]{}, 285 (2001).
J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic dynamics, Princeton, N. J., Woodstock: Princeton University Press, (2008).
T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 124051 (2011); T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Astropart. Phys. [**35**]{}, 547 (2012). J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, Phys. Repts. [**402**]{}, 267 (2004).
Z. Ahmed et al., Science [**327**]{}, 1619 (2010); C. E. Aalseth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 131301 (2011); P. Beltrame, arXiv:1305.2719 (2013).
A. G. Riess et al., Astron. J. **116**, 1009 (1998); S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. **517**, 565 (1999); P. de Bernardis et al., Nature **404**, 955 (2000); S. Hanany et al., Astrophys. J. **545**, L5 (2000).
P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 559 (2003); T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Repts. **380**, 235 (2003).
M. Milgrom, , 365 (1983); M. Milgrom, , L25 (2003); J. D. Bekenstein, , 083509 (2004); M. Milgrom, , 123536 (2009).
E. W. Mielke and F. E. Schunck, , 023503 (2002); J. P. Mbelek, Astron. Astrophys. [**424**]{}, 761 (2004); X. Hernández, T. Matos, R. A. Sussman, and Y. Verbin, , 043537 (2004); B. Fuchs and E. W. Mielke, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**350**]{}, 707 (2004); D. Bertacca, N. Bartolo and S. Matarrese, JCAP [**0805**]{}, 005 (2008); J. L. Cervantes-Cota, M. A. Rodriguez-Meza, and D. Nunez, , 064011 (2009).
M. K. Mak and T. Harko, , 024010 (2004); T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, , 044013 (2007); T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, Astrophys. J. [**636**]{}, 8 (2005); L. $\acute{{\rm A}}$. Gergely, T. Harko, M. Dwornik, G. Kupi, and Z. Keresztes, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. [**415**]{}, 3275b (2011); K. C. Wong, T. Harko, K. S. Cheng, and L. $\acute{{\rm A}}$. Gergely, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 044038 (2012).
C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, JCAP [**0706**]{}, 025 (2007); J.-W. Lee, Phys. Lett. B [**681**]{}, 118 (2009); J.-W. Lee and S. Lim, JCAP [**1001**]{}, 007 (2010); T. Harko, JCAP [**1105**]{}, 022 (2011); T. Harko, Mon. Not. Royal Astron.Soc. [**413**]{}, 3095 (2011); T. Harko and E. J. M. Madarassy, JCAP [**01**]{}, 020 (2012). O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, **75**, 104016 (2007); T. Harko, Phys. Lett. B **669**, 376 (2008); T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C [**70**]{}, 373 (2010); T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, and O. Minazzoli, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 047501 (2013).
J. R. Brownstein and J. W. Moffat, Astrophys.J. [**636**]{}, 721 (2006); J. R. Brownstein and J. W. Moffat, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**382**]{}, 29 (2007).
T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, M. K. Mak, and S. V. Sushkov, arXiv:1305.0820 \[gr-qc\] (2013).
H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc. [**150**]{}, 1 (1970). A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B [**91**]{}, 99 (1980). A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. [**13**]{}, 3 (2010); T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 451 (2010); S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. [**505**]{}, 59 (2011); F. S. N. Lobo, arXiv:0807.1640 \[gr-qc\]; T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rep. [**513**]{}, 1 (2012). T. Chiba, Phys. Lett. [**B 575**]{}, 1 (2003); G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 261102 (2005); G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. [**D 75**]{}, 023511 (2007).
S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. [**D 68**]{}, 123512 (2003).
L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. [**D 75**]{}, 083504 (2007); N. Goheer, J. Larena and P. Dunsby, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 061301 (2009); ; A. Abebe, M. Abdelwahab, A. Cruz-Dombriz and P. Dunsby, Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 135011 (2012); A. Abebe, A. Cruz-Dombriz and P. Dunsby, arXiv:1304.3462 (2013).
A. Borzou, H. R. Sepangi, S. Shahidi, and R. Yousefi, EPL [**88**]{} 29001 (2009); M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, S. Capozziello, and V. F. Cardone, Phys. Rev. [**D 82**]{}, 103526 (2010).
Z. Haghani, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, JCAP [**02**]{} (2012) 031.
A. S. Sefiedgar, Z. Haghani, H. R. Sepangi, Phys. Rev. [**D 85**]{}, 064012 (2012).
L. Amendola, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 131302 (2007).
X. Meng and P. Wang, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. [**36**]{}, 1947 (2004); A.E. Dominguez D.E. Barraco, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 043505 (2004); V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 023529 (2006); T. Koivisto, H. Kurki-Suonio, Class. Quant. Grav. [**23**]{}, 2355 (2006); T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 083517 (2006); T. P. Sotiriou, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. [**38**]{}, 1407 (2006); G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 061101 (2007); G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 084021 (2008); G. J. Olmo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**20**]{}, 413 (2011).
T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo and G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 084016 (2012). S. Capozziello, T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo and G. J. Olmo, JCAP [**04**]{}, 011 (2013). S. Capozziello, T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo and G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 127504 (2012). N. Tamanini and C. G. Boehmer, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} 084031 (2013).
T. S. Koivisto and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 104030 (2013).
C. G. Boehmer, F. S. N. Lobo and N. Tamanini, arXiv:1305.0025 \[gr-qc\]. S. Capozziello, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, and G. J. Olmo, to appear in IJMPD, arXiv:1305.3756 (2013).
S. Capozziello, T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. N. Lobo and G. J. Olmo, JCAP [**07**]{}, 024 (2013). J. R. Pritchard and A. Loeb, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**75**]{}, 086901 (2012).
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1998).
U. Nucamendi, M. Salgado, and D. Sudarsky, , 125016 (2001); T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 084050 (2010). G. A. Mamon and E. L. Lokas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**363**]{}, 705 (2005).
K. Lake, , 051101 (2004).
W. J. G. de Blok and A. Bosma, Astron. Astrophys. [**385**]{}, 816 (2002).
J. W. Moffat and I. Y. Sokolov, Phys. Lett. B [**378**]{}, 59 (1996); J. R. Brownstein and J. W. Moffat, Astrophys. J. [**636**]{}, 721 (2006); J. R. Brownstein and J. W. Moffat, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**367**]{}, 527 (2006).
D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. [**496**]{}, 605 (1998); A. Meiksin, M. White, J. A. Peacock, Mon. Not. R. Astron.Soc. [**304**]{}, 851 (1999).
K. Yamamoto, B. A. Bassett, R. C. Nichol, Y. Suto, K. Yahata, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 063525 (2006).
G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}, 208 (2000).
P. A. R. Ade et al., arXiv:1303.5062 (2013).
F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. StaveleySmith, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**416**]{}, 3017 (2011); W. J. Percival et al. \[SDSS Collaboration\], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**401**]{}, 2148 (2010); N. Padmanabhan, X. Xu, D. J. Eisenstein, R. Scalzo, A. J. Cuesta, K. T. Mehta and E. Kazin, arXiv:1202.0090 (2012); C. Blake, E. Kazin, F. Beutler, T. Davis, D. Parkinson, S. Brough, M. Colless and C. Contreras et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, 1707 (2011); L. Anderson, E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, D. Bizyaev, M. Blanton, A. S. Bolton, J. Brinkmann, J. R. Brownstein et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**427**]{} 3435 (2013).
A. Marchini and V. Salvatelli, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 027502 (2013).
R. Massey, T. Kitching, J. Richard, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**73**]{}, 086901 (2010).
M. Martinelli, E. Calabrese, F. De Bernardis, A. Melchiorri, L. Pagano, and R. Scaramella, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 023012 (2011); S. A. Thomas, S. A. Appleby, and J. Weller, JCAP [**03**]{}, 036 (2011); I. Tereno, E. Semboloni, and T. Schrabback, Astron. Astrophys. [**530**]{}, A68 (2011); R. Ali Vanderveld, R. R. Caldwell, and J. Rhodes, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 123510 (2011); S. Asaba, C. Hikage, K. Koyama, G.-B. Zhao, A. Hojjati, and L. Pogosian, JCAP [**08**]{}, 029 (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper investigates a discontinuous neural network which is used as a model of the mammalian olfactory system and can more generally be applied to solve non-negative sparse approximation problems. By inherently limiting the systems integrators to having non-negative outputs, the system function becomes discontinuous since the integrators switch between being inactive and being active. It is shown that the presented network converges to equilibrium points which are solutions to general non-negative least squares optimization problems. We specify a Caratheodory solution and prove that the network is stable, provided that the system matrix has full column-rank. Under a mild condition on the equilibrium point, we show that the network converges to its equilibrium within a finite number of switches. Two applications of the neural network are shown. Firstly, we apply the network as a model of the olfactory system and show that in principle it may be capable of performing complex sparse signal recovery tasks. Secondly, we generalize the application to include non-negative sparse approximation problems and compare the recovery performance to a classical non-negative basis pursuit denoising algorithm. We conclude that the recovery performance differs only marginally from the classical algorithm, while the neural network has the advantage that no performance critical regularization parameter has to be chosen prior to recovery.'
author:
- 'Martijn Arts, Marius Cordts, Monika Gorin, Marc Spehr, and Rudolf Mathar [^1][^2][^3][^4][^5] [^6]'
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: |
A Discontinuous Neural Network\
for Non-Negative Sparse Approximation
---
Discontinuity, optimization, NNLS, non-negative sparse approximation, olfactory system.
[^1]: M. Arts and R. Mathar are with the Institute for Theoretical Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
[^2]: M. Cordts is now with the Environment Perception Dept. at Daimler R&D, Sindelfingen, Germany.
[^3]: M. Gorin and M. Spehr are with the Department of Chemosensation, Institute for Biology II, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
[^4]: This work was partly supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) SPP 1395: Informations- und Kommunikationstheorie in der Molekularbiologie (InKoMBio), Grants: MA 1184/20-2 & SP 724/8-1.
[^5]: Please direct your e-mail correspondence to: [email protected]
[^6]: This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which this version may no longer be accessible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Very-high energy photons emitted by distant cosmic sources are absorbed on the extragalactic background light (EBL) during their propagation. This effect can be characterized in terms of a photon transfer function at Earth. The presence of extragalactic magnetic fields could also induce conversions between very high-energy photons and hypothetical axion-like particles (ALPs). The turbulent structure of the extragalactic magnetic fields would produce a stochastic behaviour in these conversions, leading to a statistical distribution of the photon transfer functions for the different realizations of the random magnetic fields. To characterize this effect, we derive new equations to calculate the mean and the variance of this distribution. We find that, in presence of ALP conversions, the photon transfer functions on different lines of sight could have relevant deviations with respect to the mean value, producing both an enhancement or a suppression in the observable photon flux with respect to the expectations with only absorption. As a consequence, the most striking signature of the mixing with ALPs would be a reconstructed EBL density from TeV photon observations which appears to vary over different directions of the sky: consistent with standard expectations in some regions, but inconsistent in others.\
[*Keywords*]{}: axions, very high-energy gamma-rays.
address:
- |
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner Heisenberg Institut)\
Föhringer Ring 6,\
80805 München, Germany
- |
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università del Salentoand Sezione INFN di Lecce\
Via Arnesano,\
I–73100 Lecce, Italy
author:
- 'Alessandro Mirizzi $^{}$ [^1]'
- Daniele Montanino
title: 'Stochastic conversions of TeV photons into axion-like particles in extragalactic magnetic fields $ $ $ $ $ $'
---
MPP-2009-145
Introduction
============
Axion-like particles (ALPs) with a two-photon vertex are predicted in many extensions of the Standard Model [@Svrcek:2006yi; @Arvanitaki:2009fg; @Masso:2006id]. The $a\gamma\gamma$ coupling allows for ALP-photon conversions in electric or magnetic field. This effect is exploited by the ADMX experiment to search for axion dark matter [@Duffy:2006aa], by CAST to search for solar axions [@Zioutas:2004hi; @Andriamonje:2007ew; @Arik:2008mq], and by regeneration laser experiments [@Robilliard:2007bq; @Chou:2007zzc; @Fouche:2008jk; @Afanasev:2008jt; @ringwald].
ALPs also play an intriguing role in astrophysics. Indeed, photons emitted by distant sources and propagating through cosmic magnetic fields can oscillate into ALPs. The consequences of this effect have been studied in different situations [@Csaki:2001yk; @Mirizzi:2005ng; @Mirizzi:2006zy; @Mirizzi:2009nq; @Csaki:2003ef; @Mirizzi:2007hr; @Dupays:2005xs; @Hooper:2007bq; @De; @Angelis:2007yu; @Fairbairn:2009zi; @Burrage:2009mj]. In particular, in the last recent years photon-ALP conversions have been proposed as a mechanism to avoid the opacity of the extragalactic sky to high-energy radiation due to pair production on the Extragalactic Background Light (EBL). At this regard, recent observations of cosmologically distant gamma-ray sources by ground-based gamma-ray telescopes have revealed a surprising degree of transparency of the universe to very high-energy (VHE) photons ($E{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}\,}100$ GeV) [@Aharonian:2005gh; @Mazin:2007pn]. Surprisingly, data seem to require a lower density of the EBL than expected and/or considerably harder injection spectra than initially thought [@Stecker:2007jq; @Stecker:2007zj]. Oscillations between very high-energy photons and ALPs could represent an intriguing possibility to explain this puzzle through a sort of “cosmic light-shining through wall” effect. Infact, if VHE photons are converted into ALPS and then regenerated, they should not suffer absorption effects while they propagate as ALPs. In this sense, two complementary mechanisms have been proposed: a) VHE photon-ALP conversions in the magnetic fields around gamma-ray sources [@Hooper:2007bq; @Hochmuth:2007hk] and then further back-conversions in the magnetic field of the Milky Way [@Simet:2007sa] (see also [@Bassan:2009gy]); b) oscillations of VHE photons into ALPs in the random extragalactic magnetic fields [@De; @Angelis:2007dy; @DeAngelis:2008sk]. In principle, both the mechanisms can be combined together, as shown in [@SanchezConde:2009wu]. Currently, the inference of EBL from VHE photons emitted by sources at high redshift [@alberto] is still object of debate, and it is not clear how robust are the conclusions on the absorption effects obtained from the recent gamma data [@Costamante:2009gz]. In this sense, it is also possible that the observed transparency of the universe to VHE photons could be explained without the need of introducing nonstandard mechanisms (see, e.g., [@Aharonian:2008su; @Essey:2009zg]). Nevertheless, the seminal works mentioned before have pointed out the nice connection between VHE gamma-astronomy and ALP searches. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to further explore the consequences of this exciting possibility.
In this context, the treatment of the oscillations of VHE photons into ALPs in the extragalactic medium in presence of the absorption on the EBL presents a certain degree of complexity. Extragalactic magnetic fields are supposed to have a turbulent structure which can dramatically affect the development of photon-ALP conversions. Brute force numerical simulations get the solution of the mixing equations along a given photon line of sight by iterating the equations in each domain in which the magnetic field is assumed constant [@Csaki:2003ef; @De; @Angelis:2007dy]. Since one cannot know the given configuration of magnetic domains crossed by VHE photons during their propagation, in the previous literature VHE photon-ALP conversions were usually characterized in terms of the mean conversion probability, obtained averaging the resulting conversion probabilities over an ensemble of magnetic field configurations along the photon line of sight. Such a procedure slows down the solution of our problem, since to obtain stable results typically the average has to be performed over more than $10^{3}$ realizations of the magnetic fields [@De; @Angelis:2007dy]. Moreover, the use of the mean probability as representative value does not appear a priori completely justified, since the variance of the probability distribution could produce relevant deviations from the mean value for conversions occurring in different realizations of the random magnetic fields.
In order to overcome these previous limitations, in this paper we perform a new study of the mixing equations of VHE photons in the turbulent magnetic fields and we provide a user-friendly calculation of the mean and of the variance for the distribution of the photon transfer functions. The plan of our work is as follows. In Section 2 we discuss about the absorption of VHE photons on the extragalactic background light. In Section 3 we characterize VHE photon-ALP mixing in presence of absorption and we present our calculation of the mean photon transfer function averaged over the ensemble of all the possible realizations of random magnetic field configurations. We also show how to calculate the variance of the statistical distribution of the transfer functions. In Section 4 we present our results for the photon transfer function of VHE gamma-rays emitted from distant sources with and without the mixing with ALPs. Contrarily to previous predictions, the presence of a broad variance in the statistical distribution of the photon transfer functions could produce both an enhancement or a suppression of the observed VHE photon flux with respect to the case with only absorption. The resulting photon flux would depend on the particular random magnetic field configuration along the photon line of sight. As a consequence, photon-ALP mixing can not provide an universal mechanism to obtain the transparency of the universe to VHE radiation, but instead they would produce a strong direction-dependent behaviour in the flux of VHE photons from distant sources. In Section 5 we discuss about possible developments of our study and we conclude. There follow two Appendices, in which we present some details for the derivation of the mean photon transfer function (Appendix A) and for the variance of the distribution (Appendix B).
Absorption of very high-energy photons on extragalactic background light
========================================================================
The flux of very high-energy (VHE) gamma rays ($E{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}\,}100$ GeV) from distant sources is attenuated in an energy dependent way by the interaction with background photons in the universe. The main source of absorption for VHE photons is due to the pair production process $\gamma^{\rm VHE}\gamma^{\rm bkg}\to e^+e^-$. In the energy range 100 GeV ${\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}E {\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}$ 10 TeV, the absorption is dominated by the interaction with optical/infrared photons of the so called Extragalactic Background Light (EBL), sometimes also referred as Metagalactic Radiation Field (MRF). The absorption rate for such a process in function of the incident photon energy $E$ is given by [@Gould:1967zzb] $$\Gamma_\gamma(E)=\int_{m_e^2/E}^{\infty} d\epsilon\, \frac{dn^{\rm bkg}_\gamma}{d\epsilon}
\int_{-1}^{1-\frac{2m_e^2}{E\epsilon}} d\xi\frac{1-\xi}{2}\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}(\beta) \,\ ,
\, \label{eq:gamma}$$ where the limits of integration in both integrals are determined by the kinematical threshold of the process and $$\nonumber
\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}(\beta) = \sigma_0
(1-\beta^2)\left[2\beta(\beta^2-2)+(3-\beta^4)\log\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right]
\, ,$$ with $\sigma_0=1.25\times 10^{-25}$ cm$^2$, is the cross section for the pair production process [@Heitler:1960], in function of the electron velocity in the center of mass of the interaction $\beta=[1-2m_e^2/E\epsilon(1-\xi)]^{1/2}$, being $\epsilon$ the background photon energy, and $\xi$ the cosine of the angle between the incident and the background photon. For practical purposes, it can be useful to notice that the inner integral in $d\xi$ in Eq. (\[eq:gamma\]) can be evaluated by performing the change of variable $\xi\equiv\xi(\beta)$ and has actually an analytic closed form: $$\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{=}& 4\sigma_0 (1-\beta_m^2)^2\cdot\left[
{\rm Li}_2\left(\frac{1-\beta_m}{2}\right)-
{\rm Li}_2\left(\frac{1+\beta_m}{2}\right)\right.
-\frac{\beta_m(1+\beta_m^2)}{1-\beta_m^2}\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=}&\left.+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1+\beta_m^4}{1-\beta_m^2}-\log\frac{1-\beta_m^2}{4}\right)
\log\frac{1+\beta_m}{1-\beta_m}
\right]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_m=(1-m_e^2/E\epsilon)^{1/2}$ is the maximum electron velocity in the center of mass of the interaction and the function ${\rm Li}_2$ is the polylogarithm of order two.
For simple estimations, the background photon spectrum in Eq. (\[eq:gamma\]) can be approximated, at redshift $z=0$, with a power–law [@Salamon:1994un] $$\frac{dn^{\rm bkg}_\gamma}{d\epsilon}=10^{-3}k
\left(\frac{\epsilon}{{\rm eV}}\right)^{-2.55}\,{\rm eV^{-1}}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}\,,
\label{eq:bgktoday}$$ with $0.61\leq k\leq 1.52$, depending on the model used (see Fig. \[ebl\]). With this approximation one has $$\frac{\Gamma_\gamma(E)}{{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}\simeq 1.1\times 10^{-3}\,k\left(\frac{E}
{\rm TeV}\right)^{1.55}\,.\label{eq:lenght}$$ In the literature are present different realistic models for the photon background. In particular, in the following we will refer to the 2008 Minimal Kneiske Model [@Kneiske:2008mp], which provides a strict lower-limit flux for the extragalactic background light from ultraviolet to the far-infrared photon energies. The model parameters are chosen to fit the lower limit data from galaxy number count observations, assuming that the shape and the normalization of the background radiation does not change except for the red-shifting between the source and the observer. This model has the advantage that it is not inferred by an inversion of the VHE photon observed spectra, as e.g. in [@Mazin:2007pn]. We note that this latter procedure would be not reliable in the presence of VHE photon-ALP conversions, since in this case the effects of mixing and absorption on EBL would be entangled, preventing the possibility to extract information on the EBL from VHE photon measured spectra. Our reference model gives us the maximal possible transparency compatible with the standard expectations, so that an evidence of a greater transparency would have to be attributed to nonstandard effects in the photon propagation.
The spectral energy distribution at a given redshift $z$ can be inferred by the tabulated power spectrum [@Kneiske:2008mp] $P(\lambda,z)=\lambda I_\lambda(\lambda,z)$ (where $I(\lambda,z)$ is the flux at redshift $z$ of energy for unit of solid angle between $\lambda$ and $\lambda+d\lambda$ where $\lambda$ is the comoving wavelength) by $$\frac{dn^{\rm bkg}_\gamma}{d\lambda}=2P(\lambda(1+z))(1+z)^3\, .$$ The corresponding EBL energy spectrum is represented in Fig. 1. From this Figure we see that the realistic Kneiske model has an approximate power-law trend at photon background energies $\epsilon {\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}\,}$ few $\times 10^{-1}$ eV, which are relevant for the absorption of TeV photons. This will be useful to explain the high-energy behaviour of the transfer function.
The absorption function $\Gamma_\gamma$ as function of the photon energy on Earth $E$ and of the redshift $z$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:gamma\]) simply changing $E \to E(1+z)$ in the integrand and in the limit of integration.
Finally, for a given source at distance $L$, the photon spectrum observed on Earth (apart from the geometrical dilution) is given by$$I_{\rm obs}(E)
=T_\gamma(E,L)\cdot I_{\rm source}(E_0) = \exp\left(-\tau_\gamma\right)
I_{\rm source}(E_0) \, ,
\label{eq:noconversion}$$ where the initial source spectrum $I_{\rm source}(E_0)$, with initial photon energy $E_0=E(1+z)$, is modified due to the effect of the VHE photon absorption, through the transfer function $T_\gamma$, expressed in terms of the [*optical depth*]{} $$\tau_\gamma=\int_0^L dx \,\Gamma_\gamma(E,x)= \frac{c}{H_0}\int_{0}^{z_0}\frac{dz}{(1+z)
\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda + \Omega_m(1+z)^3}}\Gamma_{\gamma}(E,z) \, ,$$ dependent on the evolution of the Universe through the Hubble constant $H_0=73$ km Mpc$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$, the matter density $\Omega_m=0.24$ [@Amsler:2008zzb], and the dark energy density $\Omega_\Lambda =1-\Omega_m$ (assuming a flat cosmology). We observe that in absence of photon-ALP conversions the transfer function $T_\gamma$ drops exponentially at high energies. We will see that the effect of VHE photon-ALP conversion is to soften this behaviour.
Very high-energy photons mixing with axion-like particles
=========================================================
Equations of motion
-------------------
The effect of the absorption of VHE photons on the EBL, described in the previous Section, can be strongly modified if photons do mix with axion-like particles (ALPs). Pseudoscalar ALPs couple with photons through the following effective Lagrangian [@Raffelt:1987im] $${\cal L}_{a\gamma} =
-\frac{1}{4} g_{a\gamma} F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}a
\label{eq:pscoupl}\,,$$ where $a$ is the ALP field with mass $m_a$, $F_{\mu\nu}$ the electromagnetic field-strength tensor, $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}
\equiv\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma}$ its dual, and $g_{a\gamma} $ the ALP-photon coupling. As a consequence of this coupling, ALPs and photons do oscillate into each other in an external magnetic field. For a scalar particle, the coupling is proportional to $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}a$. For definiteness, we limit our discussion to the pseudoscalar case, but similar consequences apply also to scalars.
Let us suppose that a photon with energy $E$ moves in the $x_3$ direction. The transverse component of the external magnetic field is ${\bf B}_T={\bf B}-B_3{\bf e}_3$. The evolution equations of the photon-ALP system in presence of mixing and absorption are [@Raffelt:1987im; @Csaki:2003ef] $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1\ \\ A_2 \\ a\end{array}\right)
&=&{\cal H}\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1\ \\ A_2 \\ a\end{array}\right) \nonumber\\
&=&
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\Delta_{11}-i\frac{\Gamma_\gamma}{2} & \Delta_{12} & \Delta_{a\gamma} c_\phi\\
\Delta_{21} & \Delta_{22}-i\frac{\Gamma_\gamma}{2} & \Delta_{a\gamma} s_\phi\\
\Delta_{a\gamma} c_\phi & \Delta_{a\gamma} s_\phi& \Delta_a\end{array}\right]
\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1\ \\ A_2 \\ a\end{array}\right)\, ,
\label{eq:evol1}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_\phi\equiv \cos\phi={\bf B}_T\cdot{\bf e}_1/B_T
= \sqrt{1-s_\phi^2}$. The entries $\Delta_{ij}$ ($i,j=1,2$) that mix the photon polarization states are energy-dependent terms determined by the properties of the medium and the QED vacuum polarization effect. In particular, neglecting the Faraday rotation effects which are not relevant for the high energies of our interest, they read $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{11}&=&\Delta_\parallel c^2_\phi+\Delta_\perp s^2_\phi\,,\nonumber\\
\Delta_{22}&=&\Delta_\parallel s^2_\phi+\Delta_\perp c^2_\phi\,,\nonumber\\
\Delta_{12}&=&\Delta_{21}=(\Delta_\parallel-\Delta_\perp)s_\phi c_\phi\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta_\parallel=\Delta_{\rm pl}+\frac{7}{2}\Delta_{\rm QED}$, $\Delta_\perp=\Delta_{\rm pl}+2\Delta_{\rm QED}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{a\gamma}&=&\frac{1}{2} g_{a\gamma} B_T
\simeq 1.52\times10^{-2} \left(\frac{g_{a\gamma}}{10^{-11}\textrm{GeV}^{-1}} \right)
\left(\frac{B_T}{10^{-9}\,\rm G}\right) {\rm Mpc}^{-1}
\nonumber\,,\\
\Delta_a&=&-\frac{m_a^2}{2E}
\simeq
-7.8 \times 10^{-4} \left(\frac{m_a}{10^{-10}
{\rm eV}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{E}{{\rm TeV}} \right)^{-1} {\rm Mpc}^{-1}
\nonumber\,,\\
\Delta_{\rm pl}&=& -\frac{\omega^2_{\rm pl}}{2E}
\simeq -1.1\times10^{-11}\left(\frac{E}{{\rm TeV}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{n_e}{10^{-7} \,{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right) {\rm Mpc}^{-1}
\nonumber\,,\\
\Delta_{\rm QED}&=& \frac{\alpha E}{45\pi}\left(\frac{B_T}{m_e^2/e}\right)^2
\simeq
4.1\times10^{-9}\left(\frac{E}{{\rm TeV}}\right)
\left(\frac{B_T}{10^{-9}\,\rm G}\right)^2 {\rm Mpc}^{-1}
\,,
\label{eq:Delta0}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_T$ is expressed in LorentzÐ-Heaviside units and $\omega^2_{\rm pl}=4\pi\alpha n_e/m_e$ is the plasma frequency of the medium, being $n_e$ the electron density. For the numerical estimations above, that we will use in the following as benchmark values, we have referred to the following physical input: The strength of widespread, all-pervading $B$-fields in the extragalactic medium must be $B {\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}2.8\times10^{-7} (l/{\rm Mpc})^{-1/2}\,{\rm G}$, coherent on a scale $l\simeq1\,$Mpc [@Blasi:1999hu], as obtained scaling the original bound from the Faraday effect of distant radio sources [@Kronberg:1993vk; @Grasso:2000wj] to the now much better known baryon density measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) [@Hinshaw:2008kr]. The mean diffuse intergalactic plasma density is bounded by $n_e {\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}2.7 \times
10^{-7}$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to the recent WMAP measurement of the baryon density [@Hinshaw:2008kr]. Recent results from the CAST experiment give a direct experimental bound on the ALP-photon coupling of $g_{\rm a\gamma}{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}8.8\times 10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for $m_a{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}0.02$ eV [@Arik:2008mq], slightly better than the long-standing globular-cluster limit [@Raffelt:2006cw]. For ultra-light axions a stringent limit from the absence of $\gamma$-rays from SN 1987A gives ${g_{a\gamma}}{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}1\times 10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ [@Brockway:1996yr] or even ${g_{a\gamma}}{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}3\times 10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ [@Grifols:1996id]. Previous bounds on ALPs can be relaxed if they have a chameleontic nature [@Brax:2007ak]. In this case, the best constraint comes from the structure of starlight polarization: $g_{a \gamma} {\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}10^{-9}$ GeV$^{-1}$ [@Burrage:2008ii].
The absorption term $\Gamma_\gamma$ in Eq. (\[eq:evol1\]), due to the VHE photons scattering with the low-energy photons in the background, produces a damping of the oscillations in analogy with the case of the mixing of high-energy neutrinos in an absorbing matter [@Naumov:2001ci]. In the presence of this term, the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ is no longer hermitian.
Mean photon transfer function
-----------------------------
Assuming an homogeneous magnetic field in a domain of size $l$, in absence of absorption the probability that a photon will convert into an ALP reads [@Raffelt:1987im] $$\label{a16}
P_{a \gamma} = {\rm sin}^2 2 \theta \ {\rm sin}^2
\left( \frac{\Delta_{\rm osc} \, l}{2} \right)~,$$ where the photon-ALP mixing angle $\theta$ is $$\label{a16m}
\theta = \frac{1}{2} \, {\rm arcsin} \left(
\frac{2 \Delta_{a \gamma}}{{\Delta}_{\rm osc}} \right) \,\ ,$$ and the oscillation wavenumber reads $$\label{a17}
{\Delta}_{\rm osc} =
\left[\left( \Delta_a-\Delta_{\rm pl} \right)^2 +
4 \Delta_{a \gamma}^2 \right]^{1/2}
= 2 \Delta_{a \gamma} \sqrt{1 + \left(\frac{E_c}{E} \right)^2}
\,\ ,$$ in terms of the critical energy $$\begin{aligned}
{E}_c &\equiv& E
\frac{|\Delta_a-\Delta_{\rm pl}|}{2 \Delta_{a \gamma}}\nonumber\\
&\simeq& 2.5 \cdot 10^{-2}
\frac{| m_a^2 - {\omega}_{\rm pl}^2|}{(10^{-10}{\rm eV})^2}
\left( \frac{10^{-9}{\rm G}}{B_T} \right)
\left( \frac{10^{-11}\rm GeV^{-1}}{g_{a \gamma}} \right)
{\rm TeV} \,\ .\end{aligned}$$ In the high-energy limit $E\gg E_c$, $\Delta_{\rm osc}
\simeq 2 \Delta_{a \gamma}$, the photon-ALP mixing is [maximal]{} ($\theta \simeq \pi/4$) and the conversion probability becomes energy-independent. This is the so-called strong-mixing regime. In this case, if $\Delta_{a \gamma} l\ll 1$, the conversion probability on a single domain becomes extremely simple, namely $P_{a \gamma} = (\Delta_{a \gamma}l)^2$. In the following, we will work in this regime.
In this situation, we explicitly drop $\Delta_{\parallel,\perp}$ and $\Delta_a$ from the equations of motion \[Eq. (\[eq:evol1\])\]. Thus, the propagation hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ can be written as ${\cal H}=\Delta-i{\cal D}$ where $$\Delta = \Delta_{a\gamma}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & c_\phi\\
0 & 0 & s_\phi\\
c_\phi & s_\phi& 0\end{array}\right]\, ,
\label{eq:Delta}$$ and ${\cal D}=\frac{\Gamma_\gamma}{2}{\rm diag}(1,1,0)$ is the damping term associated to the absorption.
Very high-energy gamma-rays propagate in the extragalactic magnetic fields during their route to the Earth. These $B$-fields presumably have a turbulent structure. Therefore, for the case under study we need to describe photon-ALP conversions in random magnetic field configurations. Let us now consider the propagation of photons in many domains of equal size $l$ ($\simeq 1$ Mpc in our case) in which the magnetic field has (constant) random values and directions. Along a given line of sight, the angles $\phi$ are randomly distributed in $[0,2\pi)$. In the following, we will work in the formalism of the density matrix $$\rho = \left(\begin{array}{c}A_1\ \\ A_2 \\ a
\end{array}\right)
\otimes \left(\begin{array}{c}A_1 \ A_2 \ a\end{array}\right)^{*} \,\ .$$ For the $k$-th domain the density matrix is given by $${\rho}_k=e^{-i{\cal H}_kl}\cdot {\rho}_{k-1}\cdot e^{i{\cal H}_k^\dag l}\,,$$ where $e^{-i{\cal H}_kl}$ is the propagation operator for the $k$-th domain. During their path with a total length $L$, photons cross $k=1,\ldots n$ domains ($n=L/l$) representing a given random realization of $B_k$ and $\phi_k$. Since we cannot know this particular configuration, we perform an ensemble average over all the possible realizations on the $1,\ldots n$ domains. Defining this ensemble average as ${\bar \rho}_n=\langle{\rho}_n\rangle_{1\ldots n}$, we have $${\bar \rho}_n=\langle e^{-i{\cal H}_n l}\cdot \rho_{n-1}\cdot e^{i{\cal H}_n^\dag l}\rangle_{1\ldots n}=\langle e^{-i{\cal H}_n l}\cdot {\bar \rho}_{n-1}\cdot e^{i{\cal H}_n^\dag l}
\rangle_n\,.
\label{eq:average}$$ For the chosen values of the input parameters as in Eq. (\[eq:Delta0\]), we can perform a perturbative expansion up to the second order of the evolution operator in each domain, i.e.
$$e^{-i{\cal H}_n l}\simeq 1-i{\cal H}_nl-\frac{1}{2} {\cal H}_n^2l^2
\,.$$
Performing then the ensemble average, as shown in Appendix A, using that ${\bar \rho}_n-{\bar \rho}_{n-1}\simeq l\partial_{x_3} {\bar \rho}(x_3)$, and summing over the two indistinguishable photon polarization states, we finally arrive at a system of two coupled differential equations $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}
\left(\begin{array}{c} T_\gamma \\ T_a\end{array}\right)
=\frac{P_{a\gamma}}{l}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-\left(\alpha+\frac{1}{2}\right) & 1\\
\frac{1}{2} & -1\end{array}\right]
\left(\begin{array}{c} T_\gamma\\ T_a\end{array}\right)\, ,
\label{eq:Tevol}$$ where $T_\gamma={\bar\rho}_{11} +{\bar\rho}_{22}$ and $T_a = {\bar\rho}_{aa}$ are the mean transfer functions for the photon and for the ALP respectively; $P_{a\gamma}={\Delta_{a\gamma}^2} l^2$ is the average photon-ALP conversion probability in each domain (in absence of absorption and in the limit of strong mixing) and finally $\alpha= \Gamma_\gamma l/P_{a\gamma}$ is the ratio between the absorption probability and the conversion probability.
In realistic astrophysical situations both $P_{a\gamma}$ and $\alpha$ are functions of the distance, due to the redshift dependence of the extragalactic magnetic field and of the EBL. However, taking these parameters as constant, in the hypothesis of only photons in the initial state ($T_\gamma(0)=1$, $T_a(0)=0$) Eq. (\[eq:Tevol\]) has a simple analytical solution $$T_\gamma(y) = e^{-\nu y}\left[\cosh \kappa y+\frac{1-2\alpha}{4\kappa}\sinh \kappa y\right]\, ,
\label{eq:Tgammaa}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nu &=&\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{4}\, ,\nonumber\\
\kappa &=&\sqrt{\nu^2-\alpha}\, ,\nonumber\\
y &=& \frac{P_{a\gamma}x_3}{l} \,\ .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, Eq. (\[eq:Tgammaa\]) gives the two limiting expressions $$\label{cases} T_\gamma(y) \simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{3}e^{-3y/2} & \alpha =0, \\
\frac{1}{2\alpha^2}e^{-y} & \alpha\gg 1. \\
\end{array}\right.$$ In the absence of absorption, we recover the mean transfer function already found in [@Grossman:2002by]. Conversely, in the case of strong absorption ($ \alpha\gg 1$) we have $T_\gamma\propto (\Gamma_\gamma)^{-2}$. Using the approximate expression for $\Gamma_\gamma$ given in Eq. (\[eq:bgktoday\]) we observe that the transfer function would drop as a power of the energy (rather than exponentially as expected without ALP mixing). Moreover, also the attenuation of the transfer function with the distance is less than in the case of absence of conversions. In fact, the argument of the exponential is suppressed by a factor $1/\alpha$ with respect to the no-conversion case \[see Eq. (\[eq:noconversion\])\].
In Appendix B we report also the calculation of the root mean square $\delta T_\gamma$ for the distribution of the transfer function in different random realizations of the magnetic field. This result is useful to estimate the uncertainty associated with the averaging procedure.
For illustrative purposes, in Fig. \[transfer\] we compare the transfer matrix $T_{\gamma}(y)$ of Eq. (\[eq:Tgammaa\]), with the numerical solution of Eq. (\[eq:evol1\]), for a value of the parameter $\Delta_{a\gamma}$ as in Eq. (\[eq:Delta0\]). For simplicity, we choose constant values of the absorption factor $\alpha$, namely $\alpha=0$ (no absorption) in the upper panel and $\alpha=1$ in the lower panel. The dashed lines represent $T_\gamma \pm \delta T_\gamma$, where $\delta T_\gamma$ is the dispersion calculated as in Appendix B. In the left panels, the dot-dashed lines correspond to $T_{\gamma}$ for a given random realization of the magnetic field along the photon line of sight, obtained by the numerical solution of Eq. (\[eq:evol1\]). In absence of absorption, we realize that along a given line of sight, the photon transfer function can present strong deviations with respect to the average value obtained with our analytical calculation. In this case, the dispersion with respect to the average tends to $\delta T_\gamma=1/3\sqrt{5}$ for $y\to \infty$, as shown in Appendix B. We stress that the presence of a dispersion around the average $T_{\gamma}$ has not been properly appreciated in the previous literature. In particular, previous studies on the mixing of photons with ALPs emitted from point-like sources into random magnetic fields have presented $2/3$ as limiting value for the photon transfer function (see e.g. [@Csaki:2001yk] for the case of photons emitted by supernovae Ia). In the case of strong mixing, where the oscillations are achromatic and photons of different energies are not dephased, this result is correct only on average, while along a given line of sight one can expect ${\cal O} (1)$ deviations from this value. This peculiar effect has been also recently recognized in the context of photons emitted by active galactic nuclei [@Burrage:2009mj]. Indeed, the scatter in their luminosities has been interpreted in [@Burrage:2009mj] as a possible hint of the existence of a very light ALP. As a further consequence of this effect, it would be worthwhile to investigate if the presence of these large variations in the photon transfer function could put additional constraints to the mechanism of photon-ALP conversions introduced in [@Csaki:2001yk] to explain the observed dimming of supernovae Ia. In fact, photon conversions into ALP could produce large dispersions in the supernova lightcurves. In the presence of absorption (lower panels) the transfer function (and its dispersion) is suppressed as a power-law for $y\gg 1$, due to the damping of the oscillations. In the right panels, we superimpose on our prescription for $T_{\gamma}$ a scatter plot corresponding to $N_r=20$ different realizations of the random magnetic fields and for 500 steps in the variable $y$. Again, we realize that behaviour of the $T_{\gamma}$ distribution is damped by the effect of the absorption ($\alpha=1$). However, as we will see in the next Section, the presence of a dispersion around the mean value will have interesting consequences for VHE photons. Finally, we mention that performing the averaging procedure over the transfer functions corresponding the different random realizations, we recover our analytical results (not shown).
Transfer function for very high-energy photons
==============================================
We will apply the results of the previous Section to the case of VHE photons. For the characterization of the EBL, we refer to the 2008 Minimal Kneiske Model [@Kneiske:2008mp], discussed in Section 2. Concerning the extragalactic magnetic field, we consider it frozen into the medium. With this assumption, the scaling law of the magnetic field with the redshift $z$ is given by $B(z) = B_{0}(1+z)^2$ [@Grasso:2000wj] while the size of the magnetic domains scales as $l=l_0/(1+z)$. With this choice, $P_{a\gamma}(z)$ scales as $(1+z)^2$. We assume $B_0=1$ nG and $l_0=1$ Mpc. Equation (\[eq:Tevol\]) can be easily written in terms of the redshift, by means of the Jacobian $$\frac{dx}{dz}=\frac{c}{H_0}\frac{1}{(1+z)
\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda + \Omega_m(1+z)^3}}
\, .$$
In Fig. \[redshift\] we show the photon transfer function $T_{\gamma}$ in presence of absorption on the EBL for our reference model, in function of the redshift $z$ for different values of the observed photon energy $E$ with (continuous curve) and without ALP mixing (dotted curve). The dashed curves represent the spread $T_{\gamma}
\pm \delta T_{\gamma}$ around the mean value. One realizes that at redshift $z>0.2$ the presence of ALPs could produce dramatic modifications in the shape of the photon transfer function, the stronger the effect the higher the photon energy. In this sense, a hint of the mixing of very high-energy photons with ALPs would be the detection of very distant sources otherwise obscure due to the absorption. However, from the spread of the photon transfer function $\delta T_{\gamma}$, we also realize that at high redshift $T_{\gamma}$ can present relevant deviations with respect to the mean value. In this sense, the effect of mixing with ALPs for VHE photons emitted by distant gamma sources would be strongly dependent on the particular realization of the extragalactic magnetic fields crossed by them during their propagation. Therefore, it is not guaranteed that the mixing with ALPs could provide an universal mechanism to achieve the transparency of distant gamma-sources. Conversely, for particular configurations of the extragalactic magnetic fields crossed by VHE photons, one could also find a suppression of the transfer function stronger than in the standard case. In general, observing VHE photons from far sources one would find strong differences in the measured spectra along different lines of sight. As a further consequence, the presence of ALPs would prevent the possibility to use distant gamma sources at very high energy as cosmological candles [@Bi:2008rf].
In Fig. \[energy\] we show the photon transfer function as function of the energy for four different values of the redshift of the emitting source (as in Fig. 1 of [@Kneiske:2008mp]). We see that in absence of ALP conversions the photon transfer function would be strongly suppressed at energies above $E {\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}\,}100$ GeV, the stronger the suppression the larger the redshift. On the other hand, in presence of conversions, $T_\gamma$ has an approximate power-law behaviour at high energies, as pointed out in the previous Section. We also realize that the spread in the possible values of $T_{\gamma}$ would make difficult to infer strong conclusions about ALP mixing observing only few sources. We also note that in the case of $z=0.20$ the inclusion of the ALPs does not produce any significant change in the photon transfer function. This suggests that it would be difficult to interpret in terms of ALP conversions the presumed transparency to gamma radiations for the sources at $z=0.165$ and $z=0.186$ discussed in [@Aharonian:2005gh; @Mazin:2007pn]. Conversely, ALP conversions could play a significant role for the source 3C279 at redshift $z=0.54$ [@alberto].
Finally, in Figure 5 we show two iso-contours of the photon transfer function $T_{\gamma}$ in function of the redshift $z$ and of the observed photon energy $E$ with and without ALP conversions. We see that the attenuation of the photon transfer function in the presence of ALP conversions could present a large variation at high redshift with respect to the standard expectations with only absorption.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
Very high-energy gamma-ray observations would open the possibility to probe the existence of axion-like particles (ALPs) predicted in many theories beyond the Standard Model. Recent gamma observations of cosmologically distant gamma-ray sources have revealed a surprising degree of transparency of the universe to very high-energy photons. The oscillations between high-energy photons and ALPs in the random extragalactic magnetic fields have been proposed as an intriguing possibility to explain these observations [@De; @Angelis:2007dy; @DeAngelis:2008sk]. Apart from the original proposal, the consequences of this mechanism are testable with the measurements of the new generation of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes, like MAGIC [@magic], HESS [@hess], VERITAS [@Weekes:2001pd] or CANGAROO-III [@Enomoto:2001xu], covering energies in the range 0.1-20 TeV, and hopefully with the future Cherenkov Telescope Array, reaching energies of 100 TeV [@cta].
In order to perform a systematic study of these effects, without recurring to brute-force time-consuming numerical simulations, in this paper we have presented a simple calculations of the photon mean transfer function and of its variance in presence of absorption on the EBL and mixing with ALPs. We have found that our prescription is enough accurate for the case under study and we have shown some numerical examples of VHE photon transfer functions. It results that VHE photon-ALP mixing would produce peculiar deformations in the energy spectra of very high-energy gamma-rays emitted at high redshift. We have also found that the photon transfer function in presence of VHE photon-ALP conversions presents a relevant dispersion around the mean value due to the randomness of the extragalactic magnetic fields crossed by the photons. Due to this fact, the measured flux for VHE photons traveling along different lines of sight can be strongly suppressed or enhanced with respect to the case with only absorption, depending on the particular configuration of random magnetic fields encountered. This would suggest that photon-ALP conversions could not be an universal mechanism to produce the transparency of universe to VHE photons. Conversely, the most striking signature of the mixing with ALPs would be a reconstructed EBL density from TeV photon observations which appears to vary over different directions of the sky: consistent with standard expectations in some regions, but inconsistent in others. To test this effect we would need to collect data from sources along different directions in the sky in order to perform a study of the photon energy distributions, from which we could hope to infer possible hints of ALPs. A further signature of these stochastic conversions would be the detection of peculiar direction-dependent dimming effects in the diffuse photon radiation observable in GeV range, testable with the FERMI (previously called GLAST) experiment [@Gehrels:1999ri].
As further developments, we plan to use our calculation to perform a systematic study of ALP signatures in very high-energy gamma-rays, analyzing in details the spectral deformations expected for observed sources at different redshifts and for different models of the extragalactic background light. Thanks to our calculation, this task now appears more doable than before. After that, it will remain to see if elusive ALPs will show up from the sky.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank R. Wagner and D. Shaw for fruitful discussions and C. Burrage, G. Raffelt, M. Roncadelli and P. D. Serpico for reading the manuscripts and for useful comments on it. D.M. acknowledges kind hospitality at the Max-Planck-Institut where part of this work was done. D.M. thanks also the organizers of the “5th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs” for the kind hospitality and the stimulating discussions. In Lecce, the work of D.M. is partly supported by the Italian MIUR and INFN through the “Astroparticle Physics” research project, and by the EU ILIAS through the ENTApP project.
Calculation of the mean photon transfer function
================================================
Here, we present the derivation of the photon transfer function $T_{\gamma}$ introduced in Sec. 3.2. We have defined ${\bar \rho}_n\equiv\langle{\rho}_n\rangle_{1\ldots n}$, as an ensemble average of the density matrix $\rho_n$ in the $n$-th domain over all the possible realizations of the random magnetic fields in all the domains from $1$ to $n$. Since ${\cal H}_n$ depends only from the configuration of the $n$-th domain, we have that $${\bar \rho}_n=\langle e^{-i{\cal H}_n l}\cdot \rho_{n-1}\cdot e^{i{\cal H}_n^\dag l}\rangle_{1\ldots n}=\langle e^{-i{\cal H}_n l}\cdot {\bar \rho}_{n-1}\cdot e^{i{\cal H}_n^\dag l}
\rangle_n\, .
\label{eq:averageap}$$ For the chosen values of the input parameters in Eq. (\[eq:evol1\]), we can perform a perturbative expansion of the evolution operator up to the second order ${\cal H}_n = \Delta_n -i {\cal D}_n$ in each domain, i.e. $$e^{-i{\cal H}_n l}\simeq 1-i{\cal H}_n l-\frac{1}{2} {\cal H}^2_n l^2
\,.$$ Since, from Eq. (\[eq:Delta\]) it results that $\langle \Delta_n\rangle_{\phi_n}=0$, Eq. (\[eq:averageap\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bar\rho}_n &=&{\bar \rho}_{n-1}-l\left({\cal D}_n{\bar \rho}_{n-1}+
{\bar \rho}_{n-1}{\cal D}_n\right) \nonumber \\
&+&
l^2\langle \Delta_n {\bar \rho}_{n-1} \Delta_n \rangle_n
-\frac{l^2}{2}\left(\langle \Delta_n^2\rangle_n {\bar \rho}_{n-1}
+{\bar \rho}_{n-1}\langle \Delta_n^2\rangle_n\right)\, .\label{eq:eqQ}\end{aligned}$$ In the previous equation we have neglected the second order terms in ${\cal D}_n l$ since they give a contribution of the order of $(\Gamma_\gamma l)^2{\,\rlap{\lower3.7pt\hbox{$\mathchar\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}\,}10^{-6}$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:lenght\])\] which is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than $(\Delta_{a\gamma} l)^2\sim 10^{-4}$, when we use the benchmark values in Eq. (\[eq:Delta0\]).
For $\langle \Delta_n^2\rangle_n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Delta_n^2\rangle_n&=&\frac{1}{4} g^2_{a\gamma}\left\langle B_{T,n}^2
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos^2\phi_n & \sin\phi_n\cos\phi_n & 0 \\
\sin\phi_n\cos\phi_n & \sin^2\phi_n & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right]\right\rangle_{\phi_n, {\bf B}_n}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&
\overline{\Delta_{a\gamma}^2}
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\overline{\Delta^2_{a\gamma}}=\frac{1}{4}g^2_{a\gamma}\langle B_T^2\rangle_{{\bf B}_n}
=\left(\frac{1}{2}g_{a\gamma} B_{\rm eff}\right)^2\, ,$$ where $ B_{\rm eff}^2 = \langle B_T^2\rangle_{{\bf B}_n} =2\langle|{\bf B}|^2\rangle/3$ due to the projection effect. In the same way we have $$\langle \Delta_n {\bar \rho}_{n-1}\Delta_n \rangle_n =
\frac{1}{2}\overline{\Delta_{a\gamma}^2}
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bar\rho}_{ aa} & 0 & {\bar\rho}_{ a1}\\
0 & {\bar\rho}_{ aa} & {\bar\rho}_{ a2}\\
{\bar\rho}_{1a} & {\bar\rho}_{ 2a} &
{\bar\rho}_{{11}}
+{\bar\rho}_{ 22}
\end{array}\right]_{n-1}\, .$$ After $n$ domains, the total distance travelled by the photon is $x_3=n l$. Defining ${\bar \rho}_n\equiv {\bar \rho}(x_3)$, one has ${\bar \rho}_n-{\bar \rho}_{n-1}\simeq l\partial_{x_3} {\bar \rho}(x_3)$. After a straightforward calculation, we obtain the evolution equation for the averaged density matrix ${\bar \rho}$ $$\nonumber
\frac{\partial {\bar \rho}}{\partial {x_3} }
=\frac{P_{a\gamma}}{l}
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
-\mu{\bar \rho}_{11} + \frac{1}{2}{\bar \rho}_{aa} &
-\mu{\bar \rho}_{12} &
-\nu{\bar \rho}_{1a} + \frac{1}{2}{\bar \rho}_{a1}\\
-\mu{\bar \rho}_{21} &
-\mu{\bar \rho}_{22} + \frac{1}{2}{\bar \rho}_{aa} &
-\nu{\bar \rho}_{2a} + \frac{1}{2}{\bar \rho}_{a2}\\
-\nu{\bar \rho}_{a1} + \frac{1}{2}{\bar \rho}_{1a} &
-\nu{\bar \rho}_{a2} + \frac{1}{2}{\bar \rho}_{2a} &
- {\bar \rho}_{aa} + \frac{1}{2}\left({\bar \rho}_{11}+{\bar \rho}_{22}\right)
\end{array}\right]\,
\label{eq:Qevolapp}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mu &=& \alpha+\frac{1}{2} \,\ , \nonumber \\
\nu &=& \frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{4} \,\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and we have defined as $P_{a\gamma}=\overline{\Delta_{a\gamma}^2} l^2$ the average photon-ALP oscillation probability in each domain (in absence of absorption and in the limit of strong mixing) and $\alpha\equiv \Gamma^\gamma l/P_{a\gamma}$ the ratio between the absorption probability and the oscillation probability.
Since we are interested in determining the total final photon and ALP flux, we define the mean [*transfer functions*]{} $T_\gamma= {\bar\rho}_{11}+{\bar\rho}_{22}$ and $T_a={\bar\rho}_{aa}$, for whose evolution we finally obtain $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}
\left(\begin{array}{c} T_\gamma \\ T_a\end{array}\right)
=\frac{P_{a\gamma}}{l}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
- \mu & 1\\
\frac{1}{2} & -1\end{array}\right]
\left(\begin{array}{c} T_\gamma\\ T_a\end{array}\right)\, .
\label{eq:Tevolap}$$ Defining the variable $dy=P_{a\gamma} dx_3/l$, we can also obtain a second order equation for the function $T_\gamma$ $$T''_\gamma+\left(\alpha+\frac{3}{2}\right)T'_\gamma+\left(\alpha+\alpha'\right)T_\gamma=0\, ,
\label{eq:Teq}$$ where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $y$. For constant $\alpha$ we easily obtain the solution in Eq. (\[eq:Tgammaa\]).
Calculation of higher momenta
==============================
In the previous Appendix we have have calculated the photon transfer function $T_{\gamma}$ averaged over all the possible magnetic domain configurations. However, photons coming from a single source cross just one (unknown) particular realization of the magnetic field domains. It is thus interesting to evaluate the uncertainty introduced by the procedure of averaging. To do this, we calculate the second order momenta of the probability distributions, by means of a procedure similar to the one introduced in Appendix A. We define the “square” of the density matrix as $${\rho}^{(2)}={\rho}\otimes {\rho}\rightarrow \rho^{(2)}_{ijkl}=\rho_{ij}\rho_{kl}\, ,$$ and ${\bar \rho}^{(2)}_n=
\langle {\rho}^{(2)}_n\rangle_{1\dots n}$. We rewrite Eq. (\[eq:Qevolapp\]) in the following way $$\frac{\partial}{\partial y} {\bar \rho}_{ij}=G_{ijrs}{\bar\rho}_{rs}\, ,$$ where the tensor $G_{ijkl}$ can be written as $$G_{ijkl}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cllll}
-\mu && {\rm if} & ijkl= & 1111,\,1212,\,2121,\,2222
\\
-1 && {\rm if} & ijkl= & aaaa\\
-\nu && {\rm if} & ijkl= & 1a1a,\,a1a1,\,2a2a,\,a2a2\\
\frac{1}{2} &&{\rm if} & ijkl= & 11aa,\,22aa,\,aa11,\,aa22\\
& & & &1aa1,\,2aa2,\,a11a,\,a22a\\
0 & & & &{\rm otherwise}\, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ Performing the average of $\rho^{(2)}$ up to the first order in $\Gamma_\gamma l$ and to the second order in $\Delta_{a\gamma}l$ as in Eq. (\[eq:eqQ\]), we arrive at the following equation for the evolution of ${\bar \rho}^{(2)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x_3} {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{ijkl}&=&
\frac{P_{a\gamma}}{l}\left(G_{ijrs}{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{rskl}+G_{rskl}{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{ijrs}\right)\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=}&-l\langle
\left(\Delta_{ir}\rho_{rj}-\rho_{ir}\Delta_{rj}\right)
\left(\Delta_{ks}\rho_{sl}-\rho_{ks}\Delta_{sl}\right)
\rangle_{1\cdots n}\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{P_{a\gamma}}{l}\left(G_{ijrs}{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{rskl}+G_{rskl}{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{ijrs}\right)\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=}&-l\left(
\langle \Delta_{ir}\Delta_{ks}\rangle {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{rjsl}+
\langle \Delta_{rj}\Delta_{sl}\rangle {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{irks}\right.\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=}&-\left.
\langle \Delta_{ir}\Delta_{sl}\rangle {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{rjks}-
\langle \Delta_{rj}\Delta_{ks}\rangle {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{irsl}
\right)
\, ,
\label{eq:complete}\end{aligned}$$ where for simplicity we have dropped the subscript $n$ from the averages in the last two lines. The last term arises from the linear term in $l$ in Eq. (\[eq:average\]) which is absent in Eq. (\[eq:eqQ\]) since it averages out ($\langle{\Delta}\rangle=0$). From Eq. (\[eq:Delta\]) we have that $\langle \Delta_{ij}\Delta_{kl}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\Delta_{a\gamma}^2}\xi_{ijkl}$ with $$\xi_{ijkl}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cllll}
1 && {\rm if} & ijkl= &11aa,\,1aa1,\,a11a,\,aa11\\
& & & &22aa,\,2aa2,\,a22a,\,aa22\\
0 & & & &{\rm otherwise}\, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ After a long but straightforward derivation, one can extract a subset of 6 independent equations out from the set of the 81 of (\[eq:complete\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_y R_\gamma &=& -(2\alpha+1)R_\gamma+2\eta_{a\gamma}-\zeta_{a\gamma}
\nonumber\\
\partial_y R_a &=& -2R_a + \eta_{a\gamma}-\zeta_{a\gamma}
\nonumber\\
\partial_y R_p &=& -(2\alpha+1) R_p -\zeta_{a\gamma}
\nonumber\\
\partial_y \zeta_\gamma &=& -(2\alpha+1) \zeta_\gamma -\zeta_{a\gamma}
\nonumber\\
\partial_y \eta_{a\gamma} &=& -\left(\alpha+\frac{3}{2}\right)\eta_{a\gamma}
+\frac{1}{2}R_\gamma+R_a+\zeta_{a\gamma}
\nonumber\\
\partial_y \zeta_{a\gamma} &=& -\left(\alpha+\frac{5}{2}\right)\zeta_{a\gamma}
-\frac{1}{2}R_\gamma-2R_a+2\eta_{a\gamma}-\frac{1}{2}(R_p+\zeta_\gamma)\, ,
\label{eq:6equations}\end{aligned}$$ where, as usual, $dy=P_{a\gamma}dx_3/l$ and, $$\begin{aligned}
R_\gamma &=& {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1111}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2222}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1122}
+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2211}
\equiv \langle ({\bar\rho}_{11}+{\bar\rho}_{22})^2\rangle
\nonumber\\
R_a &=& {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{aaaa}\equiv \langle {\bar\rho}_{aa}^2\rangle
\nonumber\\
R_p &=& {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1111}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2222}-{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1122}-{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2211}
\equiv \langle ({\bar\rho}_{11}-{\bar\rho}_{22})^2\rangle
\nonumber\\
\zeta_\gamma &=& {\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1212}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2121}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1221}+
{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2112}
\nonumber\\
\eta_{a\gamma} &=& \frac{1}{2}\left({\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{11aa}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{aa11}
+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{22aa}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{aa22}\right)\equiv\langle
({\bar\rho}_{11}+{\bar\rho}_{22})\cdot {\bar\rho}_{aa}\rangle
\nonumber\\
\zeta_{a\gamma} &=& \frac{1}{2}\bigg({\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1a1a}+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{a1a1}-
{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{a11a}-{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{1aa1} \nonumber\\
&+&{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2a2a}
+{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{a2a2}-{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{a22a}-{\bar\rho}^{(2)}_{2aa2}\bigg)
\, .\end{aligned}$$ We can thus give a physical interpretation for some of these quantities: $R_\gamma$ and $R_a$ are the square average of the photon and ALP transfer function respectively, $R_p$ is the average square degree of polarization of the photon, $\eta_{a\gamma}$ is the photon-ALP correlation. Since the third and the fourth of Eqs. (\[eq:6equations\]) are similar, starting from a completely unpolarized photon state we find also that $R_p(y)=\zeta_\gamma(y)$, so that we can reduce further the system Eqs. (\[eq:6equations\]) to five independent equations. We finally define the “1$\sigma$” uncertainty on the photon transfer function as $\delta T_\gamma=[R_\gamma-T_\gamma^2]^{1/2}$. However, the distribution of $T_\gamma$ is not gaussian (and in general is also asymmetrical) so that $T_\gamma\pm\delta T_\gamma$ should be interpreted just as a qualitative “band” with a not defined confidence level.
For a constant value of $\alpha$, the system of Eqs. (\[eq:6equations\]) can be integrated analytically. For simplicity, we give here only the solution for the case $\alpha=0$ $$R_\gamma(y)=\frac{49+50e^{-3y/2}+6e^{-5y}}{105}\, .$$ For $y\to\infty$ we have thus the prediction $T_\gamma=2/3\pm 1/3\sqrt{5}$.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
P. Svrcek and E. Witten, “Axions in string theory,” JHEP [**0606**]{}, 051 (2006) \[hep-th/0605206\]. A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, “String Axiverse,” arXiv:0905.4720 \[hep-th\].
E. Masso, “Axions and their relatives,” Lect. Notes Phys. [**741**]{}, 83 (2008) \[hep-ph/0607215\]. L. D. Duffy [*et al.*]{}, “A High Resolution Search for Dark-Matter Axions,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 012006 (2006) \[astro-ph/0603108\]. K. Zioutas [*et al.*]{} \[CAST Collaboration\], “First results from the CERN Axion Solar Telescope (CAST),” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 121301 (2005) \[hep-ex/0411033\]. S. Andriamonje [*et al.*]{} \[CAST Collaboration\], “An improved limit on the axion-photon coupling from the CAST experiment,” JCAP [**0704**]{}, 010 (2007) \[hep-ex/0702006\]. E. Arik [*et al.*]{} \[CAST Collaboration\], “Probing eV-scale axions with CAST,” JCAP [**0902**]{}, 008 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.4482 \[hep-ex\]\].
C. Robilliard, R. Battesti, M. Fouche, J. Mauchain, A. M. Sautivet, F. Amiranoff and C. Rizzo, “No light shining through a wall,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 190403 (2007) \[arXiv:0707.1296 \[hep-ex\]\]. A. S. Chou [*et al.*]{} \[GammeV (T-969) Collaboration\], “Search for axion-like particles using a variable baseline photon regeneration technique,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 080402 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.3783 \[hep-ex\]\].
A. Afanasev [*et al.*]{}, “New Experimental limit on Optical Photon Coupling to Neutral, Scalar Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 120401 (2008) \[arXiv:0806.2631 \[hep-ex\]\]. M. Fouche [*et al.*]{}, “Search for photon oscillations into massive particles,” Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 032013 (2008) \[arXiv:0808.2800 \[hep-ex\]\]. F. Caspers, J. Jaeckel, A. Ringwald,“Feasibility, engineering aspects and physics reach of microwave cavity experiments searching for hidden photons and axions,” arXiv:0908.0759 \[hep-ex\].
C. Csaki, N. Kaloper and J. Terning, “Dimming supernovae without cosmic acceleration,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 161302 (2002) \[hep-ph/0111311\]. C. Csaki, N. Kaloper, M. Peloso and J. Terning, “Super-GZK photons from photon axion mixing,” JCAP [**0305**]{}, 005 (2003) \[hep-ph/0302030\]. A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt and P. D. Serpico, “Photon axion conversion as a mechanism for supernova dimming: Limits from CMB spectral distortion,” Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 023501 (2005) \[astro-ph/0506078\].
A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt and P. D. Serpico, “Photon axion conversion in intergalactic magnetic fields and cosmological consequences,” Lect. Notes Phys. [**741**]{}, 115 (2008) \[astro-ph/0607415\]. A. Mirizzi, J. Redondo and G. Sigl, “Constraining resonant photon-axion conversions in the Early Universe,” JCAP [**08**]{}, 001 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.4865 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt and P. D. Serpico, “Signatures of axion-like particles in the spectra of TeV gamma-ray sources,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 023001 (2007) \[arXiv:0704.3044 \[astro-ph\]\]. A. Dupays, C. Rizzo, M. Roncadelli and G. F. Bignami, “Looking for light pseudoscalar bosons in the binary pulsar system J0737-3039,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 211302 (2005) \[astro-ph/0510324\]. D. Hooper and P. D. Serpico, “Detecting Axion-Like Particles With Gamma Ray Telescopes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 231102 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.3203 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. De Angelis, O. Mansutti and M. Roncadelli, “Axion-Like Particles, Cosmic Magnetic Fields and Gamma-Ray Astrophysics,” Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{}, 847 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.2695 \[astro-ph\]\].
M. Fairbairn, T. Rashba and S. Troitsky, “Photon-axion mixing in the Milky Way and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays from BL Lac type objects - Shining light through the Universe,” arXiv:0901.4085 \[astro-ph.HE\].
C. Burrage, A. C. Davis and D. J. Shaw, “Active Galactic Nuclei Shed Light on Axion-like-Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 201101 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.2320 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. F. Aharonian [*et al.*]{} \[H.E.S.S. Collaboration\], “A Low level of extragalactic background light as revealed by gamma-rays from blazars,” Nature [**440**]{}, 1018 (2006) \[astro-ph/0508073\]. D. Mazin and M. Raue, “New limits on the density of the extragalactic background light in the optical to the far-infrared from the spectra of all known TeV blazars,” Astron. Astrophys. [**471**]{}, 439 (2007) \[astro-ph/0701694\].
F. W. Stecker and S. T. Scully, “The Spectrum of 1ES0229 + 200 and the Cosmic Infrared Background,” arXiv:0710.2252 \[astro-ph\]. F. W. Stecker, M. G. Baring and E. J. Summerlin, “Blazar Gamma-Rays, Shock Acceleration, and the Extragalactic Background Light,” Astrophys. J. [**667**]{}, L29 (2007) \[arXiv:0707.4676 \[astro-ph\]\].
K. A. Hochmuth and G. Sigl, “Effects of Axion-Photon Mixing on Gamma-Ray Spectra from Magnetized Astrophysical Sources,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 123011 (2007) \[arXiv:0708.1144 \[astro-ph\]\].
M. Simet, D. Hooper and P. D. Serpico, “The Milky Way as a Kiloparsec-Scale Axionscope,” Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 063001 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.2825 \[astro-ph\]\].
N. Bassan and M. Roncadelli, “Photon-axion conversion in Active Galactic Nuclei?,” arXiv:0905.3752 \[astro-ph.HE\]. A. De Angelis, O. Mansutti and M. Roncadelli, “Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation?,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 121301 (2007) \[arXiv:0707.4312 \[astro-ph\]\]. A. De Angelis, O. Mansutti, M. Persic and M. Roncadelli, “Photon propagation and the VHE gamma-ray spectra of blazars: how transparent is the Universe?,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**394**]{}, L21 (2009) \[arXiv:0807.4246 \[astro-ph\]\] M. A. Sanchez-Conde, D. Paneque, E. Bloom, F. Prada and A. Dominguez, “Hints of the existence of Axion-Like-Particles from the gamma-ray spectra of cosmological sources,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 123511 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.3270 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. Albert [*et al.*]{} \[MAGIC Collaboration\], “Very High-energy gamma rays from a distant Quasar: how transparent is the Universe?,” Science [**320**]{} 1752 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.2822\[astro-ph\]\].
L. Costamante, F. Aharonian, R. Buehler, D. Khangulyan, A. Reimer and O. Reimer, “The new surprising behaviour of the two ’prototype’ blazars PKS 2155-304 and 3C 279,” arXiv:0907.3966 \[astro-ph.CO\]. F. Aharonian, D. Khangulyan and L. Costamante, “Formation of hard VHE gamma-ray spectra of blazars due to internal photon-photon absorption,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**387**]{}, 1206 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.3198 \[astro-ph\]\]. W. Essey and A. Kusenko, “A new interpretation of the gamma-ray observations of active galactic nuclei,” arXiv:0905.1162 \[astro-ph.HE\].
R. J. Gould and G. P. Schreder, “Opacity of the Universe to High-Energy Photons,” Phys. Rev. [**155**]{}, 1408 (1967). W. Heitler, [*The Quantum Theory of Radiation*]{}, (Dover, 1984) p. 430.
M. H. Salamon, F. W. Stecker and O. C. De Jager, “A New method for determining the Hubble constant from subTeV gamma-ray observations,” Astrophys. J. [**423**]{} (1994) L1.
T. M. Kneiske and H. Dole, “A strict lower-limit EBL: Applications on gamma-ray absorption,” AIP Conf. Proc. [**1085**]{}, 620 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.1612 \[astro-ph\]\]. Tables of the EBL spectra at various energies and redshifts can be found at the following URL: http://astroparticle.de
C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Lett. B [**667**]{}, 1 (2008). G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, “Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles,” Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 1237 (1988).
P. Blasi, S. Burles and A. V. Olinto, “Cosmological Magnetic Fields Limits in an Inhomogeneous Universe,” Astrophys. J. [**514**]{}, L79 (1999) \[astro-ph/9812487\]. P. P. Kronberg, “Extragalactic magnetic fields,” Rept. Prog. Phys. [**57**]{}, 325 (1994). D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, “Magnetic fields in the early universe,” Phys. Rept. [**348**]{}, 163 (2001) \[astro-ph/0009061\].
Collaboration, G. Hinshaw [*et al.*]{}, “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations:Data Processing, Sky Maps, & Basic Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**180**]{}, 225 (2009) \[arXiv:0803.0732 \[astro-ph\]\].
G. G. Raffelt, “Astrophysical axion bounds,” Lect. Notes Phys. [**741**]{}, 51 (2008) \[hep-ph/0611350\]. J. W. Brockway, E. D. Carlson and G. G. Raffelt, “SN 1987A gamma-ray limits on the conversion of pseudoscalars,” Phys. Lett. B [**383**]{}, 439 (1996) \[astro-ph/ 9605197\].
J. A. Grifols, E. Massó and R. Toldrà, “Gamma rays from SN 1987A due to pseudoscalar conversion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2372 (1996) \[astro-ph/9606028\]. P. Brax, C. van de Bruck and A. C. Davis, “Compatibility of the chameleon-field model with fifth-force experiments, cosmology, and PVLAS and CAST results,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 121103 (2007) \[hep-ph/0703243\]. C. Burrage, A. C. Davis and D. J. Shaw, “Detecting Chameleons: The Astronomical Polarization Produced by Chameleon-like Scalar Fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 044028 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.1763 \[astro-ph\]\].
V. A. Naumov, “High-energy neutrino oscillations in absorbing matter,” Phys. Lett. B [**529**]{}, 199 (2002) \[hep-ph/0112249\]. Y. Grossman, S. Roy and J. Zupan, “Effects of initial axion production and photon axion oscillation on type Ia supernova dimming,” Phys. Lett. B [**543**]{}, 23 (2002) \[hep-ph/0204216\].
X. J. Bi and Q. Yuan, “Cosmology from very high energy $\gamma$-rays,” arXiv:0809.5124 \[astro-ph\].
E. Lorenz [*et al.*]{} J. Albert [*et al.*]{} \[MAGIC Collaboration\], “Status of the 17m diameter MAGIC telescope,” New Astron. Rev. [**48**]{}, 339 (2004).
J. A. Hinton [*et al.*]{} \[H.E.S.S. collaboration\], “The status of the H.E.S.S. project,” New Astron. Rev. [**48**]{}, 331 (2004).
T. C. Weekes [*et al.*]{} \[VERITAS Collaboration\], “VERITAS: the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System,” Astropart. Phys. [**17**]{}, 221 (2002) \[astro-ph/0108478\]. R. Enomoto [*et al.*]{} \[CANGAROO Collaboration\], “Design study of CANGAROO-III, stereoscopic imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes for sub-TeV gamma-ray detection,” Astropart. Phys. [**16**]{}, 235 (2002) \[astro-ph/0107578\]. “Cherenkov Telescope Array: An advanced facility for ground-based gamma-ray astronomy,” Website: www.cta-observatory.org
N. Gehrels and P. Michelson, “GLAST: The next-generation high energy gamma-ray astronomy mission,” Astropart. Phys. [**11**]{}, 277 (1999).
[^1]: $^{}$ Current address: II. Institut für theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg, Luruper Chausse 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Vladimir Guletskiǐand Claudio Pedrini [^1]'
title: |
**Finite dimensional motives\
and the Conjectures of Beilinson and Murre**
---
= 5mm \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $0$ and let $\mathcal V_k$ be the category of smooth projective varieties over $k$. By $\sim $ we denote an [*adequate*]{} equivalence relation for algebraic cycles on varieties [@J2]. For every $X\in \mathcal V_k$ let $A^i_{\sim }(X)=(Z^i(X)/ \sim )\otimes {\mathbb Q}$ be the Chow group of codimension $i$ cycles on $X$ modulo the chosen relation $\sim $ with coefficients in $\mathbb Q$.
Let $X,Y\in \mathcal V_k$, let $X=\cup X_i$ be the connected components of $X$ and let $d_i=\dim (X_i)$. Then $Corr^r_{\sim
}(X,Y)=\oplus _iA^{d_i+r}_{\sim }(X_i\times Y)$ is called a space of correspondences of degree $r$ from $X$ into $Y$. For any $f\in
Corr^r(X,Y)$ and $g\in Corr^s(Y,Z)$ their composition $g\circ f\in
Corr^{r+s}(X,Z)$ is defined by the formula $g\circ
f={p_{XZ}}_*(p_{XY}^*(f)\cdot p_{YZ}^*(g))$ where $p_{XZ}$, $p_{XY}$ and $p_{YZ}$ are the appropriate projections. In particular, we have a linear action of correspondences $Corr^s(Y,Z)\times
A^t(Y)\rightarrow A^{s+t}(Z)$ defined by the rule $(\alpha
,x)\mapsto {p_Y}_*(\alpha \cdot p_X^*(x))$, where $p_X$ and $p_Y$ are the projections.
The category of [*pure motives*]{} $\mathcal M_{\sim }$ over $k$ with coefficients in $\mathbb Q$ with respect to the given equivalence relation $\sim $ can be defined as follows [@Sch]. Its objects are triples $M=(X,p,m)$, where $X\in \mathcal V_k$, $p\in Corr^0_{\sim }(X,X)$ is a projector (i.e. $p\circ p=p$) and $m\in \mathbb Z$. Morphisms from $M=(X,p,m)$ into $N=(Y,q,n)$ in $\mathcal M_{\sim }$ are given by correspondences $f\in
Corr^{n-m}_{\sim }(X,Y)$, such that $f\circ p=q\circ f=f$, and compositions of morphisms are induced by compositions of correspondences.
The category $\mathcal M_{\sim }$ is pseudoabelian and $\mathbb
Q$-linear. Moreover, it is a tensor category with tensor structure defined by the formula $(X,p,m)\otimes (Y,q,n)=(X\times Y,p\otimes
q,m+n)$. The triple $1=(Spec(k),id,0)$ plays a role of the unite object in $\mathcal M_{\sim }$ and the Lefschetz motive $\mathbb
L$ is the triple $(Spec(k),id,-1)$. For any motive $M=(X,p,m)$ one defines the Tate twist $M(r)$ to be the motive $M\otimes \mathbb
L^{-r}=(X,p,m+r)$, where $\mathbb L^r=\mathbb L^{{\otimes }^r}$ for a positive integer $r$, $\mathbb L^0=1$ and $\mathbb
L^r=\mathbb L^{{\otimes }^{-r}}$ for a negative $r$, see [@Sch], 1.9. At last, $\mathcal M_{\sim }$ is rigid [@J2] in the sense that there exists internal $Hom$’s and dual obiects $M^*$ for all $M\in \mathcal M_{\sim }$ satisfying well known axioms [@DeMi].
For any algebraic cycle $\Gamma $ on $X\times Y$ we will denote by $\Gamma ^t$ its transpose lying on $Y\times X$. By $M_{\sim
}:\mathcal V^{opp}_k\to \mathcal M_{\sim }$ we will denote the functor which associates to any $X\in \mathcal V_k$ its motive $M_{\sim }(X) =(X,id,0)$, where $id=[\Delta _X]$ is the class of the diagonal $\Delta _X$ in $Corr^0_{\sim }(X,X)$, and to a morphism $f:X\to Y$ the correspondence $M(f)=[\Gamma _f^t]\in
Corr^0_{\sim }(Y,X)=Hom_{\mathcal M_{\sim }}(M(Y),M(X))$, where $\Gamma _f=\{ (x,f(x))\mid x\in X\} \subset X\times Y$ is the graph of $f$.
In the following we fix a [*Weil cohomology*]{} theory with $L$-coefficients $H^*$, where $L$ is a field of characteristic zero, see [@Kl] for the definition. For example, if $k$ is an arbitrary field one can take the étale cohomology groups $H^*_{et}(\bar X,\mathbb Q_l)$ over the algebraic closure $\bar
k$, i.e. $\bar X=X\times _{k}\bar k$ and $l\ne char(k)$. If $k=\mathbb C$ one can take also the usual Betti cohomology. Then one defines a functor $H^i:\mathcal M_{rat}\to Vect_L$ for every $i\in \mathbb Z$ by $H^i(M)= p_*H^{i+2m}(X)$ where $M=(X,p,m)$. By $cl:A^i_{rat}(X)\to H^{2i}(X)$ we denote the cycle map; then $\alpha \in A^i_{rat}(X)$ is homologically equivalent to zero iff $cl(\alpha )=0$.
If $\sim $ is rational equivalence then $\mathcal M_{rat}$ is called the category of [*Chow motives*]{} over $k$ with coefficients in $\mathbb Q$. In the following we will write $A^i$ for $A^i_{rat}$, $h(-)$ for the functor $M_{hom}(-):\mathcal
V_k\to \mathcal M_{hom}$ and $A^i(X)_{hom}$ for the kernel of $cl$, i.e. the subgroup in $A^i(X)$ of cycles which are homologically trivial.
Under these assumptions one may consider the following equivalence relations $\sim $ on cycles: ([*rat*]{}) rational equivalence; ([*alg*]{}) algebraic equivalence; ([*hom*]{}) homological equivalence and ([*num*]{}) numerical equivalence [@J2]. It is known that $$({\it rat})\Rightarrow ({\it alg})\Rightarrow ({\it hom})
\Rightarrow ({\it num})$$ Rational equivalence is strictly finer than algebraic equivalence already for divisors on curves; a famous counterexample by Griffiths showed that algebraic equivalence is strictly finer than homological equivalence, even modulo torsion, for codimension $2$ cycles on a complex $3$-fold. According to Grothendieck’s Standard Conjectures on algebraic cycles [@Kl] homological equivalence and numerical equivalence should coincide. By a result of Jannsen [@J3] the category $\mathcal M_{\sim}$ is abelian semisimple iff $\sim $ is the numerical equivalence.
Now let $X\in \mathcal V_k$ and assume, for simplicity, that $X$ is irreducible of dimension $d$. If we suppose that the conjecture $C(X)$ holds, see [@Kl], p.14, i.e. if the Künneth components $\Delta (i,2d-i)$ of the diagonal $\Delta _X$ are algebraic (which is known to be true for curves, surfaces and abelian varieties), then the idempotent $H^*(X)\to H^i(X)\to
H^*(X)$ is represented by an algebraic correspondence $\sigma _i$ which is an idempotent in $A^d_{hom}(X\times X)$. Therefore we get a natural decomposition: $$h(X)\simeq \bigoplus _{1\le i \le 2d}h^i(X)$$ where $h^i(X)=(X,\sigma _i,0)$ and $\sigma _i$ is, in fact, the Künneth component $\Delta (i,2d-i)$.
Following [@Mu1] we will say that $X$ has a [*Chow-Künneth decomposition*]{} if there exist orthogonal idempotents $\pi _i$ ($0\le i\le 2d$) in $A^d(X\times X)$, such that $cl(\pi _i)=\Delta (2d-i,i)$ and $$[\Delta _X]=\sum _{0\le i \le 2d}\pi _i$$ in $A^d(X\times X)$. This implies that in $\mathcal M_{rat}$ the motive $M(X)$ decomposes as follows: $$M(X)=\bigoplus _{0\le i\le 2d}M^i(X)$$ where $M_i(X)=(X,\pi _i,0)$.
Murre conjectured, see [@Mu1] and [@Mu2], that every $X\in
\mathcal V_k$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition over the algebraic closure $\bar k$. This conjecture is true for curves, surfaces, abelian varietes, uniruled threefolds and elliptic modular varieties, see [@DMu] and [@dAMSt] for further references. If $X$ and $Y$ have a Chow-Künneth decompositon, then the same holds for $X\times Y$.
If $X$ is a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$ satisfing conjecture $C(X)$ then, with the above notations, one has the following isomorphisms [@J1]: $$A^d_{hom}(X\times X)=\bigoplus _iEnd_{\mathcal M_{hom}}(h^i(X))$$ $$A^d(X\times X)=\bigoplus _iEnd_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M_i(X))$$ In order to relate rational equivalence with homological equivalence for algebraic cycles it is therefore natural to ask under which conditions the map $$End_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M_i(X))\to End_{\mathcal M_{hom}}(h^i(X))$$ (induced by the functor $h$) is an isomorphism. This is in turn strictly related, see [@J1], Prop 5.8, with the existence of a suitable filtration on the Chow ring of $X\times X $, such that the associated graded groups only depend on the motives $h^i(X)$, or, equivalently, to Murre’s Conjecture (see Section \[filtrations\] below).
In this paper we show how finite dimensionality of the motive $M(X)$ (see Def. \[Def2.1\]) is related with the existence of such a filtration.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[filtrations\] we recall the Conjectures of Beilinson and Murre on the existence of a suitable filtration $F^{\bullet }$ on the Chow ring of a smooth projective variety, and then we relate them with Bloch’s Conjecure for surfaces.
In Section \[S2\], after recalling the definitons and properties of finite dimensional motives and some results of [@AK], we prove Theorems \[th5\] and \[th7\] which relate the finite dimensionality of the motive with Murre’s Conjecture.
In Section \[S3\] we show that for a smooth projective surface over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ with $p_g=0$ the motive $M(X)$ is finite dimensional iff the Chow group of $0$-cycles of $X$ is finite dimensional in the sense of Mumford.
[Acknowledgements.]{} The authors wish to thank Jacob Murre and Ivan Panin for many useful comments on an early version of this paper.
The Conjectures of Beilinson, Bloch\
and Murre {#filtrations}
====================================
Beilinson has conjectured the existence of decreasing filtrations on Chow groups of all smooth projective varieties over $k$ which are uniquely determined by the action of correspondences on algebraic cycles [@J1]:
\[beilinson\] For every $X\in \mathcal V_k$ there exists a decreasing filtration $F^{\bullet}$ on $A^i(X)$, such that:
\(a) $F^0A^j(X)=A^j(X)$; $F^1A^j(X)=(A^j(X))_{hom}$;
\(b) $F^{\bullet}$ is compatible with the intersection product of cycles;
\(c) $F^{\bullet}$ is compatible with $f^*$ and $f_*$ if $f:X\to Y$ is a morphism;
\(d) (if the Künneth components of $\Delta _X$ are algebraic) the associated graded group $Gr^{\nu }_FA^j(X)=F^{\nu }A^j(X)/F^{\nu
+1}A^j(X)$ depends only on the motive $h^{2j-\nu }(X)$ of $X$ in $\mathcal M_{hom}$;
\(e) $F^{j+1}A^j(X)=0$ for all $j$.
If such a filtration exists then it is unique [@J1]. If the Künneth components of the diagonal are algebraic, then a weaker form (see [@J2], p. 12) of the condition (d) is:
(${\rm d}^{\prime }$) Let $Y\in \mathcal V$ and let $\gamma \in
Corr^{j-i}(Y\times X)$. If the induced map $\gamma _*$ between $H^{2i-\nu }(Y)$ and $H^{2j-\nu }(X)$ is zero, then so is the map $Gr^{\nu }_F\gamma :Gr^{\nu }_FA^i(Y)\to Gr^{\nu }_FA^j(X)$.
Conjecture \[beilinson\] is in turn equivalent (again assuming that the Künneth components of the diagonal are algebraic) to the following Conjecture of Murre, see [@Mu1] and [@J1]:
\[murre\] For any smooth projective (irreducible, for simplicity) variety $X$ of dimension $d$:
\(I) there exists a Chow-Künneth decomposition $[\Delta _X]=\sum
_{i=0}^{2d}\pi _i$;
\(II) the correspondences $\pi _0,\dots ,\pi _{j-1}$ and $\pi
_{2j+1},\dots ,\pi _{2d}$ act as $0$ on $A^j(X)$;
\(III) if $F^{\bullet }$ is the filtration on $A^j(X)$ defined by $F^{\nu }A^j(X)=ker(\pi _{2j})\cap ker(\pi _{2j-1})\cap \dots \cap
ker(\pi _{2j-\nu +1})$, then $F^{\bullet }$ is independent of the choice of the projectors $\pi _i$;
\(IV) $F^1A^j(X)=A^j(X)_{hom}$.
The status of Conjecture \[murre\] is as follows: it is trivially true for curves. For surfaces and for the product of a surface with a curve Murre has shown the existence of a Chow-Künneth decomposition satsfying (II) and (IV), see [@Mu3], [@Mu1] and [@Mu2]. For surfaces he also shows that there is a filtration which is the natural one, i.e. it coincides with the filtration for $0$-cycles considered in [@B]. For abelian varieties the existence of a Chow-Künneth decomposition follows from works of Shermenev, Denninger-Murre and Küenneman (see [@Ku] for references): part of (II) is true (see Remark \[abvar\]) and if (II) is true then (III) is also true for a natural choice of the projectors $\pi _i$ [@Mu1].
Let us consider the case when $X$ is a smooth projective surface over an algebraically closed field $k$. By results in [@Mu3], $X$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition $[\Delta _X]=\sum
_{i=0}^4\pi _i$, where $\pi _0=[x_0\times X]$ and $\pi _4=[X\times
x_0]$ are the trivial projectors induced by a fixed point $x_0\in
X$, $\pi _1$ is the Picard projector (which is closely connected with the Picard variety $Pic^0(X)$ of the surface $X$), $\pi
_3=\pi _1^t-\pi _1\circ \pi _1^t$ is the Albanese projector (connected with the Albanese variety $Alb(X)$ of $X$) and $\pi
_2=\Delta _X -\pi _0-\pi _1-\pi _3-\pi _4$. The projectors $\pi
_i$ yield the motivic decomposition $$M(X)=\sum _{0\le i\le 4}M_i(X)\; ,$$ where $M_i(X)=(X,\pi _i,0)$ for any $i=\{ 0,\dots ,4\}$, and the corresponding Murre’s filtration is: $$F^0A^i(X)=A^i(X)\; ,$$ $$F^{i+1}A^i(X)=0\; ,$$ $$F^1A^1(X)=A^1(X)_{hom}=A^1(X)_{num}=\ker (\pi _2)\; ,$$ $$F^1A^2(X)=ker(\pi _4)=A^2(X)_0$$ – the group of zero-cycles of degree $0$ on $X$, and $$F^2A^2(X)=\ker (\pi _3\! \mid _{F^1})=T(X)\; ,$$ where $T(X)$ is so called Albanese kernel of the surface $X$, i.e. the kernel of the Abel-Jacobi map $a_X:A^2(X)_0\to Alb(X)$. The graded group $Gr^*_F(A^2(X))$ associated to the filtration above is: $$\mathbb Q\oplus Alb(X)_{\mathbb Q}\oplus T(X)\; .$$
A similar (truncated) filtration $F^{\bullet}$ can be defined for the Chow group of $0$-cycles of any smooth variety $Y$ of dimension $d$. Then one has, in analogy to the case of surfaces: $$Gr^*_FA^d(Y)=\mathbb Q\oplus Alb(Y)_{\mathbb Q}\oplus T(Y)\; .$$
If Beilinson’s Conjectural Filtration $F^{\bullet }$ exists for every smooth projective variety and $X$ is a surface, then any correspondence $\gamma \in A^2(Y\times X)$, where $d=dim(Y)$, respects the filtration; if $\gamma \in A^2(Y\times X)_{hom}$ then $\gamma _*$ acts as $0$ on $Gr^*_FA^d(Y)$. This shows that the Beilinson’s Conjecture implies the following conjecture formulated in [@B]:
\[bloch1\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface and let $Y$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$. For any $\gamma
\in A^2(Y\times X)$ its action on $Gr^*_FA^d(Y)$: $$Gr^*_F\gamma :Gr^*_FA^d(Y)\longrightarrow Gr^*_FA^2(X)$$ depends only upon the cohomology class $cl(\gamma )$ in $H^4(Y\times X)$.
Conjecture \[bloch1\] implies
\[bloch2\] If $X$ is a complex surface with geometric genus $p_g=0$, then the Albanese kernel $T(X)$ vanishes, see [@B], 1.11.
Note that, by a result of [@Ro], if $k$ is algebraically closed then the kernel of the Abel-Jacobi map $a_X$, considering with coefficients in $\mathbb Z$, is torsion free.
Bloch’s conjecture on the Albanese kernel holds for surfaces of Kodaira dimension less than $2$ [@BKL] and it is still open for complex surfaces of general type with $p_g=0$, see [@InMiz], [@Voi] and [@GP1].
[In general Bloch’s Conjecture \[bloch1\] does not imply that the action $\gamma :A^d(Y)\to A^2(X)$ only depends on the cohomology class $cl(\gamma )$. In fact, let $X$ be a complex surface with $p_g(X)>0$ and $q(X)=0$ (where $q(X)=dim(H^1(X,\mathcal O_X))$ is the irregularity of $X$) and let $C$ be a generic curve on $X$. Let $Y=S^2C$ be the symmetric square of the curve $C$. Then $A^d(Y)\simeq J(C)\oplus T(Y)$ and $A^2(X)\simeq T(X)$, where $J(C)$ is the Jacobian of the curve $C$, $T(Y)$ and $T(X)$ are the Albanese kernels. The map $f:S^2C\to S^2X$ yields a series of effective $0$-cycles of degree $2$ on $X$. Let $\Gamma \subset Y\times X$ be the associated correspondence, i.e. $$[\Gamma ]=\{ [(Y,P+Q)]\mid P,Q\in C\}
\subset A^2(Y \times X)$$ and let $\gamma =[\Gamma ]$. Then the class $cl(\gamma )$ in $H^4(Y\times X)$ has components $\gamma(0,4)$, $\gamma (4,0)$ and $\gamma(2,2)$. By adding constant correspondences to $\gamma $ we may assume that $\gamma (0,4)= \gamma (4,0)=0$. Moreover the component $\gamma (2,2)$ in $H^2(Y)\otimes H^2(X)$ belongs to $NS(Y)\otimes NS(X)$. Therefore the action of $\gamma (2,2)$ on $0$-cycles is trivial because every $0$-cycle can be moved away from a finite number of divisors. The graded map $$Gr^*_F\gamma :Gr^*_FA^d(Y)\to Gr^*_FA^2(X)$$ is $0$. In fact we have $\Gamma \subset Y\times C\subset Y\times
X$, whence $\gamma $ can also be viewed as a correspondence between $Y$ and $C$. As such it determines a map $$\gamma ^{\prime }:A^d(Y)\simeq J(C)\oplus T(Y)\to J(C)\; ,$$ which is just the projection onto the first factor. Since $\gamma
$ factors trough $\gamma ^{\prime }$, we see that $\gamma $ is $0$ on $T(Y)$ and, therefore, $Gr^*_F\gamma $ is the zero map. However the map $$\gamma :A^d(Y)\to A^2(X)=T(X)$$ is not zero: in fact, $C$ being a general curve on the surface $X$ with $p_g(X)>0$, the map induced by $\gamma $ between $J(C)$ and $T(X)$ is non trivial. This is the consequence of a famous results of Mumford on the group of $0$-cycles on surfaces with $p_g>0$, see [@Voi], pg. 186.]{}
Finite dimensional motives and\
Murre’s Conjecture {#S2}
===============================
In this section we first recall the definition and some results on finite dimensional motives, which have been introduced by S.-I. Kimura in [@Kim], and then prove our results relating finite dimensionality with the Conjectures stated in Section \[filtrations\].
Let $\mathcal C$ be a pseudoabelian, $\mathbb Q$-linear, tensor category and let $X$ be an object in $\mathcal C$. Let $\Sigma _n$ be the symmetric group of order $n$. Any $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$ defines an endomorphism $\Gamma _{\sigma }:(x_1,\dots ,x_n)\mapsto
(x_{\sigma (1)},\dots ,x_{\sigma (n)})$ of the $n$-fold tensor product $X^n$ of $X$ by itself. There is a one-to-one correspondence between all irreducible representations of the group $\Sigma _n$ (over $\mathbb Q $) and all partitions of the integer $n$. Let $V_{\lambda }$ be the irreducible representation corresponding to a partition $\lambda $ of $n$ and let $\chi
_{\lambda }$ be the character of the representation $V_{\lambda
}$. Let $$d_{\lambda }=\frac{\dim (V_{\lambda })}{n!}\sum_{\sigma \in
\Sigma _n}\chi _{\lambda }(\sigma )\cdot \Gamma _{\sigma }$$ Then $\{ d_{\lambda }\} $ is a set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents in $End_{\mathcal C}(X^n)$, such that $\sum d_{\lambda
}=id_{X^n}$. The category $\mathcal C$ being pseudoabelian they give a decomposition of $X^n$. The $n$-th symmetric product $S^nX$ of $X$ is then defined to be $im(d_{\lambda })$ when $\lambda $ corresponds to the partition $(n)$, and the $n$-th exterior power $\wedge ^nX$ is $im(d_{\lambda })$ when $\lambda $ corresponds to the partition $(1,\dots ,1)$. In particular, we have symmetric and exterior powers in $\mathcal M_{\sim }$.
The following definition was made in [@Kim], see also [@GP1] or [@AK]:
\[Def2.1\] The object $X$ in $\mathcal C$ is said to be [*evenly (oddly) finite dimensional*]{} if $\wedge ^nX=0$ ($S^nX=0$) for some $n$. An object $X$ is finite dimensional if it can be decomposed into a direct sum $X_+\oplus X_-$ where $X_+$ is evenly finite dimensional and $X_-$ is oddly finite dimensional.
Now we want to show that, if the motive $M(X)$ is finite dimensional, then $X$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition. We first recall a result which has been proved in [@J1], 5.3:
\[lemma1\] Assume $X$ is a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$, such that $A^d(X\times X)_{hom}$ is a nilpotent ideal of $A^d(X\times X)$. Assume moreover that the Künneth components of the diagonal are algebraic. Then $X$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition.
\[th2\] Let $M$ be a finite dimensional motive in $\mathcal
M_{rat}$ and let $f$ be a homologically trivial endomorphism of $M$, i.e. $f$ induces the $0$ map on $H^*(M)$. Then $f$ is nilpotent in $End_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M)$.
See [@Kim], 7.2
\[corollary3\] Let $M(X)$ be a finite dimensional Chow motive. Assume that the Künneth components of the diagonal of $X$ are algebraic. Then $X$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition.
Apply Theorem \[th2\] and Lemma \[lemma1\]
If $M(X)$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition then the projectors $\pi _i$ defining the motives $M_i(X)$ are by no means unique: for instance the cycle class of the trivial projector $\pi
_0$ depends on the choice of a rational point $x_0$ on $X$. However the motives $M_0(X)$ and $M_{2d}$ are unique (up isomorphisms in $\mathcal M$). Also, for a curve $C$, uniqueness of the motives $M_i(X)$ for $i=0,1,2$ is easy [@Mu3], 5.1. For an arbitrary $X$ of dimension $d$ Murre has shown [@Mu3], 5.2, that the motives $M_1(X)=(X,\pi _1,0)$ and $M_{2d-1}(X)=(X,\pi
_{2d -1},0)$, where $\pi _1$ and $\pi _{2d-1}$ are respectively the Picard and the Albanese projectors, are, up to isomorphisms, independent of the polarization choosen to construct $\pi _1$ and $\pi _{2d -1}$.
We will show in Theorem \[th5\] that, if $M(X)$ is finite dimensional, then all the $M_i(X)$ are unique, up to isomorphisms.
The main known properties of finite dimensional objects are:
1\) If two objects $X,Y\in \mathcal C$ are finite dimensional so is their direct sum $X\oplus Y$ and their tensor product $X\otimes
Y$. If $X$ is a subobject of a finite dimensional object $Y$ then $X$ is finite dimensional (equivalently, if $X$ is a quotient object of a finite dimensional object $Y$, it is finite dimensional). Moreover, a direct summand of an evenly (oddly) finite dimensional motive is evenly (oddly) finite dimensional. Note that these properties were proved by Kimura for Chow motives over a field. But they can be proved in an arbitrary pseudoabelian $\mathbb Q$-linear tensor category,see [@AK].
2)In particular the properties in 1) impliy the following .If $f:Y\to X$ is a proper surjective morphism of smooth projective varieties and $M_{\sim }(Y)$ is finite dimensional then $M_{\sim }(X)$ is also finite dimensional; the motoive $M_{\sim }(X)\otimes M_{\sim
}(Y)=M_{\sim }(X\times Y)$ of the fibered product $X\times Y$ is finite dimensional if $M_{\sim }(X)$ and $M_{\sim }(Y)$ are finite dimensional.
3\) If a motive $M$ is evenly and oddly finite dimensional then $M=0$ [@Kim], 6.2.
4\) The dual object $X^*$ in a rigid category $\mathcal C$ is finite dimensional iff $X$ is finite dimensional.
5\) Finite dimensionality is a birational invariant for surfaces, [@GP1], Th. 2.8.
The following theorem gives classes of smooth projective varieties whose motives are finite dimensional
\[prop4\] (i) The motive of a smooth projective curve over a field is finite dimensional. (ii) The motive of a variety which is the quotient of a product $C_1\times\cdots C_n$ of curves under the action of a finite group $G$ acting freely on $C_1\times\cdots
\times C_n$ is finite dimensional. (iii) If $X$ is an abelian variety, then $M(X)$ is finite dimensional. (iv) The same result holds if $X$ is a Fermat hypersurface of degree $d$ in $\mathbb
P^n$.
\(i) was proved in [@Kim]. (ii) and (iii) follow from (i) and the above properties 1) – 5). For abelian varieties see also [@Sch], 3.4. The proof of the fact that the motive of a Fermat hypersurface is finite dimensional can be found in [@GP1].
Let $\mathcal M_{Kim}$ be the full subcategory of $\mathcal
M_{rat}$ generated by finite dimensional oblects. From the properties 1) – 5) it follows then that $\mathcal M_{Kim}$ is a pseudoabelian, rigid and tensor category. Kimura stated
$\mathcal M_{Kim}=\mathcal M_{rat}$
Evidently, $\mathcal M_{Kim}$ contains a subcategory generated by the Chow motives of varieties as in Theorem \[prop4\], their products and quotients in $\mathcal M_{rat}$.
The relations between finite dimensionality and the Conjectures stated in Section \[filtrations\] can be made more precise using some recent results from [@AK]. We first recall the definition of [*dimension*]{} for an object in a rigid tensor category $\mathcal C$, see [@AK] or [@DeMi].
For any $X\in \mathcal C$ let $\epsilon_X:X\otimes X^*\to 1$ be the evaluation map, and for any two $X,Y\in \mathcal C$ let $$i_{X,Y}:Hom_{\mathcal C}(1,X^*\otimes Y)
\stackrel{\simeq }{\longrightarrow }
Hom_{\mathcal C}(X,Y)$$ be the canonical isomorphism. Let $h\in End_{\mathcal C}(X)$. Then we define the trace of $h$ to be $$tr(h)=\epsilon _{X^*}\circ i^{-1}_{X,X}(h)
\in Hom_{\mathcal C}(1,1)\simeq \mathbb Q$$ and define $dim(X)=tr(id_X)$.
If $dim(X)=d$ then $$dim(\wedge ^nM)={d\choose n}={d(d-1)\cdot \dots \cdot (d-n+1)\over n!}$$ and $$dim(S^nA)=
{d+n-1\choose n}={d(d+1)\cdot \dots \cdot (d+n-1\over n!}\; ,$$ see [@AK], 7.2.4. Therefore, if $dim(X)=d>0$, then $dim(\wedge
^{d+1}X)=0$; if $dim(X)=-d<0$ then $dim(S^{d+1}X)=0$.
This dimension is related with Kimura’s finite dimensionality in the following way.
\[kim\] Let $X\in \mathcal C$ be afinite dimensional object. Then $kim(X)$ is the smallest integer $n$, such that $\wedge^nX=0$ if $X$ is evenly finite dimensional, and $S^nX=0$ if $X$ is oddly finite dimensional.
If $X$ is Kimura finite dimensional, then $dim(X)$ is an integer [@AK], 9.1.5: if $X$ is evenly finite dimensional then $dim(X)=kim(X)$, while if $X$ is oddly finite dimensional then $dim(X)=-kim(X)$.
If $H$ is a Weil cohomology theory (with coefficients in a field $L$ of characteristic zero) on $\mathcal V_k$ then for every Chow motive $M\in \mathcal
M_{rat}$ we have $dim(M)=\sum _{i\in \mathbb Z} (-1)^idim(H^i(M))$. For all $X\in \mathcal V_k$ which satisfy the standard conjecture $C(X)$, i.e. the Künneth components of the diagonal $\Delta _X$ are algebraic, there exist projectors $p^+_M $ and $p^-_M$ in $End_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M(X))$, such that $H(p^+_M)$ and $H(p^-_M)$ are the projectors corresponding to the splitting of $H(X)$ respectively into the even and the odd part.
Let $\mathcal A$ be the full subcategory of $\mathcal M_{rat}$ of objects $A$, such that projectors $p^+_A$ and $p^-_A$ exist in $End_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(A)$. Then $\mathcal A$ is a rigid, tensor and $\mathbb Q$-linear subcategory of $\mathcal M_{rat}$ containing all the motives of curves, surfaces, abelian varieties, their products and subobjects. For every object $A\in \mathcal A$ the projectors $p^+_A$ and $p^-_A$ induce a decomposition $A=A^+\oplus A^-$, see [@AK], 8.3.
If $A\in \mathcal A$ has a decomposition $A=A^+\oplus A^-$ then $A^+$ is evenly finite dimensional and $A^-$ is oddly finite dimensional (and hence $A$ is finite dimensional) iff there exists an integer $n$, such that : $$s\wedge ^nA=0\; ,$$ where $s\wedge ^nA=\bigoplus _{i+j=n}\wedge ^iA^+\otimes S^jA^-$. If such $n$ exists then the smallest one is the integer $kim(A^+)+kim(A^-)+1$, see [@AK], 9.1.11.
If $A$ is finite dimensional then the decomposition $A=A^+\oplus
A^-$ is unique up to isomorphisms, i.e. if $A=\tilde A^+\oplus
\tilde A^-$, where $\tilde A^+$ ($\tilde A^-$) is evenly (oddly) finite dimensional, then $A^+\simeq \tilde A^+$ and $A^-\simeq
\tilde A^-$, see [@Kim], 6.3.
\[th5\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $k$, such that the Künneth components of the diagonal $\Delta _X$ are algebraic. Assume that the motive $M(X)\in \mathcal M_{rat}$ is finite dimensional. Then $M(X)$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition $$M(X)=\bigoplus _{0\le i\le 2d}M_i(X)$$ with $M_i(X)=(X,\pi _i,0)$, which is independent of the choice of the projectors $\pi _i$, i.e., if $\{ \tilde \pi _i\} $ is another set of orthogonal idempotents lifting the Künneth components of $\Delta _X$, then $$M_i(X)\simeq \tilde M_i(X)$$ in $\mathcal M_{rat}$, where $\tilde M_i(X)=(X,\tilde \pi
_i,0)$.
By Corollary \[corollary3\] the motive $M(X)$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition. Let $M(X)=\bigoplus _{0\le i\le 2d}
M_i(X)$, where $M_i(X)=(X,\pi _i,0)$ and let $\{ \tilde \pi _i\} $ be another set of orthogonal idempotents lifting the Künneth components of $\Delta _X$.
Let’s consider the following composition of projectors, for $i=
0,\dots ,2d$: $$M_i(X)
\stackrel{\pi _i}{\rightarrow}
M(X)
\stackrel{\tilde \pi_i}{\rightarrow}
M_i(X)
\stackrel{\tilde \pi_i}{\rightarrow}
M(X)
\stackrel{\pi _i}{\rightarrow}
M_i(X)$$ and set $$e_i=\pi _i\circ \tilde \pi _i\circ \tilde \pi _i\circ \pi _i=
\pi _i\circ \tilde \pi _i\circ \pi _i\; .$$ Then $e_i\circ \pi _i=\pi _i\circ e_i$, i.e. $e_i\in End_{\mathcal
M_{rat}}(M_i(X))$.
We claim that $e_i= \pi _i$, i.e. $e_i$ is the identity on $M_i(X)$.
$M(X)$ being finite dimensional from Th. \[th2\] it follows that $I=A^2(X\times X )_{hom}$ is a nilpotent ideal of $A^2(X\times
X)$. Therefore there exists an element $\eta \in I$, such that $\tilde \pi _i=(1+\eta )^{-1}\circ \pi _i\circ (1+\eta )$ for $i
=0,\dots ,2d$, see [@J1], 5.4, and we have: $$e_i-\pi _i=\pi _i-(\pi _i-\pi _i\circ \eta \circ \pi _i\circ \eta
\circ \pi _i)=\pi _i\circ \eta \circ \pi _i\circ \eta \circ \pi _i\; .$$ So we are left to show that $\pi _i\circ \eta \circ \pi _i\circ
\eta \circ \pi _i=0$. By induction on the index of nilpotency of $I$ we may assume that $I^2=0$. Then we can take $\eta =\pi _i
\circ \epsilon _i-\epsilon _i\circ \pi _i$ where $\tilde \pi _i=
\pi _i+\epsilon _i$ with $\epsilon_i \in I$ and $\epsilon _i^2=0$, see [@Mu3], page 203. Expanding $(\pi _i+\epsilon _i)^2$ leads to the equation $\epsilon _i=\pi _i\circ \epsilon _i +\epsilon
_i\circ \pi _i$, whence: $$\pi _i\circ \epsilon _i\circ \pi _i=\epsilon _i\circ \pi _i\epsilon _i=0\; .$$ From the equalities above we get: $$\pi _i\circ \eta \circ \pi _i\circ \eta \circ \pi _i=
\pi _i\circ (\pi _i\circ \epsilon _i-\epsilon _i\circ \pi _i)
\circ \pi _i\circ (\pi _i\circ \epsilon _i-\epsilon _i\circ
\pi _i)\circ \pi _i=$$ $$\pi _i\circ \epsilon _i\circ \pi _i\circ
\epsilon _i\circ \pi _i=0\; .$$ In a completely similar way one shows that $\tilde e_i=\tilde \pi
_i\circ \pi _i\circ \tilde \pi _i$ is the identity on $\tilde
M_i(X)$. Therefore, $\tilde \pi _i\circ \pi _i$ yields an isomorphism $M_i(X)\simeq \tilde M_i(X)$.
\[abvar\] (Abelian varieties)
Let $X$ be an abelian variety of dimension $d$ over an algebraically closed field $k$ of char $0$. Then $M(X)$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition; moreover, there exists a unique decompositon $[\Delta_X ]= \sum
_i\pi _i\in A^d(X \times X)$, such that $$n^*\circ \pi _i=\pi _i\circ n^*=n^i\pi _i$$ for every $n\in \mathbb Z$, where $n^*=(id_X\times n)^*$ and $n$ is the multiplication by $n$ on $X$. The correspondenses $\{ \pi
_i\} $ are orthogonal projectors, such that $\pi _0,\dots , \pi
_{j-1}$ and $\pi _{j+d+1},\dots ,\pi _{2d}$ operates as $0$ on $A^j(X)$, see [@Mu1], 2.5.2. The corresponding decomposition $M(X)=\sum _{0\le i\le 2d} M_i(X)$ satisfies a part of conditon (II) in Conjecture \[murre\]. The motive $M(X)$ is finite dimensional: from Theorem \[th5\] it follows that this decomposition is unique (up to isomorphism). Therefore, if there exists a Chow-Künneth decompositon satisfing the rest of the condition (II), i.e. such that also $\pi _i$ operates as $0$ on $A^j(X)$ for $2j+1\le i\le j+d$, then it is isomorphic to the one above. This condition is in turn equivalent to [*Beauville’s Conjecture*]{}, see [@Mu1], 2.5.3, and [@Bea], on the vanishing of the groups $A^j_s(X)=\{ \alpha \in A^j(X)\mid
n^*\alpha =n^{2j-s}\alpha \} $ for $s<0$.
Beauville’s Conjecture being true for cycles of codimension $j=0,1,d-2,d-1$ it follows that conditon (II) is in particular satisfied for all abelian varieties of dimension at most $4$. Therefore, for all abelian varieties which satisfy Beauville’s Conjecture, the filtration associated to a Chow -Künneth decomposition is independent of the choices of the projectors, in the sense that it only depends on the isomorphism classes of the motives $M_i(X)$. This proves that Beauville’s Conjecture implies Murre’s conjecture for an abelian variety.
In [@AK], 9.2.4, it has been remarked that if Beilinson’s Conjecture or, equivalently, Conjecture \[murre\] is true for all varieties $X$ and also the Standard Conjectures hold, then all Chow motives of smooth projective varieties are finite dimensional, i.e. Kimura’s Conjecture holds. The following Theorem \[th7\] avoids the assumption about the Standard Conjectures.
We first prove a lemma which is a direct consequence of a result in [@J1], 5.8.
\[lemma6\] Let $Y$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$, such that $Y$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition, say $[\Delta _Y]=\sum _{i=0}^{2d}\pi _i$, and $Y\times Y$ satisfies the Murre Conjecture. Let $N_i=(Y,\pi _i,0)$: then $$Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_t)=0\; \; \hbox{if}\; \; s\ne t$$ and $$Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_s)=Hom_{\mathcal M_{hom}}
(h(N_s),h(N_s))$$ for any $s\in \{ 0,1,\dots ,2d\} $.
Let $\tilde \pi _i=\pi _{2d -i}^t$ be the transpose of $\pi _{2d -i}$ and let $\Pi _r= \sum _{i+j=r}\tilde \pi _i\times
\pi _j$. By the same argument as in [@J1], 5.8, the projector $\Pi _r$ is a lifting of the $r$th Künneth component of the diagonal $\Delta _{Y\times Y}(4d-r,r)$. Since $Y\times Y$ satisfies the conditon (II) in Conjecture \[murre\], it follows that $\Pi _r$ acts as $0$ on $A^d(Y\times Y)$ for $r>2d$, whence we get, for all pairs $(i,j)$ with $i+j>2d$: $$0=(\tilde \pi _i\times \pi _j)A^d(Y\times Y)=
\pi _j\circ Corr^0(Y,Y)\circ \tilde \pi _i^t=$$ $$=\pi _j\circ Corr^0(Y,Y)\circ \pi _{2d-i}=
Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_{2d-i},N_j)\; .$$ This shows that $Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_t)=0$ for $s<t$.
If we take $\tilde \pi _i=\pi _i^t$ and $\tilde \pi _j=\pi
_{2d-j}$, the projector $\Pi _r=\sum _{i+j=r}\tilde \pi _i\times
\tilde \pi _j$ is (up to an isomorphism of $H^*(Y\times Y \times Y
\times Y)$) again a lifting of $\Delta _{Y\times Y}(4d-r,r)$. As such $\Pi _r$ acts as $0$ on $A^d(Y\times Y)$ for $r>2d$. Just as before we get, for all pairs $(i,j)$ with $i+j>2d$: $$0=(\tilde \pi _i\times \tilde \pi _j)A^d(Y\times Y)=
\pi _{2d-j}\circ Corr^0(Y,Y)\tilde \pi _i^t=$$ $$=\pi _{2d-j}\circ Corr^0(Y,Y)\circ \pi _i=
Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_i,N_{2d-j})\; .$$ Therefore, $Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_t)=0$ for $s>t$.
The proof of the equality $Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_s)=
Hom_{\mathcal M_{hom}}(h(N_s),h(N_s))$ follows from the same argument as in [@J1], 5.8: one takes projectors $\Pi _r=\sum
_{i+j=r}\tilde \pi _i\times \pi _j$ where $\tilde \pi _i=\pi
_{2d-i}^t$ and applies conditon (IV) in Murre’s Conjecture. Then $A^d(Y\times Y)_{hom}=F^1A^d(Y\times Y)=ker(\Pi _{2d})$ and we obtain $$(\tilde \pi _{2d-s}\times \pi _s)A^d(Y\times Y) =
(\tilde \pi _{2d-s}\times \pi _s)Corr^0_{hom}(Y,Y)=$$ $$=\Delta _Y(2d-s,s)\circ Corr^0_{hom}(Y,Y)\circ \Delta _Y(2d-s,s)=$$ $$=Hom_{\mathcal M_{hom}}(h(N_s),h(N_s))\; .$$ This proves that $Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_s)= Hom_{\mathcal
M_{hom}}(h(N_s),h(N_s))$.
\[th7\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$ over $k$. Let $n=\sum _idim(H^i(X))$ and let $m=n+1$. Assume that $X$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition and $X^m\times X^m$ satisfies Murre’s Conjecture. Then the motive $M(X)$ is finite dimensional.
There exist projectors $p_+$ and $p_-$ splitting the motive $M=M(X)$ into $M^+$ and $M^-$, such that the cohomology of $M^+$ is $H^+(X)=\sum _{i\in \mathbb Z}H^{2i}(X)$ and the cohomology of $M^-$ is $H^-(X)=\sum _{i\in \mathbb Z}H^{2i+1}(X)$. Therefore, $M(X)$ is finite dimensional iff $M^+$ is evenly finite dimensional and $M^-$ is oddly finite dimensional. We have: $dim(M^+)=B_+=dim(H^+(X))$ and $dim(M^-)=-B_-=-dim(H^-(X))$. Therefore, $$dim(s\wedge ^mM)=dim\left(\sum _{i+j=m}\wedge ^iM\otimes
S^jM\right)=0$$ if $m=B_++B_-+1$. So, in order to show that $M$ is finite dimensional, it is enough to prove that $$s\wedge ^mM=\bigoplus _{i+j=m}\wedge ^iM^+\otimes S^jM_-=0\; .$$
The functor $H:\mathcal M_{hom}\to Vect_L$ being faithful, from $dim(s\wedge ^mM)=0$ we get: $s\wedge ^mh(M)=0$, see [@AK], 8.3.1. Let $q^+_i$ and $q^-_j$ be the projectors which define respectively $\wedge ^iM^+$ and $S^iM^-$. Then the projector $q=\sum _{i+j=m} q^+_i\otimes q^-_j$, which defines $s\wedge ^mM$, belongs to $End_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M(X^m))$ and is homologically trivial, i.e. $h(q)=0$.
We claim that $q=0$, i.e. $s\wedge ^mM=0$.
Let $Y= X^m$. Since $X$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition also $Y
=X^m$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition, see [@Mu2], 5.1. Moreover, $Y\times Y$ satisfies Murre’s Conjecture by assumptions. Let $M(Y)=\sum _{0\le s\le 2md}N_i$ where $N_i=(Y,\pi _i,0)$ be a Chow-Künneth decomposition for $Y$. From Lemma \[lemma6\] it follows that: $$\label{tag7}
Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_t)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if $s\neq t$,} \\
Hom_{\mathcal M_{hom}}(h(N_s),h(N_s)) &
\mbox{if $s=t$}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Let $f_{s,t}=\pi _t\circ q\circ \pi _s\in Hom_{\mathcal
M_{rat}}(N_s,N_s)$ be the composition map: $$N_s
\stackrel{\pi _s}{\rightarrow}
M(Y)
\stackrel{q}{\rightarrow}
M(Y)
\stackrel{\pi _t}{\rightarrow}
N_t\; .$$ Then $\sum _s\pi _i\circ q=\sum _sq\circ \pi _s=q$ and $\sum
_{s,t}f_{s,t}=\sum _t\pi _t\circ \sum _sq\circ\pi _s=\sum _t\pi _t
\circ q=q$. Therefore we get: $$q=\sum _{s\ne t}(\pi _t\circ q\circ \pi _s)+\sum _s\pi _s\circ
q\circ \pi _s\; .$$ From (\[tag7\]) it follows that $\sum _{s\ne t}(\pi _t\circ
q\circ \pi _s)=0$ which yields: $$q=\sum _{0\le s\le 2md}\pi _s\circ q\circ \pi _s\in
Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(N_s,N_s)$$ with $h(q)=0$. From the second equality in (\[tag7\]) it follows that $q=0$. This proves that $s\wedge ^mM=0$.
\[def2.7\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $k$ and let $c_1,\dots ,c_n$ be $0$-cycles on $X$. We define their [*wedge product*]{} to be the following: $$c_1\wedge \dots \wedge c_n=\frac{1}{n!}
\sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma _n}
sgn(\sigma )c_{\sigma (1)}\times \dots \times c_{\sigma (n)}$$ where $c_{\sigma (1)}\times \dots \times c_{\sigma (n)}$ is the exterior product of cycles, see [@Ful], Ch.5.
In [@Kim], 5.14, it is proved that, if a surface $X$ is the product of $2$ curves, then there exists an integer $N$, such that the product $c_1\wedge \dots \wedge c_N=0$, where $c_i$ are $0$-cycles in the Albanese kernel $T(X)$. The following theorem extends this result to any surface $X$ whose motive is finite dimensional.
\[Prop8\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over $k$. If the motive $M(X)\in \mathcal M_{rat}$ is finite dimensional then $c_1\wedge \dots \wedge c_{d+1}=0$, where $c_i$ are $0$-cycles in the Albanese kernel $T(X)$, $d=b_2-\rho $, $b_2=dim(H^2(X))$ and $\rho =dim(NS(X)_{\mathbb Q})$.
The motive $M(X)$ has a Chow-Künneth decomposition as follows: $$M(X)=\sum _{0\le i\le 4}M_i(X)\; .$$ Since $M(X)$ is finite dimensional, $M_2(X)$ is also finite dimensional. From [@Mu3] it follows that $A^1(M_2(X))
=NS(X)_{\mathbb Q}$ and from [@Sch], 2.2: $$Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M_2(X),\mathbb L)\simeq
Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(\mathbb L,M_2(X))\simeq
NS(X)_{\mathbb Q}\; ,$$ where $\mathbb L =(Spec(k),id,-1)$ is the Lefschetz motive. $NS(X)_{\mathbb Q}$ is a finite dimensional $\mathbb Q$-vector space of dimension $\rho $ (the corank of $Pic(X)_{\mathbb Q}$). Let $[e_i]$, for $1\le i\le \rho $, be a base for $NS(X)_{\mathbb
Q}$ and let $\alpha =\sum q_i[e_i]\in NS(X)_{\mathbb Q}$. Let $f_{\alpha }:\mathbb L\to M_2(X)$ be the corresponding morphism in $\mathcal M_{rat}$. Then $f_{\alpha }=\sum q_i[Spec(k)\times
e_i]$. The transpose $f^t_{\alpha }$ is a morphism $M_2(X)\to
\mathbb L$ and $$f^t_{\alpha }\circ f_{\alpha }\in
Hom_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(\mathbb L,\mathbb L)
\simeq \mathbb Q\; .$$ Therefore, for every $i\le \rho $, $f_{[e_i]}:\mathbb L\to M_2(X)$ is an injective map. Let $f= \sum f_{[e_i]}$. Then $f$ defines an injective map: $$\mathbb L\oplus \dots \oplus
\mathbb L \; (\rho \; \hbox{times})\to M_2(X)\; .$$
This yields a splitting in $\mathcal M_{rat}$: $$M_2(X)=\rho \mathbb L\oplus N\; .$$
We have: $H^i(N)=0$ for $i\ne 2$ and $H^2(M_2(X))=H^2(X)= \rho
H^2(\mathbb L)\oplus H^2(N)$ where $H^2(\mathbb L)=\mathbb Q$. Therefore, $H^2(N)=(b_2-\rho )\cdot \mathbb Q$.
$M_2(X)$ being finite dimensional $N$ is finite dimensional too. $N$ is evenly finite dimensional because it does not have any odd cohomology, see [@Kim], 3.9. Therefore, $dim(N)=dim(H^2(N))=kim(N)= d=(b_2-\rho )$, so that $\wedge
^{d+1}N=0$. We also have $A^2(N)=A^2(M_2(X))=T(X)$. If $N=(Y,q,n)\in \mathcal M_{rat}$, then it follows from the definition of $\wedge $ that, for any $r$, $\wedge ^rN$ is the image of the motive $N^r$ under the projector $(1/r!)(\sum
_{\sigma \in \Sigma _r}sgn(\sigma ) \Gamma _{\sigma }\circ q^r)$. Therefore, if $c_1,\dots ,c_{d+1}$ are $0$-cycles in $T(X)$, then the cycle $c=c_1\wedge \dots \wedge c_{d+1}$ belongs to $A^2(\wedge ^{d+1}N)=0$. This proves that $c=0$.
Surfaces with $p_g =0$ {#S3}
======================
From Th. \[Prop8\] it follows that, if $X$ is a smooth projective surface with $p_g=0$ (a condition which is equivalent to $b_2=\rho $), then the finite dimensionality of the motive $M(X)$ implies $T(X)=0$. In this section we prove (Theorem \[th12\]) that the converse also holds.
We first recall, see [@BV], the definition of a [*balanced*]{} variety:
\[def3.1\] Let $X$ be a reduced separated and equidimensional scheme of finite type over $k$ and $d=dim(X)$. $X$ is said to be balanced of weight $w$ if there exist cycles $\Gamma _1$ and $\Gamma _2$ of codimension $d$ on $X\times X$, such that $$[\Delta _X]=[\Gamma _1]+[\Gamma _2]$$ in $A^d(X\times X)$, where $\Gamma_1$ is supported on $Z_1\times
X$, $\Gamma _2$ is supported on $X\times Z_2$, $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are equidimensional closed subschemes of $X$ and $$w=min\{ dim(Z_1),dim(Z_2)\} \; .$$
\[lemma9\] Let $\mathcal C$ be a pseudoabelian category and let $X$ be an object in $\mathcal C$. Assume that there exists a finite collection of objects $Y_i$ and morphisms $X\stackrel{a_i}{\to }Y_i\stackrel{b_i}{\to }X$ in $\mathcal C$, $i=1,\dots ,n$, such that $id_X=\sum _{i=1}^nb_ia_i$ in $End_{\mathcal C}(X)$. Let $$X\stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow }\bigoplus _{i=1}^nY_i
\stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow }X$$ be the morphisms induced by $\{ a_i\} $ and $\{ b_i\} $ respectively. Then $gf=1_X$ and therefore $X$ is isomorphic to a direct summand of $\oplus _{i=1}^nY_i$.
Let $\pi _i:\oplus _{i=1}^nY_i\to Y_i$ and $\iota _i:Y_i\to \oplus
_{i=1}^nY_i$ be the canonical projection and the canonical embedding. Then $$gf=g\circ 1_{\oplus _{i=1}^nY_i}\circ f=
g\circ \left(\sum _{i=1}^n\iota _i\pi _i\right)\circ f=
\sum _{i=1}^ng\iota _i\pi _if=\sum _{i=1}^nb_ia_i=1_X\; .$$
\[th10\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective (equidimensional) variety balanced by subschemes $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. Let $\tilde Z_i$ be a desingularization of $Z_i$, $i=1,2$. Assume that the motives $M(\tilde Z_1)$ and $M(\tilde Z_2)$ are finite dimensional. Then the motive $M(X)$ is finite dimensional.
For any $Y\in \mathcal V_k$ and $\alpha \in
Corr^0(Y,X)$ let $f_{\alpha }:M(Y)\to M(X)$ be the corresponding morphism from $M(Y)$ to $M(X)$. By assumptions, $[\Delta
_X]=[\Gamma _1]+[\Gamma _2]$ in $Corr^0(X,X)$, where $\Gamma
_1\subset Z_1\times X$ and $\Gamma _2\subset X\times Z_2$. In other words, $id_{M(X)}=f_{[\Gamma _1]}+f_{[\Gamma _2]}$ in $End_{\mathcal M_{rat}}(M(X))$.
Let $s_i:\tilde Z_1\to X$ be a composition of the closed embedding $Z_i\hookrightarrow X$ with a blow up desingularization $v_i:\tilde Z_i\to Z_i$ of $Z_i$, $i=1,2$. Let also $w_i=dim(Z_i)$.
Since $\Gamma _1$ lies on $Z_1\times X$, we may consider its class $[\Gamma _1]$ in the Chow group $A^{w_1}(Z_1\times X)$ of the scheme $Z_1\times X$. Let $[\tilde \Gamma _1]$ be the pull back of $[\Gamma _1]$ with respect to the morphism $v_1\times id_X:\tilde
Z_1\times X\to Z_1\times X$, see [@Ful]. The variety $\tilde
Z_1$ is smooth projective and $dim(\tilde Z_1)=w_1$. It follows that $[\tilde \Gamma _1]$ lies in $A^{w_1}(\tilde Z_1\times
X)=Corr^0(\tilde Z_1,X)$. Consider the corresponding morphism $f_{[\tilde \Gamma _1]}:M(\tilde Z_1)\to M(X)$ in the category $\mathcal M_{rat}$. Since $v_1\times id_X$ is a blow up, it follows that $(v_1\times id_X)_*(v_1\times id_X)^*([\Gamma
_1])=[\Gamma _1]$ [@Ful]. Therefore we get: $f_{[\Gamma_1]}=f_{[\tilde \Gamma_1]}\circ M(s_1)$, whence the morphism $f_{[\Gamma_1]}:M(X)\to M(X)$ factors through the motive $M(\tilde Z_1)$.
Similarly one shows, by applying duality in $\mathcal M_{rat}$, that the morphism $f_{[\Gamma _2]}:M(X)\to M(X)$ factors through the motive $M(\tilde Z_2)(w_2-d)$ where $d=dim (X)$. Indeed, let $\Gamma _2^t$ be the transposition of the cycle $\Gamma _2$. Let $[\tilde \Gamma _2^t]$ be a pull back of its class $[\Gamma _2^t]$ (in the Chow group $A^{w_2}(Z_2\times X)$) with respect to the blow up $v_2\times id_X:\tilde Z_2\times X\to Z_2\times X$. As above we get: $f_{[\Gamma _2^t]}=f_{[\tilde \Gamma _2^t]}\circ
M(j_2)$. Considering $f_{[\Gamma _2^t]}$ as an endomorphism of the motive $M(X)(d)=M(X)\otimes \mathbb L^{-d}$ it factors through $M(\tilde Z_2)(d)$. By dualizing we see that $f_{[\Gamma
_2]}:M(X)\to M(X)$ factors through the motive $M(\tilde
Z_2)(w_2-d)$.
By Lemma \[lemma9\] we have that $M(X)$ is isomorphic to a direct summand of the motive $M(\tilde Z_1)\oplus M(\tilde
Z_2)(w_2-d)$. Since both motives $M(\tilde Z_1)$ and $M(\tilde
Z_2)(w_2-d)$ are finite dimensional, their direct sum is finite dimensional. Therefore $M(X)$ is also finite dimensional.
\[corollary11\] Let $X$ a smooth projective surface. Assume that either $X$ or a Zariski open dense subset $U$ of $X$ are balanced. Then $M(X)$ is finite dimensional.
Let $Z=X-U$. Then $codim_X(Z)\le 1$. Let $U$ be balanced over closed subschemes $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ of codimension $\le 1$. By a result of Barbieri-Viale, [@BV], $X$ is balanced of weight $\le 1$. The motives of points and curves are finite dimensional. Therefore Theorem \[th10\] implies that $M(X)$ is finite dimensional.
[For any field $k$ of characteristic $0$ V.Voevodsky has constructed in [@Voev] a triangulated category of motives $DM(k)$ over $k$ and a functor $M:Sm/k\to DM(k)$ from the category $Sm/k$ of smooth separated schemes over $k$ into $DM(k)$. This triangulated category contains a full subcategory, generated by motives $M(X)$ of smooth projective varieties $X$, which is equivalent to $\mathcal M_{rat}$. Moreover, it is pseudo-abelian and, if we consider finite correspondences on schemes with coefficients in $\mathbb Q$ to construct $DM(k)$, it is $\mathbb
Q$-linear. Therefore we can define, according to Def. \[Def2.1\], finite dimensionality of the motive $M(V)$ for every $V\in Sm/k$. Moreover, if $U$ is an open subset of a smooth projective variety $X$ one has the following distinguished triangle in $DM(k)$ [@Voev], 3.5.4: $$M(U)\to M(X)\to M(Z)(i)[2i]\to M(U)[1]$$ where $Z=X-U$ and $i$ is the codimension of $Z$ in $X$. If $X$ is a surface and $U$ an open subset of $X$ then $Z$ has dimension $\le 1$, so that $M(Z)$ is finite dimensional. This implies that also $M(Z)(i)[2i]$ is finite dimensional. Therefore Corollary \[corollary11\] naturally suggests the following question: assuming that $M(U)$ is finite dimensional, is $M(X)$ also finite dimensional?]{}
The next result (Theorem \[th12\]) shows that, for a surface with $p_g=0$ finite dimensionality of the motive $M(X)$ is equivalent to the finite dimensionality of the Chow group of $0$-cycles in the sense of Mumford. Here is the definition:
\[def3.3\] Let $X$ a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$ over an algebraically closed field $k$ and let $A^d(X)_0$ be the group of $0$-cycles of degree $0$ on $X$. Then $A^d(X)_0$ is [*finite dimensional*]{} if there exists an integer $n$, such that the natural map $$s_n:S^nX\times S^nX\to A^d(X)_0$$ is surjective, where $s_n(A,B)=A-B$ and $S^nX$ is the $n$-th symmetric power of $X$.
[Note that, if $p_g>0$, then finite dimensionality of the motive $M(X)$ does not, in general, imply the finite dimensionality of the Chow group, as it can be shown by taking products of curves $C_i$ of genus $>1$. If $X$ is a complex surface with $p_g=0$, then $A^2(X)_0$ is finite dimensional iff Conjecture \[bloch2\] holds for $X$.]{}
\[th12\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $0$ with $p_g(X)=0$. Then the motive $M(X)$ is finite dimensional if and only if the group $A^2(X)_0$ is finite dimensional (i.e. Bloch’s conjecture on Albanese kernel is true for $X$).
If $M(X)$ is finite dimensional then by [@GP1], Theorem 2.11, we have $ker(\pi _3)=T(X)=0$ where $T(X)$ is the Albanese kernel. This implies that $A^2(X)_0$ is finite dimensional, see [@J1], 1.6.
Conversely, assume that $A^2(X)_0$ is finite dimensional. Then there exists, [@J1], 1.6, a closed subscheme $Y$ of dimension $\le 1$, such that $A^2(X-Y)=0$. By results of [@BS] $X$ is balanced of weight $\le 1$. From Theorem \[th10\] it follows that $M(X) $ is finite dimensional.
(Relations with K-theory)
Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb C$. Then one has the following description for the $K$-groups $K_n(X)$, for $n>0$, see [@PW1], 6.7: $$K_n(X)\simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
B\oplus (\mathbb Q/\mathbb Z)^{2+b_2}\oplus V_n & \mbox{if $n\geq 1$ odd} \\
A\oplus (\mathbb Q/\mathbb Z)^{b_1+b_3}\oplus V_n & \mbox{if $n\geq 2$ even}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $A=H^2(X(\mathbb C),\mathbb Z)_{tors}$, $B=H^3(X(\mathbb
C),\mathbb Z)_{tors}$, $b_i$ are the Betti numbers and $V_n$ are uniquely divisible groups.
A similar result also holds for any smooth variety over $\mathbb
C$ [@PW2] if one assumes the so called [*norm residue Conjecture*]{} which asserts that the norm residue map: $K^M_n(F)/m
\to H^n_{et}(F,\mathbb Z/m)$ is an isomorphism for all $m$, where $F$ is the function field of $X$ and $K^M_*$ is Milnor’s $K$-theory.
It follows that, for a surface $X$, $K_n(X)_{tors}$ depends only upon the topological invariants of the manifold $X(\mathbb C)$. On the other hand the groups $K_n(X)_{\mathbb Q}=K_n(X)\otimes
\mathbb Q$ depend on the motive $M(X)$ via the Bloch-Lichtenbaum spectral sequence $E^{p,q}_2=H^{p-q}_{\mathcal M}(X,\mathbb
Q(-q))$ which converges to $K_{-p-q}(X)_{\mathbb Q}$. Here $$H^{2i}_{\mathcal M}(X,\mathbb Q(i))=
Hom_{DM(k)}(M(X),\mathbb Q(i)[2i])$$ is the motivic cohomology of $X$ and $\mathbb Q(i)[2i]$ plays a role of the power $\mathbb L^i$ in $DM(k)$ [@Voev].
Now let $X$ be a smooth projective surface with $p_g=q=0$. If $M(X)$ is finite dimensional then, by [@GP1], 2.14, the motive $M(X)$ is “trivial” in the sense that it is a direct sum of the unit motive 1, of $\mathbb L^2$ and of a finite number of copies of $\mathbb L$. From Th. \[th12\] it follows that the Albanese kernel $T(X)$ vanishes and this, by [@Pe], Th.0.1, implies $$K_n(X)_{\mathbb Q}\simeq
K_0(X)\otimes K_n(\mathbb C)_{\mathbb Q}$$ So also the higher $K$-theory of $X$ is “trivial”.
Note that, if either $p_g$ or $q$ do not vanish, then the above isomorphism is, in general, not true, see [@Pe].
[999999999]{}
Y. Andre and B. Kahn [*Nilpotence, radicaux et structure monoidales.*]{} Preprint 2002, [http://arXiv.org/abs/math/0203273]{}
P. del Angel and S. Müller-Stach. [*On Chow-Motives of $3$-folds*]{}. Trans. AMS 352 (2000) 1263 - 1633
L. Barbieri Viale. [*Balanced varieties.*]{} In Proceedings of the Workshop and Symposium on Algebraic $K$-theory and its applications. H. Bass, A. Kuku, C. Pedrini editors. The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, 1999, pp. 298 - 312.
A. Beauville. [*Surn l’anneaux de Chow d’une variete abelienne*]{}. Math. Ann. 273 (1988) 647 - 651
S. Bloch, V. Srinivas. [*Remarks on correspondences and algebraic cycles.*]{} Amer. J. Math. 105 (1983) 1235 - 1253.
S. Bloch. [*Lectures on algebraic cycles.*]{} Duke Univ. Math. Series IV, 1980.
S. Bloch, A. Kas and D. Lieberman. [*Zero-cycles on surfaces with $p_g=0$*]{}. Compositio Math. 33 (1976) 135 - 145
P. Deligne and J. Milne [*Tannakian categories*]{}. In Hodge Cycles and Shimura Varieties, Lecture Notes in Math. 900, Springer-Verlag, 1982, 101 - 208
C. Deninger and J. Murre. [*Motivic decomposition of abelian schemes and the Fourier transform*]{}. J.reine und angew. Math. 422 (1991) 201 - 219
W. Fulton. [*Intersection Theory.*]{} Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
V. Guletskiǐ, C. Pedrini. [*The Chow motive of the Godeaux surface.*]{} In Algebraic Geometry, a volume in memory of Paolo Francia, M.C. Beltrametti, F. Catanese, C. Ciliberto, A. Lanteri and C. Pedrini, editors. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin New York, 2002, 179 - 195
H. Inose and M. Mizukami. [*Rational equivalence of zero-cycles on some surfaces with $p_g=0$*]{}. Math. Ann. 244 (1979) 205 - 217
U. Jannsen, [*Motivic Sheaves and Filtratins on Chow Groups*]{}, In “Motives”, Proc. Symposia in Pure Math. Vol. 55, Part 1 (1994), 245-302.
U. Jannsen. [*Equivalence realtions on algebraic cycles.*]{} The Arithmetic and Geometry of Agebraic Cycles, NATO, 2000, pp. 225 - 260. Sc. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sc. 548 Kluwer Ac. Publ. Co.
U. Jannsen. [*Motives, numerical equivalence and semi-simplicity.*]{} Inventiones Math. Vol. 107 (1992), pp. 447 - 452.
S.-I. Kimura. [*Chow groups can be finite dimensional, in some sense.*]{} Preprint 1998, to appear in the Journal of Algebraic Geometry.
S. Kleiman. [*The Standard conjectures.*]{} Proceedings of Symposia in Pure mathematics. Vol 55, Part 1 (1994).
K. Künnemann. [*On the Chow motive of an abelian Scheme.*]{} Proceedings of Symposia in Pure mathematics. Vol 55, Part 1 (1994).
J. P. Murre. [*On a conjectural filtration on the Chow groups of an algebraic variety – I.*]{} Indag. Math. 4 (2)(1993), pp.177 - 188.
J. P. Murre. [*On a conjectural filtration on the Chow groups of an algebraic variety – II.*]{} Indag. Math. 4 (2)(1993), pp. 189 - 201.
J. P. Murre. [*On the motive of an algebraic surface*]{}. J. Reine angew. Math. 409 (1990) 190 - 204
C. Pedrini. [*Bloch’s conjecture and the K-theory of projective surfaces.*]{} CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes, Volume 24 (2000).
C. Pedrini, C. Weibel. [*The Higher K-theory of a complex surface.*]{} Compositio Math. 129 (2001), pp. 239 - 271.
C. Pedrini, C. Weibel. [*The Higher K-theory of Complex varieties.*]{} $K$-Theory 129 (2000), pp. 367 - 385.
A. Roitmann. [*The torsion in the group of 0-cycles modulo rational equivalence.*]{} Ann. of Math (2) 111 (1980), pp. 553 - 569.
A. J. Scholl. [*Classical motives.*]{} In “Motives”, Proc. Symposia in Pure Math. Vol. 55, Part 1 (1994), pp.163-187.
V. Voevodsky. [*Triangulated categories of motives over a field.*]{} In: V.Voevodsky, A. Suslin and E. Friedlander. Cycles, Transfers and Motivic Cohomology Theories. Annals of Math. Studies, 143. P.U.P. Princeton, N.J., U.S.A.
C. Voisin. [*Trascendental methods in the study of algebraic cycles*]{}. In Algebraic Cycles and Hodge Theory, Lecture Notes in Math. 1594, Springer-Verlag, 1993, 153 - 222
[[email protected]]{}
[Institute of Mathematics, Surganova 11, 220072 Minsk, Belarus]{}
[[email protected]]{}
[Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 35, 16146 Genova, Italy]{}
[^1]: Supported by TMR ERB FMRX CT-97-0107 and INTAS-99-00817. The second named author is a member of GNSAGA of CNR.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a theoretical model for the experimentally found but counter-intuitive exceptionally long lifetime of surface nanobubbles. We can explain why, under normal experimental conditions, surface nanobubbles are stable for many hours or even up to days rather than the expected microseconds. The limited gas diffusion through the water in the far field, the cooperative effect of nanobubble clusters, and the pinned contact line of the nanobubbles lead to the slow dissolution rate.'
author:
- 'Joost H. Weijs'
- Detlef Lohse
title: Why surface nanobubbles live for hours
---
#### Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
– Since their first prediction and discovery almost 20 years ago [@Parker94], intense research on surface nanobubbles has raised many questions about this intriguing and important phenomenon which has great potential for various applications [@Hampton; @Seddonrev11; @Craig11; @Seddon12_reviewCPC]. Surface nanobubbles have now been widely reported on various surfaces in contact with water employing various detection mechanisms like Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and most recently also through direct optical visualization [@Karpitschka12; @OhlPRL12]. With all these different methods they are found to behave differently than regular macroscopic bubbles. Surface nanobubbles behave peculiar in several ways: their contact angle is always much lower than expected from Young’s law [@Borkent; @Zhang06ca], they are stable against violent decompression [@BorkentPRL], and in particular they are stable for much longer than expected: For such small bubbles one would expect a lifetime of order $\mu$s, due to the high Laplace pressure inside the bubbles which drives the gas into the liquid. On this last question many explanations were proposed, ranging from contamination that shields or limits the diffusive outflux of gas [@Ducker09] to a dynamic equilibrium situation where lost gas is replenished [@Brenner; @SeddonPRL11]. However, both theories are refuted by experimantal evidence: the addition of surfactants does not influence the behaviour of nanobubbles [@Zhang12_surfactants], and the circulatory gas flow required for the dynamic equilibrium theory is not measured in all experiments so it cannot be the stabilization mechanism [@SeddonPRL11; @OhlPRL12]. In addition, a large problem with the dynamic equilibrium theory is that it requires some form of driving to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics, and its origin is unclear. In molecular dynamics, some local inflow near the contact line was indeed observed, but its strength was too weak to explain the stability of surface nanobubbles [@WeijsPRL12].
A different approach is therefore required, in this Letter we provide an alternative explanation for the long lifetimes of surface nanobubbles. The theory relies only on classical, well-known, and proven continuum concepts such as diffusion and Henry’s law. Furthermore, the theory only uses confirmed nanobubble properties, namely the pinned contact line [@Yang09; @ZhangLangmuir12] of nanobubbles and the fact that nanobubbles exist in high coverage fractions at the liquid-solid interface [@Yang07; @Yang08]. No fitting or uncontrolled assumptions are required to obtain lifetimes that are consistent with experimental findings.
The Letter is organized as follows. First, the theory is explained and the relevant equations are derived. Next, we solve the equations numerically and analytically. We vary several parameters to demonstrate the robustness of the long lifetimes of surface nanobubbles in varying experimental conditions. In addition, we apply the theory to the case of electrolytically generated nanobubbles and find that also here it is consistent with experimental results. We conclude with predictions from the theory which can straightforwardly be tested in experiments.
#### Theory {#theory .unnumbered}
–
![(Color online) Sketch of a liquid layer of thickness $\ell$ in contact with a solid (left). The top of the liquid is exposed to atmospheric conditions. At the solid-liquid interface nanobubbles are present with typical internal contact angle $\theta$, height $h$, and radius of curvature $R$. They are not drawn to scale. The arrows indicate the gas flow direction. On the right a further enlargement of one nanobubble is shown.\[fig:geometry\]](sketch.eps){width="85mm"}
We consider an infinitely large plate in contact with a liquid layer with thickness $\ell$ (Fig. \[fig:geometry\]). The liquid layer is in contact with the atmosphere at $z=\ell$ and the solid-liquid interface is located at $z=0$. The solid-liquid interface is covered with nanobubbles with a number density (per area) of $\rho$, hence the (average) spacing between neighbouring nanobubbles is $\left<d_{bub}\right> \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}}$. In experimental studies nanobubbles are always recovered in high coverage densities [@Tyrrell02; @Yang07; @Zhang07; @Yang08]. Assuming quasi-steady diffusion, any variation of the dissolved gas concentration $\phi$ in the horizontal ($x,y$) direction due to non-uniform gas outflux decays as $\exp(-\pi z/d_{bub})$. Hence we can assume that for $\ell > 5\left<d_{bub}\right>$ the the diffusion of gas through the liquid layer is governed by the one-dimensional diffusion equation: $$\label{eq:diffusion}
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t} = D\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial z^2}\;,\: z \in [0,\ell]\;,$$ with $D$ the diffusion constant of the gas in the ambient liquid and $\phi$ the (number) concentration of gas in the liquid. The characteristic timescale for diffusion through the water layer is $\ell^2/D\sim10^5$s, which is similar to the lifetimes obtained in experiments. The vast difference ($\mu$s vs. days) compared to previous estimates originates in using $\ell$ as the relevant length scale instead of the bubble radius $R$, i.e. we use the *far-field* length-scale. Using $R$ as the length-scale is justified for a (free) bubble in an infinite medium where. However, in the case of nanobubbles it is important to realize that gas has not left the system until it is released into the atmosphere and hence $\ell$ is the relevant length scale as this is the distance the gas has to travel through the liquid from the bubble towards the atmosphere. This is also apparant in a thought experiment where we do not allow gas to leave the liquid into the atmosphere, for example by putting the liquid drop in a closed container. Since the liquid is supersaturated with some gas that has left the bubble, and which cannot escape, an equilibrium is reached (described by Henry’s law discussed later in this work) and the bubbles do not dissolve [@WeijsCPC12]. When opening the container this excess dissolved gas can be released into the ambient air, allowing the bubble to lose gas into the liquid. This ‘traffic jam effect’ plays a crucial role also in the long nanobubble lifetimes.
We will now fully describe the boundary conditions for above differential equation . They are given by Henry’s law, which relates the gas concentration in the liquid to the gas pressure outside the liquid near the interfaces: $$\label{eq:bc}
\phi(z=0,t)=\frac{p_{bub}(R(N(t)))}{k_H}\;\textrm{~and~}\phi(z=\ell,t)=\frac{p_{atm}}{k_H}\;.$$ Here, $k_H$ is Henry’s constant, $p_{bub}$ the pressure inside the nanobubbles and $p_{atm}$ the atmospheric pressure. $R(t)$ is the radius of curvature of the nanobubbles, which depends on time because the bubbles get flatter as they drain. In the case of a pinned contact line, the radius of curvature is related to the (internal) contact angle $\theta(t)$ by $R(t)=\frac{R_b}{\sin\theta(t)}$, where $R_b$ is the base radius (cf. Fig. \[fig:geometry\]) which is constant due to the pinned contact line. The (relative) pressure inside the bubbles $p_{bub}(t)$ is the Laplace pressure $$\label{eq:laplace}
p_{bub}(t)=p_{atm}+\frac{2\gamma}{R}=p_{atm}+\frac{2\gamma}{R_b}\sin\theta(t)\;,$$ where $\gamma$ is the liquid-vapour surface tension. For $\theta<90^\circ$, which is the case for surface nanobubbles, the internal pressure thus decreases as $\theta$ decreases. This effect provides a negative feedback in the dissolution process, prolonging the lifetime of the nanobubbles. In this work we do not consider the effects of electrostatic effects on the internal pressure of surface nanobubbles, as electrostatic effects act to reduce the internal pressure and are therefore not a driving force but rather a stabilizing force. It is therefore possible that the derived lifetimes in this work (hours, days) are an underestimation of real lifetimes.
The (single) nanobubble gas content $N(t)$ decreases due to the diffusive flux of gas at $z=0$, which is the location at which gas is transfered from the nanobubbles ($z=0^-$) to the liquid ($z=0^+$). The diffusive flux is given by Fick’s law $J = -D(\partial \phi / \partial z)$, thus $$\label{eq:flux}
\frac{\textrm{d}N}{\textrm{d} t} =-\frac{J}{\rho}=\frac{D}{\rho}\left.\frac{\partial \phi(z,t)}{\partial z}\right|_{z=0} \;.$$ The factor $\rho$ arises to convert the molecular flux per unit area of the substrate to the molecular flux per single surface nanobubble. Eq. immediately shows how a low nanobubble coverage ($\rho\approx 0$) corresponds to small global flux, $J=-\rho dN/dt$.
To evaluate the boundary condition at $z=0$ (Eq. ), we need to relate the number of atoms inside a nanobubble (Eq. ) to the geometrical shape of the bubble. To calculate the geometrical properties of a nanobubble containing $N$ atoms of gas, we use the ideal gas law $p(\theta)V(\theta)=Nk_BT$ using the expression for the volume of a spherical cap $V(\theta) = \frac{\pi}{3}(R_b/\sin\theta)^3\cdot (2-3\cos\theta+\cos^3\theta)$. Here, $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $T$ the temperature (assumed to be constant at 300K), and $\theta$ the gas-side (internal) contact angle of the nanobubbles. This implicit equation can be solved numerically for $\theta(N)$. We can then calculate the radius of curvature of the nanobubbles $R$, which gives us the internal bubble pressure \[Eq. \]. Using this pressure, the boundary condition at $z=0$ (Eq. ) can be evaluated, which closes our model. In the next section, we will solve these model equations numerically.
#### Numerical evaluation {#numerical-evaluation .unnumbered}
– Due to the non-trivial boundary condition at $z=0$ (Eq. ) we first solve the diffusion eq. numerically. The simulations were done for different initial conditions. Since the real initial conditions are unknown, we choose the two extremes between which we expect the real initial conditions. The first type of initial conditions consists of a linear concentration profile, which allows the system to begin transporting gas from the bubbles immediately ($t=0$), $$\label{eq:ici}
\phi(z,t=0)=\frac{p_{bub}(R_0)-p_{atm}}{k_H} \left( 1-\frac{z}{\ell}\right)+\frac{p_{atm}}{k_H}\;.$$ Here, $R_0$ indicates the initial radius of curvature of the nanobubbles. We choose $R_0$ such that it is equivalent to an initial contact angle $\theta_0=40^\circ$ for given base radius $R_b$.
The second type of initial conditions assumes that the nanobubble formation procedure (ethanol-water exchange or replacing cold water with warm water [@Zhang07]) supersaturates and mixes the water such that the concentration is uniform and equal to the concentration near the nanobubbles: $$\label{eq:icii}
\phi(x,t=0)=\frac{p_{bub}(R_0)}{k_H}\;.$$ The real initial concentration profile will most likely be something between and : the ethanol-water exchange uniformly supersaturates the water but it takes the nanobubbles some time to form so some gas already drains into the atmosphere. As we will see, both initial concentration profiles produce long-living nanobubbles.
![(Color online) Results of the calculations using the initial conditions from Eq. and parameters described in the text. (*a*): Snapshots of the concentration profile at 1 hour intervals. Since the bubbles are pinned, the radius of the curvature increases as the bubble drains, lowering the concentration at the bubble side ($z=0$). (*b*): Evolution of the nanobubble gas content (black) and the radius of curvature of the liquid-gas interface $R$ (red) as a function of time.\[fig:detailedresults\]](profilesandtimeevol_v2.eps){width="88mm"}
#### Results {#results .unnumbered}
– How long does a nanobubble survive according to this description? Using typical parameters that apply to experiments on surface nanobubbles [@Borkent] ($\tilde\rho=4\cdot 10^{12}$ m$^{-2}$, $\ell=10^{-2}$ m, $\gamma=0.072$ N/m, $D=10^{-9}$ m$^2$/s, $k_H=2.6\cdot 10^{-19}$ Pa$\cdot$m, and $T=300$ K) and the initial condition we obtain the results shown in Fig. \[fig:detailedresults\]. Fig. \[fig:detailedresults\]a shows hourly snapshots of the concentration profile $\phi(z)$. From these curves it is apparent that the transport of gas away from the bubble is limited by the diffusion rate of the gas through water far away from the bubble. This leads to an almost flat (zero-slope) concentration profile near the bubble through which the diffusive gas flux is very small. Fig. \[fig:detailedresults\]b (red) shows the radius of curvature of the spherical cap $R$ as a function of time. This radius of curvature increases (due to the pinned contact line) which lowers the internal gas pressure \[Eq. \], enhancing the lifetime of the nanobubbles. Finally, Fig. \[fig:detailedresults\]b (black) shows the amount of particles contained inside an individual nanobubble through time. Here we see that a typical nanobubble which starts out with over 100,000 atoms and ends up with just over 500 atoms after 36 hours.
As a criterion for bubble dissolution we choose a critical bubble height of $h^\ast=1$ nm, after which it may no longer be appropriate to use continuum physics, and also effects such as the disjoining pressure start to dominate the pressure inside the bubble rather than solely the Laplace pressure. From molecular dynamics it is known that continuum models (e.g. Navier-Stokes, diffusion equation, Henry’s law) are valid down to the nanometer scale [@WeijsPRL12; @WeijsCPC12]. Using the same criterion we find that above bubble is stable for 36 hours, which is 10 orders of magnitude longer than previously thought and in agreement with experimental findings and the expected timescale $\ell^2/D$.
#### Analytic solution {#analytic-solution .unnumbered}
– The concentration profiles in Fig. \[fig:detailedresults\] suggest that the boundary condition at $z=0$ is of Neumann-type, $\partial\phi/\partial z|_{z=0}=0$. Taking the time derivative of the boundary condition at $z=0$ \[Eq. \] and substituting Eq. into the result we obtain $$\label{eq:bcdirichletornot}
\left.\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial z}\right|_{z=0}=\frac{\rho}{D\frac{d\phi}{dN}}\left.\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}\right|_{z=0}\;.$$ Filling in representative values for the quantities we find that the concentration gradient at $z=0$ is over 5 orders of magnitude smaller than the typical global concentration gradient ($\approx \hat{\phi}/\ell$), with $\hat{\phi}=\phi-\phi_{atm}$. This means that the boundary condition for the gradient at $z=0$ can indeed be considered to be approximately zero. For zero gradient the analytic solution is $\hat{\phi}(z,t) = \hat{\phi}_{bub,0}\exp(-\pi^2Dt/(4\ell^2))\cdot\cos(\pi z/(2\ell)) + \hat{\phi}_{transient}(t)$. The exact form of $\hat{\phi}_{transient}$ depends on the initial conditions, but declines quickly. A remarkable feature of this result is that $\hat{\phi}(z,t)$ only depends on $D$ and $\ell$, and is completely independent of $\rho$ and $\gamma$. Of course, $\rho$ must be high enough to be able to consider the system as 1-dimensional. Similarly, the fraction $\rho/(D d\phi/dN)$ must be low enough such that the local gradient at $z=0$ \[Eq. \] is small compared to the global gradient.
#### Varying initial conditions {#varying-initial-conditions .unnumbered}
How does the initial concentration profile affect the lifetime of the nanobubbles? During the ethanol-water exchange procedure that is most commonly used to generate nanobubbles experimentally, ethanol is flushed away with clean water. It is therefore likely that the initial gas concentration profile is uniform in $z$, due to mixing. We redid the same calculations as before, using an uniform initial concentration profile, the results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:altIC\]. We observe very similar concentration profiles as before, except for small times where the influence of the initial conditions is still felt. As can be observed in Fig. \[fig:altIC\] (b), it takes 2-3 hours before the bubbles ‘feel’ the influence of the ambient air and start to dissolve. This means that these first hours, the bubbles barely shrink as the (global) concentration gradient near the bubbles is close to zero.
![(Color online) Numerical results for the initial conditions . (*a*): Hourly snapshots of the concentration profile. Due to the initial conditions, some gas that is initially dissolved in the liquid first has to drain to the atmosphere until a concentration gradient exists near the bubble. As compared to the linear profile case (Fig. \[fig:detailedresults\]) the bubbles gain an additional few hours of lifetime because of this. (*b*): Evolution of the nanobubble gas content and the radius of curvature of the surface nanobubbles. \[fig:altIC\]](profilesandtimeevolic2_v3.eps){width="88mm"}
#### Robustness of the results {#robustness-of-the-results .unnumbered}
– How robust are the nanobubble lifetimes against variations in the experimental system? By changing $\gamma$ and $\ell$ in the numerical calculation, we verify the result from the analytical solution to the diffusion equation for which it holds that the diffusion profile evolution only depends on $D$ and $\ell$.
First, we look at the surface tension $\gamma$. Most often an ethanol-water exchange procedure is applied to form nanobubbles. This method introduces contamination into the system which lowers the surface tension. It is therefore important to understand the influence of $\gamma$ on the nanobubble lifetime. We find that surface tension does not play any role in the dissolution time of nanobubbles. This result remains counter-intuitive as surface tension is the driving force for nanobubble dissolution. Indeed, a higher surface tension increases the Laplace pressure \[Eq. \], thus increasing the driving that leads to dissolution. However, it also increases the gas content inside the bubbles. This denser reservoir requires a larger flux to drain in the same time. Both effects scale linearly with $\gamma$, hence they cancel.
In previous studies, the liquid height $\ell$ has never been considered as a parameter that affects nanobubble lifetimes. Based on the analytical solution presented before we expect that $\tau\sim \ell^2/D$, which is indeed exactly recovered from the numerical calculations. This indicates that the liquid cell size (and geometry) is very important to the lifetime of nanobubbles: the amount of liquid the gas has to travel through determines the timescale of the nanobubble lifetime. $\ell$ is easy to vary, we suggest to perform corresponding experiments to test our prediction.
#### Electrolysis {#electrolysis .unnumbered}
– How do nanobubbles behave according to this description when gas is generated at the solid-liquid interface (e.g. by electrolysis [@Zhang06; @Yang09])? A rough estimate based on the values cited in ref. gives a constant influx of order $\sim 10^5$ molecules per bubble per second. For an equilibrium to exist (the bubbles neither grow or shrink) the diffusive flux away from the bubble must then be equal to this influx due to electrolysis, hence $\frac{D}{\rho}\hat{\phi}(z=0)/\ell = 10^5$ s$^{-1}$. This corresponds to a nanobubble contact angle of $\theta=49^\circ$, and nanobubble content $N=2\cdot 10^{5}$. Interestingly, this means that the bubble contents are refreshed every two seconds. This only highlights the fact that nanobubbles are not static: without driving (such as electrolysis) they dissolve whereas with driving the gas atoms inside the bubble are replaced every couple of seconds.
#### Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
– We have modelled the gas flow from nanobubbles through the liquid to the atmosphere to study the lifetime of surface nanobubbles. We find that nanobubbles are not stable, but dissolve by diffusion. However, due to their pinned contact lines and that the gas has to diffuse towards the atmosphere, they dissolve on a much longer timescale than free bubbles in an infinite liquid. This last point (diffusion through a relatively thick layer of liquid) explains why previous molecular dynamics results could not recover long nanobubble lifetimes: the system size in molecular dynamics is limited to several tens of nanometers, resulting in lifetimes of order 100 ns, consistent with our findings in ref. . Using the correct length-scales ($\ell\sim 1-10$ mm), we find that surface nanobubbles can easily survive in excess of a day, an increase of 10 orders of magnitudes as compared to previous estimates of $\mu$s. The results from the experiment where electrolysis is used corroborate the results in this Letter: a non-zero current is measured meaning that gas is continuously formed at the substrate. We find that the gas flux induced by this current leads to nanobubbles with $\theta=46^\circ$, consistent with experimental results of ref. .\
J.H. Snoeijer, H. Gelderblom, and X.H. Zhang are gratefully acknowledged for discussions. This work is part of the research programme of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), which is part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
[10]{}
J. Parker, P. Claesson, and P. Attard, [*[Bubbles, cavities, and the long-ranged attraction between hydrophobic surfaces]{}*]{}, [J. Phys. Chem.]{} [ **[98]{}**]{}, 8468 ([1994]{}).
M. A. Hampton and A. V. Nguyen, [*Nanobubbles and the nanobubble bridging capillary force*]{}, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. [**154**]{}, 30 (2010).
J. R. T. Seddon and D. Lohse, [*[Nanobubbles and micropancakes: gaseous domains on immersed substrates]{}*]{}, [J. Phys.: Condens. Matter]{} [**[23]{}**]{}, ([2011]{}).
V. S. J. Craig, [*Very small bubbles at surfaces-the nanobubble puzzle*]{}, Soft Matter [**7**]{}, 40 (2011).
J. R. T. Seddon, D. Lohse, W. A. Ducker, and V. S. J. Craig, [*A Deliberation on Nanobubbles at Surfaces and in Bulk*]{}, ChemPhysChem [**13**]{}, 2179 (2012).
S. Karpitschka, E. Dietrich, J. R. T. Seddon, H. J. W. Zandvliet, D. Lohse, and H. Riegler, [*Nonintrusive Optical Visualization of Surface Nanobubbles*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 066102 (2012).
C. U. Chan and C.-D. Ohl, [*TIRF Microscopy for the Study of Nanobubble Dynamics*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., in print (2012).
B. M. Borkent, S. de Beer, F. Mugele, and D. Lohse, [*On the Shape of Surface Nanobubbles*]{}, Langmuir [**26**]{}, 260 (2010).
X. H. Zhang, N. Maeda, and V. S. J. Craig, [*Physical Properties of Nanobubbles on Hydrophobic Surfaces in Water and Aqueous Solutions*]{}, Langmuir [**22**]{}, 5025 (2006).
B. M. Borkent, S. M. Dammer, H. Schönherr, G. J. Vancso, and D. Lohse, [ *Superstability of Surface Nanobubbles*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 204502 (2007).
W. A. Ducker, [*Contact Angle and Stability of Interfacial Nanobubbles*]{}, Langmuir [**25**]{}, 8907 (2009).
M. P. Brenner and D. Lohse, [*Dynamic Equilibrium Mechanism for Surface Nanobubble Stabilization*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 214505 (2008).
J. R. T. Seddon, H. J. W. Zandvliet, and D. Lohse, [*[Knudsen Gas Provides Nanobubble Stability]{}*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**[107]{}**]{}, ([2011]{}).
X. Zhang, M. H. Uddin, H. Yang, G. Toikka, W. Ducker, and N. Maeda, [ *Effects of Surfactants on the Formation and the Stability of Interfacial Nanobubbles*]{}, Langmuir [**28**]{}, 10471 (2012).
J. H. Weijs, J. H. Snoeijer, and D. Lohse, [*Formation of Surface Nanobubbles and the Universality of Their Contact Angles: A Molecular Dynamics Approach*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, (2012).
S. Yang, P. Tsai, E. S. Kooij, A. Prosperetti, H. J. W. Zandvliet, and D. Lohse, [*Electrolytically Generated Nanobubbles on Highly Orientated Pyrolytic Graphite Surfaces*]{}, Langmuir [**25**]{}, 1466 (2009).
X. Zhang, D. Chan, D. Wang, and N. Maeda, [*Stability of Interfacial Nanobubbles*]{}, Langmuir, submitted (2012).
S. Yang, S. M. Dammer, N. Bremond, H. J. W. Zandvliet, E. S. Kooij, and D. Lohse, [*Characterization of Nanobubbles on Hydrophobic Surfaces in Water*]{}, Langmuir [**23**]{}, 7072 (2007).
S. Yang, E. S. Kooij, B. Poelsema, D. Lohse, and H. J. W. Zandvliet, [ *Correlation between geometry and nanobubble distribution on HOPG surface*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**81**]{}, 64006 (2008).
J. W. G. Tyrrell and P. Attard, [*Atomic Force Microscope Images of Nanobubbles on a Hydrophobic Surface and Corresponding Force−Separation Data*]{}, Langmuir [**18**]{}, 160 (2002).
X. H. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, G. Li, H. Fang, X. Xiao, X. Zeng, and J. Hu, [*Detection of Novel Gaseous States at the Highly Oriented Pyrolytic Graphite−Water Interface*]{}, Langmuir [**23**]{}, 1778 (2007).
J. H. Weijs, J. R. T. Seddon, and D. Lohse, [*Diffusive Shielding Stabilizes Bulk Nanobubble Clusters*]{}, ChemPhysChem [**13**]{}, 2197 (2012).
L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Li, G. Shen, M. Ye, C. Fan, H. Fang, and J. Hu, [*Electrochemically Controlled Formation and Growth of Hydrogen Nanobubbles*]{}, Langmuir [**22**]{}, 8109 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Sentence level quality estimation (QE) for machine translation (MT) attempts to predict the translation edit rate (TER) cost of post-editing work required to correct MT output. We describe our view on sentence-level QE as dictated by several practical setups encountered in the industry. We find consumers of MT output—whether human or algorithmic ones—to be primarily interested in a binary quality metric: is the translated sentence adequate as-is or does it need post-editing? Motivated by this we propose a quality classification (QC) view on sentence-level QE whereby we focus on maximizing recall at precision above a given threshold. We demonstrate that, while classical QE regression models fare poorly on this task, they can be re-purposed by replacing the output regression layer with a binary classification one, achieving 50-60% recall at 90% precision. For a high-quality MT system producing 75-80% correct translations, this promises a significant reduction in post-editing work indeed.'
author:
- |
Junpei Zhou$^\dag$ Ciprian Chelba$^\ddag$ Yuezhang (Music) Li$^\ddag$\
$^\dag$Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University\
$^\ddag$Google, Inc.\
[[email protected], {ciprianchelba,lyzmusic}@google.com]{}
bibliography:
- 'acl2020.bib'
title: Practical Perspectives on Quality Estimation for Machine Translation
---
Introduction
============
With the development of neural machine translation (NMT) models [@sutskever2014sequence; @bahdanau2014neural; @vaswani2017attention; @edunov2018understanding], the quality of machine translation systems has been steadily improving over the past few years [@garg2018machine].
However, machine translation is still error-prone, producing text that can lack fluency and/or semantic faithfulness to the input. Consumers of MT technology often resort to bilingual speakers to post-edit the translated sentences to make them good enough to be used [@krings2001repairing], which is expensive. This option is not available at all to potential algorithmic consumers of MT text output such as a web search engine. Both scenarios create demand for an automatic way to estimate the quality of machine translation output: post-editors could concentrate on low-quality translations and algorithms could filter them out. This motivates the QE task [@specia2010machine; @specia2018machine], which aims to estimate the quality of output from a machine translation system without access to reference translations.
In this work, we focus on sentence-level QE and describe our exploration and analysis from an industry perspective. Our contributions are three-fold:
- We analyze different problem formulations in practical setups encountered in the industry to motivate a binary classification approach to MT QE and introduce the quality classification (QC) task, derived directly from the QE task as defined by WMT.
- We adopt a new evaluation metric $R@P_t$ (Recall when Precision is above a threshold $t$) for QC, which is intuitively more meaningful than the MAE/MSE/Pearson metrics used for evaluating QE system performance. The metric is directly correlated with the ratio of translated sentences that are labeled as correct, while controlling for the rate of false-positives.
- We conduct experiments for different feature extractors in QC and report recall at different precision thresholds, showing that competitive QE models re-purposed for QC by replacing the output regression layer with a binary classification one could indeed deliver meaningful end-user value, as long as the quality of the underlying MT model is reasonably high.
The paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:relatedwork\] describes related work. We motivate the shift to a binary classification setup and associated evaluation metrics in Section \[sec:tasksetting\], followed by a description of our experiments in Section \[sec:exps\], conclusions, and future work directions.
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
In the traditional MT task setting the evaluation metric is mainly BLEU [@papineni2002bleu], which compares the translation output with several reference sentences. For QE however, the model tries to predict how far is the translation output by an MT model from its post-edited correct version, without access to reference sentences.
The WMT QE shared task started in 2012 [@Callison-Burch:2012:FWS:2393015.2393018] and the most recent one was held in 2019 [@fonseca2019findings]. The goal of the WMT QE sentence-level task is to predict the required post-editing cost, measured in HTER [@snover2006study], which is a typical regression task.
Among the systems that participated in this shared task, there have been various methods to tackle this problem, and they can be roughly divided into three categories. The first category uses hand-crafted features, such as those extracted by QuEst++ [@specia-paetzold-scarton:2015:ACL-IJCNLP-2015-System-Demonstrations] including sentence length, language model score, and so on. The second category uses neural models to extract features [@shah-etal-2015-shef; @biccici2018rtm], which encodes a sentence pair into a feature vector. The third category trains another model as a ‘teacher’, including recent state-of-the-art systems [@kim-lee:2016:N16-1; @wang-EtAl:2018:WMT4]. This kind of system is usually composed of two modules: an MT-like source–target encoding model pre-trained with large parallel corpora, stacked with a QE scorer based on the neural features. For example, @wang-EtAl:2018:WMT4 adopt the “Bilingual Expert” model [@Fan2018BilingualEC] obtained several best results in WMT 2018. [@zhou2019source] proposed a model which forces the decoder to attend more to the encoder, instead of being a bi-directional language model. Ensembles of several models as in [@kepler2019unbabel] performed best in the 2019 MT QE task.
Task Setting {#sec:tasksetting}
============
Classification Instead of Regression {#sec:whyclassification}
------------------------------------
In the WMT QE sentence-level task, all systems aim at predicting the normalized HTER score for a given *(source, translation)* sentence pair, which is a typical regression task. Submissions are evaluated in terms of the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Pearson’s correlation [@specia-etal-2018-findings].
However, after thoroughly analyzing a few user scenarios in the industry, we found that it is more practical to formulate this problem as a classification task instead of a regression task. There are three primary reasons for this choice:
#### Simplicity
The first reason is that most customers don’t care too much about the exact (H)TER score, but instead they are interested in knowing which sentences need to be sent for post-editing and which sentences are good enough to be used as such. For example, there is no difference to the user between a translation with 0.7 TER score and another one scoring 0.5 if the TER upper threshold is set to 0.3, because both will be sent for post-editing.
NMT users are presented with a simple interface: after providing the data we can directly return two sets of sentences to customers; one with text that can be used as-is, and the other with text that needs post-editing.
#### Understand-ability
The second reason is that current metrics for WMT QE regression do not give a straightforward sense for how well the model performs. For example, if we tune the model to make it perform better on low-quality sentences, the MAE and RMSE would decrease. However, no matter whether the model predicts 0.7 or 0.9 TER for a sentence pair, it would still be sent for post-editing, so the decrease on those regression metrics cannot reflect the real improvement brought to the customers. What’s worse, it is hard to set a threshold for deploying the model in production based on the regression metrics, especially Pearson’s correlation. In contrast, by adopting the classification setting, we can use more meaningful metrics such as precision, recall, $F_1$, and so on; see Section \[sec:eval\] for a detailed discussion on the evaluation metric we choose to work with.
#### Capability
The third reason is that training a classifier performs a lot better than setting a threshold on the regression model output when taking the QC view instead of the QE one, see the results in Section \[exps:regression\].
Evaluation Metrics {#sec:eval}
------------------
There are a lot of metrics available for binary classification, such as accuracy, precision, recall, F-score, confusion matrix, AUC for ROC curve, and so on. After consulting with internal users of NMT technology we decided to use a custom metric $R@P_t$, which maximizes Recall subject to the constraint of Precision being above a threshold $t$. Setting a high value for $P_t$ controls the amount of noise introduced in the downstream pipeline; again, consulting with internal users of NMT the Precision threshold $t = 0.9$ was deemed sufficient; acceptable Recall values depend on task at hand of course.
Experiments {#sec:exps}
===========
Datasets {#sec:dataset}
--------
There are two stages in training the model; the first stage uses a parallel dataset to train the feature extractor (FE) and the second stage uses a QC dataset to train the classifier. The first stage uses the parallel data as described in Section 4.1.1 of [@wang2018alibaba] with slightly different pre-processing/filtering. For the QC dataset, we construct a new binary labeled dataset derived from the WMT QE dataset.
QE datasets list source/target sentence pairs with HTER scores as labels; for QC we label samples with 0.0 HTER as ‘good’ (positive) while the rest get ‘bad‘ (negative) labels. In the following, we will denote the converted WMT QE 2017 sentence-level dataset as ‘WMT17’; Table \[tab:datasetinfo\] details the number of samples (thousands) in each split and the percentage of positive samples.
-- ------------------------------------------- -- --
**Train & **Dev & **Test\
**Lang &\
En-De & 23k (14%) & 1k ( 9%) & 2k (15%)\
De-En & 25k (42%) & 1k (44%) & 2k (15%)\
********
-- ------------------------------------------- -- --
: WMT17 QE/QC datasets: number of samples (thousands) in each split and the percentage of positive samples in train/dev/test data, respectively.[]{data-label="tab:datasetinfo"}
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
**Quasi & **NMTEx & **Quasi & **NMTEx & **Range\
qc lstm layers & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & \[1, 2\]\
qc lstm size & 64 & 256 & 256 & 64 & \[64, 128, 256\]\
qc lstm dropout & 0.0 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.1 & \[0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3\]\
learning rate & 1e-5 & 1e-5 & 1e-5 & 1e-5 & \[1e-6, 1e-5, 1e-4\]\
**********
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
**Model & **Lang & **Split & **$R@P_{0.8}$ & **$R@P_{0.9}$\
& En-De & Dev & 0.5111 & 0.4556\
& En-De & Test & 0.4300 & 0.1933\
& De-En & Dev & 0.7156 & 0.6261\
& De-En & Test & 0.7441 & 0.5255\
& En-De & Dev & 0.2111 & 0.0667\
& En-De & Test & 0.2556 & 0.1700\
& De-En & Dev & 0.7729 & 0.6556\
& De-En & Test & 0.7678 & 0.4904\
**********
------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
: Experimental results on WMT17 dataset.[]{data-label="tab:ExperimentalRes"}
Models
------
As described in Section \[sec:relatedwork\], the model for MT QE has two components: a feature extractor (FE) and a QE predictor. In regular QE models, the predictor uses an output regression layer and is trained using either MAE or MSE loss. In our QC setup, the output layer is a binary classification one and the training loss is cross-entropy.
We experimented with two options for the FE component. The first is the one described in [@zhou2019source], which got second place in WMT QE 2019 sentence-level task and achieves state-of-the-art among all single models (not ensemble) reported. The feature for each token $y_j$ is: $$q_j = \mathrm{concat}(\overleftarrow{z_j}, \overrightarrow{z_j}, e^t_{j-1}, e^t_{j+1}, f_j^\mathit{mm})$$ where $\overleftarrow{z_j}, \overrightarrow{z_j}$ are state vectors produced by two uni-directional Transformers, and $e^t_{j-1}, e^t_{j+1}$ are embedding vectors of contextual words. The $f_j^\mathit{mm}$ is called “mismatching feature” as illustrated in [@wang2018alibaba]. This FE treats the translation system as a black box and trains another model to predict the token based on source tokens and context target tokens; we name it Quasi-MT (denoted ‘Quasi’).
The second FE we experimented with (denoted ‘NMTEx’) is the NMT transformer model as described in Section 3.3 of [@caswell-etal-2019-tagged]. The input to the decoder soft-max layer is augmented with the mismatching feature as used in ‘Quasi’ and (optionally) the encoder output before being fed to the QE predictor; the latter was useful for De-En but not for En-De.
FE output is time-reduced using bidirectional LSTM models with dropout and layer normalization as implemented in Lingvo [@shen2019lingvo]. The final LSTM state is fed to either a classification layer (QC) or a regression layer (QE). For the QC model training back-propagation gradient is stopped at the underlying FE; dropout in the FE models is set to 0.0 to match it with inference.
Experimental Results {#sec:experimentalres}
--------------------
We have implemented the model using Lingvo [@shen2019lingvo] for distributed training and conducted experiments in the classification setting described in Section \[sec:tasksetting\]. We have tuned hyper-parameters for QC models according to the $R@P_t$ on the development dataset by grid-search, and the final parameters we finally picked are shown in Table \[tab:Hyper-parameters\].
The experiments for using NMTEx and Quasi as feature extractors are shown in Table \[tab:ExperimentalRes\]. We report results for both $t = 0.8$ and $t = 0.9$ to give a more comprehensive picture of QC model behavior. Results show that competitive QE models re-purposed for classification can attain relatively high (50-60%) recall at 90% precision on WMT17 De-En dataset. For an MT system producing 75-80% correct translations, this would allow labeling 35-50% of the output sentences as adequate with a small 3-5% false-positive rate, a significant reduction in post-editing work indeed.
However, we also observe a large discrepancy in QC performance between the En-De and De-En datasets, as well as between En-DE dev and test sets. The inconsistency between En-De and De-En is possibly due to the fact that they come from different domains relative to the parallel training data: En-De is IT domain and De-En is Pharmaceutical domain.
### Classification versus Regression {#exps:regression}
Finally, we conducted experiments on the WMT17 En-De dataset to verify that training a classifier is indeed better than thresholding the output of a regression model. Samples are classified as ‘good’/‘bad’ by thresholding the predicted TER output by the QE model described in [@zhou2019source]. In a sweep for the threshold value over the \[0.0, 0.5\] interval on En-De Dev data we could not reach precision higher than 0.64; on En-De Test data there was steep jump from Precision/Recall of 0.32/0.12 to 1.0/0.01. Neither operating points come even close to the ones listed in Table \[tab:ExperimentalRes\].
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
We have described a practical viewpoint on sentence-level quality estimation for machine translation, as motivated by various scenarios encountered in industry. This leads us to adopt a binary classification framework rather than the regression one used in the WMT QE track. We have described our evaluation metric $R@P_t$, which we find to be more straightforward and meaningful for the end-user of MT output. We conducted experiments with several feature extractors on data sets derived from the WMT QE ones and showed that competitive QE models re-purposed for classification can attain a 50-60% recall at 90% precision.
As for future work, we plan to explore more modeling directions in the classification framework. We note that in the binary quality setup the classifier output probability is, in fact, indicative of the model’s confidence in the translation being either correct or wrong (or uncertain). Besides the shift to confidence scoring, we intend to leverage the fact that in most use cases we have access to both the underlying model that produced the translation and the training data for it.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Hao-xiang Li'
- 'Maria Rosendo-L[ó]{}pez'
- 'Yi-fan Zhu'
- 'Xu-dong Fan'
- Daniel Torrent
- Bin Liang
- 'Jian-chun Cheng'
- Johan Christensen
title: 'Ultrathin acoustic parity-time symmetric metasurface cloak'
---
**Invisibility or unhearability cloaks have been made possible by using metamaterials making light or sound flow around obstacle without the trace of reflections or shadows. Metamaterials are known for being flexible building units that can mimic a host of unusual and extreme material responses, which are essential when engineering artificial material properties to realize a coordinate transforming cloak. Bending and stretching the coordinate grid in space requires stringent material parameters, therefore, small inaccuracies and inevitable material losses become sources for unwanted scattering that are decremental to the desired effect. These obstacles further limit the possibility to achieve a robust concealment of sizeable objects from either radar or sonar detection. By using a elaborate arrangement of gain and lossy acoustic media respecting parity-time symmetry, we built an one-way unhearability cloak capable to hide objects seven times larger than acoustic wavelength. Generally speaking, our approach has no limits in terms of working frequency, shape, or size, specifically though, we demonstrate how, in principle, an object of the size of a human can be hidden from audible sound.**
Introduction
============
For centuries people have dreamt of an invisibility cloak that can make someone indiscernible for the nacked eye when hidden underneath it. An ideal cloak would involve the suppression of back reflected light to render an object camouflaged, but the shadow behind it must also diminish for truly being able to make an object disappear. More than a decade ago an approach was brought forward based on transformation optics permitting the path of light to be bent around objects to be hidden [@Pendry1780; @Schurig977; @PhysRevLett.101.203901; @ValentineCarpet; @Ergin337; @Ni1310; @PhysRevB.80.245115]. This transformational approach to engineer space has ever since been extended to other areas of wave physics for cloaks of unhearability comprising sound and mechanical vibrations [@CummerSchurig; @TorrentNJP; @DehesaScattC; @CummerNatMater; @StengerPRL; @AcReview]. Despite those advances, it remains a fundamental challenge to create an unhearability cloak of ultrathin layer width involving minuscule loss-free materials. Here we propose theoretically and demonstrate experimentally that a parity-time symmetric metasurface incorporating acoustic gain and loss can act as such cloak when insonified from one direction. In contrast to transformation acoustics that implies a coordinate-transformation-based deformation of sound through the accurate distribution of the material properties, our approach to perfectly absorb incoming sound and to re-emit it behind the hidden object solely implies the engineering of a complex acoustic metasurface-impedance. The use of parity-time symmetry enables unique cloaking properties useful in the audible range but also applicable to hide submarines from sonar detection.\
Non-Hermitian systems that respect parity-time (PT)-symmetry have recently become an active frontier in wave physics due to unprecedented possibilities in guiding both sound and light [@Bender1; @Bender2]. Most notably, designing complex eigenstates through appropriate balancing of gain and loss provides an unexpected paradigm for exploring non-Hermitian wave control in flourishing areas such as, waveguiding, sensing, communication, and topological insulators [@PhysRevLett.100.103904; @PhysRevLett.103.093902; @NatPhysRuter; @NatPhysPeng; @MePRL; @ZhangNatComm; @ABN; @PhysRevX.8.031079]. In this work we demonstrate that a sizeable acoustically rigid obstacle (7 times larger than the wavelength) appears hidden to sound waves when coated by a PT symmetric metasurface due to the cancellation of reflections and re-radiation of the impinging field to the far-side. When adjusting the gain-loss contrast to a point where this scenario is reached, unidirectional invisibility (unhearability) is obtained, an effect commonly know as the anisotropic transmission resonance (ATR) .\
Designing PT symmetry is based on manipulating absorption using judicious structures with gain regions and vice versa. The Hamiltonian commutes with the combined PT operator when loss and gain are equally balanced giving rise to entirely real eigenmode frequencies representing the unbroken or exact phase. When the loss and gain contrast exceeds a certain threshold to reach the broken phase, one of the complex eigenmodes exhibits exponential growth while the other one decays exponentially. The transition between these two phases is the non-Hermitian singularity, also known as an exceptional point (EP) where the modes coalesce. The ATR is associated to the flux-conservation process leading to full transparency, i.e., unity transmittance $T=1$, but one-sided reflectionless wave propagation. A special case of the ATR is the unidirectional invisibility phenomenon that not only fulfills the condition of full transmission and vanishing of the reflection from either left $R_L$ or right $R_R$ incidence, but also implies a zero transmission phase signifying the apparent absence of an obstacle to be heard or seen [@ATR_PRA]. Several studies, both in the fields of optics and acoustics, have already investigated unidirectional invisibility in one dimensional PT symmetric structures enabling shadow-free acoustic sensors and Bragg-scattering suppression in photonic lattices [@RegengsburgNature; @AluNatComm]. Here we demonstrate the ability to acoustically cloak a rigid obstacle by covering it by an ultrathin PT metasurface as has been previously simulated for microwave radiation [@PhysRevAppliedAlu]. The approach consists in camouflaging the portion of the insonified metasurface through absorption and providing the time-reversed image, i.e., acoustic gain, to the shadow region behind the rigid obstacle (Fig. 1).\
Results
=======
**Complete absorption of sound**\
We begin the study by designing the insonified portion of the cloak, whereas the the gain portion will be treated afterwards. Hence, in order to engineer complete scattering cancellation to an incoming plane wave we cover the rigid cylinder of radius $a$ by a lossy metasurface as shown in Fig. 1. The aim is to impedance match the metasurface to the surrounding air to totally absorb the incident wave without reflection. Under the assumption that the air gap separating the ultrathin cloak from the rigid cylinder is substantially smaller than the wavelength of the sound wave, i.e., $k(b-a)\ll 1$ we can write down the necessary complex surface impedance to fulfill camouflaging of the obstacle (see supplementary information for derivations): $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Re}(Z_s)&\approx Z_0\frac{b}{a}\;\frac{1}{\cos\theta}\\
\text{Im}(Z_s)&\approx Z_0\frac{b}{a}\;k(b-a),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is the angular position in polar coordinates and $k=2\pi/\lambda$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength. Eq. (1) states that an impedance match of the metasurface to its surrounding with respect the geometrical parameters $a$ and $b$ is essential in order to achieve complete acoustic energy absorption. In Eq. (1), the free space impedance $Z_0=\rho_0c_0$ where $\rho_0$ and $c_0$ are the mass density and speed of sound in air, respectively. There is a plethora of passive and active metamaterials solutions available capable of complete sound absorption [@AcReview]. For the realization of a one-sided compact and lightweight unhearability cloak we use Helmholtz resonators that can be fabricated to absorb sound at broad spectral windows. In the present case, we focus on the audible range and therefore begin the design by engineering sound absorption at a frequency of f = 3 KHz although the approach could be readily realized at other desired frequencies. Strong air oscillations in the neck of these resonators in the presence of viscous losses are responsible for efficient energy dissipation. Conclusively, most absorbed acoustic energy is localized at the neck region, therefore, in order to fully camouflage an object, we pattern the rigid obstacle of radius $a =$ 40 cm by Helmholtz resonators (Fig. 2(a)) and adjust the individual neck parameters $w$ and $t$ accordingly (See supplementary information for their values) to account for the angular variation. By computing the averaged acoustic pressure $\langle p\rangle$ and velocity normal to the resonator surface $\langle v_{\bot}\rangle$ we are able to determine the impedance of the metasurface $Z_s=\langle p\rangle/\langle v_{\bot}\rangle$. In the absence of acoustic backscattering, we predict total absorption of a plane wave at each individual Helmholtz resonator as displayed In Fig. 2(b) via their specific angular position. Correspondingly, we are able to explain full acoustic absorption via surface impedance matching as predicted in Eq. (1) where the real part of the relative metasurface impedance scales according to $1/\cos(\theta)$ and its imaginary counterpart approaches zero for a vanishing gap separation $a \approx b$.\
**Acoustic gain adjustment**\
Perfect absorption removes acoustic backscattering and is the first ingredient of a PT symmetric system. The time-reversed image of this response constitutes acoustic amplification that we implement with an active electric circuit to control an semicircular array of loudspeakers (Fig. 3(a)) [@ZhangNatComm; @AluNatComm]. In order to implement sound amplification of equal but opposite strength to the absorbing counterpart we must ensure to meet the condition of the ATR that dictates unidirectional-zero reflection at full transmission. Hence, beyond the need of balancing out the acoustic attenuation at the loss semi-shell with the gain counterpart that is expressed through the PT symmetry of the entire metasurface cloak: $Z_s(\theta)=-Z^{*}_s(\pi-\theta)$, we must ensure that the acoustic intensity profile is spatially symmetric. Thus,at the ATR it can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
I(\theta)=I(\pi-\theta),
\end{aligned}$$ which signifies that when the PT symmetric metasurface cloak is irradiated at the loss portion, the acoustic intensity in the nearest vicinity of an individual Helmholtz resonator (located at $(\pi-\theta)$) equals the intensity at the exact opposite active loudspeaker (located at $\theta$ with respect to Fig. 3(a)) [@ATR_PRA]. This property accompanying the ATR condition is extremely useful when adjusting the individual loudspeakers to realize a one-way unhearability cloak. First, as detailed in the method section and the supplementary information, we placed the two jointed semi-shells surrounding the rigid obstacle inside an acoustic waveguide whose rigid walls are covered by absorbing cotton. The acoustic source is formed by an array of loudspeakers that generate plane waves with frequency f = 3 KHz. In order to emit signals from the gain semi-shell perfectly synchronized in phase and amplitude with the impinging signal, a microphone measures the incoming sound field in front of the Helmholtz resonators whose phase and amplitude is processed through a phase shifting and amplifier circuit. The adjustment is performed in relation to the discrete and opposite locations of the Helmholtz resonator and loudspeaker couples whose intensity relation at the ATR is shown in Fig. 3(b). Due to size limitations of the source and the geometrical restrictions of the waveguide, our detection range exhibit an unitary intensity relation upto $\pm 48^{\circ}$ beyond which deviations start to grow. In other words, the subsequent cloaking experiment will be conclusively limited to this range.\
**PT symmetry cloak**\
Fig. 4(a) displays the metasurface cloak in its entirety comprising the jointed non-Hermitian semi-shells surrounding the acrylic obstacle of diameter 80 cm. At an operation frequency of 3 KHz corresponding to an acoustic wavelength of 11 cm, simulations and experimental measurements display how the pressure waves impinging the undecorated acrylic obstacle back-scatter at the side of irradiation but leave and almost soundless shadow at the obstacle’s far-side (Fig. 4(b)). Contrary to this, when sound irradiates the non-Hermitian semi-shells that have been tuned to fulfill the aforementioned PT symmetry ATR condition, the acrylic obstacle, whose diameter is about 7 times larger than the acoustic wavelength, is acoustically camouflaged to match its surrounding via complete absorption, but, more importantly, the acoustic shadow gets eliminated through reconstruction of the impinging wave (Fig. 4(c)). The experimental measurements show that within the test areas, both in front and behind the obstacle, almost perfect plane waves have been sustained rendering the object to be hidden perfectly unhearable and concealed.\
**Discussion**\
Further improvement can be achieved by enlarging the loudspeaker array to launch a near-ideal plane wave. Also, decorating an object of arbitrary shape with gain and loss units in response to a point source or more complicated wave shapes greatly broadens the usage of PT symmetry based acoustic cloaks. We implemented the proof of concept by means of Helmholtz resonators to suppress back reflected sound via resonant absorption. In analogy to the implemented active gain component, active loss control would enrich the possibility to eliminate back-scattering and to provide an acoustic camouflage dynamically at a wider spectral range. Extensions toward an acoustical concealment of three dimensional bodies by ultrathin non-Hermitian shells is another avenue worth pursuing.\
In conclusion, We have derived a theoretical recipe to realize an acoustic unhearability cloak via PT symmetry. By combining loss and gain structures, we showed that reflected sound is eliminated from an insonified body to be concealed and how it is reconstructed at the rear side of it via the anisotropic transmission resonance. Full wave simulations and measurement data support the theoretical predictions in creating a cloak based on a single but non-Hermitian shell structure.
Acknowledgements
================
J. C. acknowledges the support from the European Research Council (ERC) through the Starting Grant No. 714577 PHONOMETA and from the MINECO through a Ramón y Cajal grant (Grant No. RYC-2015-17156).
Bibliography
============
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
Methods
=======
**Numerical simulations**. The full-wave simulations presented in the paper are performed using the finite-element solver Comsol Multiphysics. We employed the acoustic module comprising viscothermal losses and modelled the Helmholtz resonators as acoustically rigid materials. The surface impedance is computed via the averaged acoustic pressure and normal velocity $Z_s=\langle p\rangle/\langle v_{\bot}\rangle$ at the resonator surface. Acoustic gain has been imposed at the respective boundary through amplifying outgoing wave.\
**Fabrication of the cloak**. The obstacle to be cloaked was realized via a cylindrical acrylic shell with an outer diameter of 80 cm. The Helmholtz resonators responsible for the loss components and the active loudspeakers providing acoustic gain were mounted onto the shell. The individual Helmholtz resonators were 3D printed with thermoplastics whose geometrical parameters are tabulated in the supplementary information.\
**Measurements**. The experiment is carried out in a two dimensional waveguide with a uniform height of 6 cm. As can be seen in the illustration below,
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
a line speaker array was employed to launch an incoming plane wave. In order to reduce unwanted reflections we covered the inner walls of the waveguide with sound-absorbing cotton. The experimental implementation is detailed in the supplementary information.
Figures
=======
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
{width="1\columnwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. N. Gorban , N. Jarman , E. Steur [^1], C. van Leeuwen, I. Yu. Tyukin [^2]'
title: 'Leaders do not look back, or do they?'
---
Introduction
============
A fundamental question in complex networks is how topology influences the overall network behavior. This issue is crucial for understanding a range of phenomena in elementary chemical kinetic systems, populations of agents, and processes in the neuronal circuits of the human brain [@Gaiteri2011]. It is well known that a sufficiently strong diffusive coupling will lead to globally asymptotically stable synchronization in a large class of systems [@Pogromsky1998]. Some network topologies, moreover, may give rise to partial synchronization [@Pogromsky2002; @Belykh2000; @Belykh2004], and networks with dynamically changing topologies were shown to exhibit complex multi-stable dynamics (see e.g. [@Kurths2014] and references therein).
Even when network topology is not changing dynamically, its influence on the overall network dynamics is well documented. Examples of how the network topology may affect e.g. coherence of network dynamics are provided in [@Belykh2004]. The authors showed that shortcuts in otherwise regular lattices significantly reduce the critical coupling strength needed for achieving global asymptotic stability of the synchronous state. Hence networks with shortcuts can be considered as more efficient than regular ones in term of resources spent, such as the total number of connections and their strength, for reaching and maintaining synchronous regimes. This aspect of shortcuts appear to be crucial for forming small-world structures [@Gong2004; @Jarman2014] in evolving networks. Further examples showing significant dependence of network dynamics on the corresponding connectivity graphs can be found in [@Gaiteri2011; @Marttunen].
Understanding the problem of how the network topology affects its dynamics is a huge theoretical and practical challenge if considered in its full generality. Here we will focus on a much simpler objective. In particular we will discuss and analyze two basic and extreme topologies which any network will contain as a subgraph: a directed chain, and a directed cycle. Not only may these be considered as basic building blocks of arbitrary network topologies; many networks can be reduced to chains and cycles as well [@Gorban2008; @Gorban2010]. Moreover, recent computational studies revealed that cycles could be important on their own for sustaining coherent oscillatory network activity [@Garcia2014].
We begin our investigation by analysing the dynamics of a system of coupled neutrally stable linear equations. The dynamics are essentially governed by a coupling matrix that corresponds to directed interconnections in the system. The equations can also be viewed as a model describing the dynamics of damped oscillations in kinetic systems, and thus in what follows we refer to it as such. The results are provided in Section \[sec:eigenvalues\]. In Section \[sec:neural\] we consider a more generalized setting, in which the dynamics of each individual node is governed by a nonlinear, albeit semi-passive [@Pogromsky1998], oscillator. The equations describing oscillators in each node are of the FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) type [@FitzHugh]. These oscillators are, in turn, an adaptation of the van der Pol oscillator [@van_der_Pol]. We found that for the case of the directed cycle the value of critical coupling needed to maintain globally asymptotically stable synchrony is $O\left(\frac{1}{1-\cos\left( 2\pi /n\right)}\right)$, whereas the synchronization threshold for systems organized into directed chains does not depend on $n$. Moreover, the error dynamics corresponding to the simple directed cycle rapidly becomes underdamped for large $n$; this enables resonances between the dynamics of individual nodes and the coupling dynamics. Further numerical analysis show that not only fully synchronous oscillations may occur in these types of network, but also a stable rotating wave solution may emerge. These two dynamic regimes co-exist for a broad range of coupling strength and for number of systems. Occasionally we observe a shift towards prevalence of rotating waves for large enough $n$. Section \[sec:discussion\] contains a discussion of our findings, and Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Coupled Neutrally Stable Systems {#sec:eigenvalues}
================================
Consider the following system of linear first-order differential equations: $$\label{eq:sysP}
\dot P = K P,$$ where $P = \mathrm{col}(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n$, and matrix $K=(k_{ij})$ is defined as follows: $$\label{eq:K}
k_{ij}=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
q_{ij}, \ q_{ij}\geq 0 &\mbox{ if } i\neq j;\\
-\sum_{m, \, m\neq i} q_{m i} &\mbox{ if } i = j .
\end{array}\right.$$ Note that $K$ is a Metzler matrix[^3] with zero column sums. Off-diagonal elements $k_{ij}$, $i\neq j$, of the matrix $K$ can be viewed as the connection weights between the $i$-th and the $j$-th nodes in the network. The matrix $K$ can be related to the Laplacian matrix $L$ (see e.g. [@Bollobas]) of an associated directed network in which the overall connectivity pattern is the same except for that the direction of all connections is altered. The Laplacian for the latter network is thus $L=-K^T$. Note, however, that this relation does not necessarily hold for the original network.
Consider the simple simplex $$\Delta_n = \left\{ P | p_i \geq 0 , \sum \nolimits_i p_i = 1 \right\}.$$ $\Delta_n$ is clearly forward invariant under the dynamics since it preserves non-negativity and obeys the “conservation law” $\sum_i p_i = \mathrm{const}$. (The latter follows immediately from the fact that $K$ has zero column sums.) Thus any solution $P(\cdot; t_0,P_0)$ of starting from $P_0=P(t_0) \in \Delta_n$ remains in $\Delta_n$ for all $t \geq t_0$.
The invariance of $\Delta_n$ under can be used to prove certain important properties of $K$ and its associated system . Two examples are presented below.
- [**Equilibria.**]{} The non-negative vector $P^*$ such that $K P^* = 0$ is known as the Perron vector of $K$, and defines an equilibrium of system . The existence of this vector $P^*$ can also be deduced from the forward invariance of $\Delta_n$. Indeed, as any continuous map $\Phi:\Delta_n \rightarrow \Delta_n$ has a fixed point (Brouwer fixed point theorem), $\Phi = \exp(Kt)$ has a fixed point in $\Delta_n$ for any $t\geq t_0$. If $\exp(Kt)P^* = P^*$ for some $P^* \in \Delta_n$ and sufficiently small $t>t_0$, then $K P^*=0$ because $$\exp(Kt)P = P + tK P + o(t^2).$$
- [**Eigenvalues of $K$.**]{} It is clear that $K$ has a zero eigenvalue. In fact, Gershgorin’s theorem implies that all eigenvalues of $K$ are in the union of closed discs $$D_i = \{ \lambda \in \mathbb{C} | \|\lambda - k_{ii} \| \leq |k_{ii}| \}.$$ Thus $K$ does not have purely imaginary eigenvalues. This can also be deduced from the forward invariance of $\Delta_n$ in combination with the assumption of a positive equilibrium $P^*$. We exclude the eigenvector corresponding to the zero eigenvalue and consider $K$ on the invariant hyperplane where $\sum_i p_i=0$. If $K$ has a purely imaginary eigenvalue $\lambda$, then there exists a 2$D$ $K$-invariant subspace $U$, where $K$ has two conjugated imaginary eigenvalues, $\lambda$ and $\overline{\lambda}=-\lambda$. Restriction of $\exp(Kt)$ on $U$ is a one-parametric group of rotations. For the positive equilibrium $P^*$ the intersection $(U+P^*)\cap \Delta_n$ is a convex polygon. It is forward invariant with respect to because $U$ is invariant, $P^*$ is an equilibrium and $\Delta_n$ is forward invariant. But a polygon on a plane cannot be invariant with respect to the one-parametric semigroup of rotations $\exp(Kt)$ ($t\geq 0$). This contradiction proves the absence of purely imaginary eigenvalues.
The main result of this section is the following theorem:
\[theorem:linear\] For every nonzero eigenvalue $\lambda$ of matrix $K$ $$\frac{|\Im \lambda |}{|\Re \lambda |} \leq
\cot\frac{\pi}{n}.$$
The proof of this theorem can be extracted from the general Dmitriev–Dynkin–Karlelevich theorems [@DD1946; @Karp1951], but the straightforward geometric proof presented below, which makes use of the forward invariance of $\Delta_n$ under the dynamics , seems to be more instructive.
Let us assume that system has a positive equilibrium $P^*\in \Delta_n$ ($p_i^*>0$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$). For this $P^*$, $$\sum_j q_{ij}p^*_j= \sum_j q_{ji} p^*_i .$$ Systems without strictly positive equilibria (but with non-negative ones) may be considered as limits of those with positive equilibria.
Let $\lambda$ be a complex eigenvalue of $K$ and let $U$ be a 2D real subspace of the hyperplane $\sum_i p_i=0$ that corresponds to the pair of complex conjugated eigenvalues, $(\lambda, \overline{\lambda})$. Let us select a coordinate system in the plane $U+P^*$ with the origin at $P^*$ such that restriction of $K$ on this plane has the following matrix $$\mathcal{K}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\Re \lambda &- \Im \lambda\\
\Im \lambda & \Re \lambda
\end{array}\right]\, .$$
In this coordinate system $$\exp (t\mathcal{K})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\exp(t \Re \lambda) \cos (t \Im \lambda) &-\exp(t \Re \lambda) \sin(t \Im \lambda)\\
\exp(t \Re \lambda) \sin(t \Im \lambda) & \exp(t \Re \lambda) \cos (t \Im \lambda)
\end{array}\right]\, .$$
The intersection $\mathcal{A}=(U+P^*)\cap \Delta_n$ is a polygon. It has no more than $n$ sides because $\Delta_n$ has $n$ $(n-2)$-dimensional faces (each of them is given in $\Delta_n$ by an equation $p_i=0$). For the transversal intersections (the generic case) this is obvious. Non-generic situations can be obtained as limits of generic cases when the subspace $U$ tends to a non-generic position. This limit of a sequence of polygons cannot have more than $n$ sides if the number of sides for every polygon in the sequence does nor exceed $n$.
Let the polygon $\mathcal{A}$ have $m$ vertices $\mathbf{v}_j$ ($m\leq n$). We move the origin to $P^*$ and enumerate these vectors $\mathbf{x}_i=\mathbf{v}_i-P^*$ anticlockwise (Fig \[Fig:Polygon\]). Each pair of vectors $\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_{i+1}$ (and $\mathbf{x}_m,\mathbf{x}_{1}$) form a triangle with the angles $\alpha_i$, $\beta_i$ and $\gamma_i$, where $\beta_i$ is the angle between $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_{i+1}$, and $\beta_m$ is the angle between $\mathbf{x}_m$ and $\mathbf{x}_{1}$. The Sine theorem gives $\frac{|\mathbf{x}_i|}{\sin
\alpha_i}=\frac{|\mathbf{x}_{i+1}|}{\sin \gamma_i}$, $\frac{|\mathbf{x}_m|}{\sin
\alpha_m}=\frac{|\mathbf{x}_{1}|}{\sin \gamma_1}$.
Several elementary identities and inequalities hold: $$\label{Cond}
\begin{split}
&0 <\alpha_i,\beta_i, \gamma_i<\pi; \;\; \sum_i \beta_i=2\pi; \;\; \alpha_i+ \beta_i + \gamma_i =\pi; \\
&\prod_i \sin \alpha_i =\prod_i \sin \gamma_i \mbox{ (the closeness condition).}
\end{split}$$ These conditions (\[Cond\]) are necessary and sufficient for the existence of a polygon $\mathcal{A}$ with these angles which is star-shaped with respect to the origin.
Let us consider anticlockwise rotation ($\Im \lambda <0$, Fig. \[Fig:Polygon\]). (The case of clockwise rotations differs only in notation.) For the angle $\delta$ between $K\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_i$, $\sin \delta=-\Im \lambda$, $\cos \delta=-\Re
\lambda$ and $\tan \delta=\frac{\Im \lambda}{\Re \lambda}$.
For each point $\mathbf{x} \in U+P^*$ ($\mathbf{x} \neq P^*$), the straight line $\{\mathbf{x}+\epsilon \mathcal{K}\mathbf{x} \, | \, \epsilon \in \mathbb{R}\}$ divides the plane $U+P^*$ in two half-plane (Fig. \[Fig:Polygon\], dotted line). Direct calculation shows that the semi-trajectory $\{\exp (t\mathcal{K})\mathbf{x}\, |\, t\geq
0\}$ belongs to the same half-plane as the origin $P^*$ does. Therefore, if $\delta \leq
\alpha_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,m$ then the polygon $\mathcal{A}$ is forward-invariant with respect to the semigroup $\exp (t\mathcal{K})$ ($t\geq 0$). If $\delta >\alpha_i$ for some $i$ then for sufficiently small $t>0$ $\exp (t\mathcal{K})\mathbf{x}_i \notin
\mathcal{A}$ because $\mathcal{K}\mathbf{x}_i $ is the tangent vector to the semi-trajectory at $t=0$. Thus, the polygon $\mathcal{A}$ is forward-invariant with respect to the semigroup $\exp (t\mathcal{K})$ ($t\geq 0$) if and only if $\delta \leq \alpha_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,m$. The maximal $\delta$ for which $\mathcal{A}$ is still forward-invariant is $\delta_{\max}=\min_i \{\alpha_i\}$. We have to find the polygon with $m\leq n$ and the maximal value of $\min_i \{\alpha_i\}$. Let us prove that this is a regular polygon with $n$ sides. Let us find the maximizers $\alpha_i,\beta_i, \gamma_i$ ($i=1, \ldots, m$) for the optimization problem: $$\label{OptimProbl}
\min_i \{\alpha_i\} \to \max\; \mbox{subject to conditions (\ref{Cond}).}$$ The solution of this problem is that all $\alpha_i$ are equal. To prove this equality, observe that $\min_i \{\alpha_i\}<\frac{\pi}{2}$ under conditions (\[Cond\]) (if all $\alpha_i\geq \frac{\pi}{2}$ then the polygonal chain $\mathcal{A}$ cannot be closed). Let $\min_i \alpha_i=\alpha$. Let us substitute in (\[Cond\]) the variables $\alpha_i$ which take this minimal value by $\alpha$. The derivative of the left hand part of the last condition in (\[Cond\]) with respect to $\alpha$ is not zero because $\alpha<\frac{\pi}{2}$. Assume that there are some $\alpha_j> \alpha$. Let us fix the values of $\beta_i$ ($i=1, \ldots, m$). Then $\gamma_i$ is a function of $\alpha_i$, $\gamma_i=\pi-\beta_i-\alpha_i$. We can use the implicit function theorem to increase $\alpha$ by a sufficiently small number $\varepsilon>0$ and to change the non-minimal $\alpha_j$ by a small number too, $\alpha_j\mapsto \alpha_j-\theta$; $\theta=\theta(\varepsilon)$. Therefore, at the solution of (\[OptimProbl\]) all $\alpha_j = \alpha$ ($j=1,\ldots,m$).
Now, let us prove that for solution of the problem (\[OptimProbl\]) all $\beta_i$ are equal. We exclude $\gamma_i$ from conditions (\[Cond\]) and write $\beta_i+\alpha<
\pi$; $0<\beta_i,\alpha$; $$\label{NewCOnd}
m \log\sin \alpha =\sum_i \log \sin (\beta_i+\alpha).$$ Let us consider this equality as equation with respect to unknown $\alpha$. The function $\log \sin x$ is strictly concave on $(0,\pi)$. Therefore, for $x_i\in (0,\pi)$ $$\log \sin\left( \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m x_i\right)\geq \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\log \sin x_i$$ and the equality here is possible only if all $x_i$ are equal. Let $\alpha^*\in
(0,\pi/2)$ be a solution of (\[NewCOnd\]). If not all the values of $\beta_i$ are equal and we replace $\beta_i$ in (\[NewCOnd\]) by the average value, $\beta=\frac{2\pi}{m}$, then the value of the right hand part of (\[NewCOnd\]) increases and $\sin \alpha^* <
\sin (\beta+\alpha^*)$. If we take all the $\beta_i$ equal then (\[NewCOnd\]) transforms into elementary trigonometric equation $\sin \alpha = \sin (\beta+\alpha)$. The solution $\alpha$ of equation (\[NewCOnd\]) increases when we replace $\beta_i$ by the average value: $\alpha> \alpha^*$ because $\sin \alpha^* < \sin (\beta+\alpha^*)$, $\alpha \in (0,\pi/2)$ and $\sin \alpha$ monotonically increases on this interval. So, for the maximizers of the conditional optimization problem (\[OptimProbl\]) all $\beta_i=\frac{2\pi}{m}$ and $\alpha_i=\gamma_i=\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{m}$. The maximum of $\alpha$ corresponds to the maximum of $m$. Therefore, $m=n$. Finally, $\max
\{\delta\}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{n}$ and $$\max\left\{\frac{|\Im \lambda |}{|\Re \lambda |}\right\} =
\cot\frac{\pi}{n} .$$
It is important to note that the bound given in Theorem \[theorem:linear\] is sharp. Indeed, let $K$ define a directed cycle with uniform weights $q$, e.g. $$K = \left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
-q & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & q \\
q & -q & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & & \ddots & q & -q & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & q & -q \\
\end{array}\right).$$ The eigenvalues of $K$ are $$\lambda_k = -q + q \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi k \mathrm{i} }{n} \right),\quad k=0,1,\ldots,n-1,$$ cf. [@davis], with $\mathrm{i}=\sqrt{-1}$ the imaginary unit. Thus $\frac {|\mathfrak{J} \lambda_1|}{ |\mathfrak{R} \lambda_1|} = \cot\frac{\pi}{n}$. Note that for large $n$, $$\cot\frac{\pi}{n} \approx \frac{n}{\pi},$$ which means that oscillations in a simple cycle with a large number of systems decay very slowly.
An important consequence of this extremal property of a simple cycle is that not only transients in the cycle decay very slowly but also that the overall behavior of transients becomes extremely sensitive to perturbations. This, as we show in the next sections, gives rise to resonances and bistabilities if neutrally stable nodes in (\[eq:sysP\]) are replaced with ones exhibiting oscillatory dynamics. As a model of nodes with oscillatory activity the classical Fitzhugh-Nagumo [@FitzHugh] system has been chosen. Our choice of this system among various alternatives [@Izhikevich] was motivated purely by its simplicity and relevance for modelling behavior of neural systems.
Coupled Nonlinear Neural Oscillators {#sec:neural}
====================================
Consider a network of FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) neurons $$\label{eq:FHN}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\dot z_j = \alpha \left( y_j - \beta z_j \right) \\
\dot y_j = y_j - \gamma y_j^3 -z_j + u_j,
\end{array}\right.$$ $j=1,2,\ldots,n$ with parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ chosen as $$\alpha=\tfrac{8}{100}, \ \beta=\tfrac{8}{10}, \ \gamma=\tfrac{1}{3}$$ The FHN neurons interact via diffusive coupling $$\label{eq:coupling}
u_j = \sigma \sum_{ l=1}^n q_{j l} (y_l-y_j)$$ with constant $\sigma \in\mathbb{R}$, $\sigma>0$, being the coupling strength. For convenience, let $$y=(y_1,\dots,y_n), \ u=(u_1,\dots,u_n),\ x=(y,z),$$ and $x(\cdot;x_0,\sigma)$ denote a solution of the coupled system with the coupling strength $\sigma$ and satisfying the initial condition $x(0)=x_0$. The topology of network connections in (\[eq:coupling\]) is characterized by the adjacency matrix $Q$ with zeros on the main diagonal and entries identical to the values of $q_{ij}$ for $i\neq j$, $i,j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. The matrix $Q$ is now assumed to be a circulant matrix $$Q=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 &1\\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 & 0\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 0\end{array}\right).$$ Thus besides assuming the network structure to be a directed ring we have also assumed the interaction weights $q_{jl}$ to be identical and, without loss of generality, we have set these weights of interaction to $1$.
At first glance, the connectivity pattern specified by $Q$ differs from that specified by matrix $K$ in (\[eq:K\]). Yet, if coupling (\[eq:coupling\]) is rewritten in the vector-matrix notation then the following identity holds $$\label{eq:coupling:vector}
u = \sigma (Q-I_n) y \triangleq - \sigma L y.$$ As remarked before, the network Laplacian matrix $$L= \mathrm{Diag}(\sum_{j\neq l}q_{jl})-Q=I_n-Q$$ can be related to the matrix $K$ corresponding to the simple cycle in “reverse” direction as $L=-K^T$.
In what follows we will employ the notions of [*semi-passivity*]{} and [*strict semi-passivity*]{} that have been introduced first in [@Pogromsky1998]. For consistency, we recall these notions below
*Consider a system of first-order nonlinear ordinary differential equations $$\dot{x}=f(t,x,u(t)),
y=h(x)$$ where $f:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a continuous and locally Lipschitz function, $h:{\mathbb{R}}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is a continuous function, and $u:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is a continuous function. Let $x(\cdot;t_0,x_0,[u])$ be a solution of the Cauchy problem $x(t_0;t_0,x_0,[u])=x_0$, and let $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathcal{C}^0$ be the set of inputs $u$ for which the solution $x(\cdot;t_0,x_0,[u])$ is defined in forward time.*
The system is called semi-passive if there is a non-negative function $S:{\mathbb{R}}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ (a storage function) and a function $H:{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that for each $x(\cdot;t_0,x_0,[u])$ the following holds for all $t\geq t_0$ in the domain of this solution definition: $$S(x(t;t_0,x_0,[u]))-S(x_0)\leq \int_{t_0}^{t} y(\tau)u(\tau) - H(x(\tau,t_0,x_0,[u])) d\tau,$$ where the function $H$ is non-negative outside a ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
The system is called strictly semi-passive if the function $H$ is strictly positive outside a ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Boundedness of solutions in the coupled system
----------------------------------------------
\[lem:boundedness\] The solutions of the ring network of FHN neurons are ultimately bounded uniformly in $x_0$, $\sigma\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$. That is, there is a compact set $\Omega\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that for all $x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, $\sigma\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \mathrm{dist}\left(x(t,x_0,\sigma),\Omega\right)=0.$$
We being begin with establishing that the FHN neuron is strictly semi-passive (see also [@Steur2009]).
Let $S(z_j,y_j) = \tfrac{1}{2} \left( \alpha^{-1} z_j^2 + y_j^2 \right)$ be the storage function. Then $$\dot S = -H(z_j, y_j) + y_j u_j$$ with $H(z_j,y_j) = \beta z_j^2 + y_j^2 \left( \gamma y_j^2-1 \right)$. Noticing that $$\label{eq:semi-passivity:dV}
\begin{split}
&\beta z_j^2 + y_j^2 \left( \gamma y_j^2-1 \right)=\beta z^2 + d y^2 + \gamma y^4 - y^2 - dy^2=\\
&\beta z^2 + d y^2 + \left(\sqrt{\gamma}y^2-\tfrac{d+1}{2 \sqrt{\gamma}}\right)^2 -\tfrac{(d+1)^2}{4\gamma}
\end{split}$$ we can conclude that $H(z_j,y_j)$ is positive for all $z_j,y_j$ such that $$\label{eq:semi-passivity:ellipse}
\beta z_j^2 + d y_j^2 > \tfrac{(d+1)^2}{4\gamma}.$$ Assigning the value of $d$ in (\[eq:semi-passivity:ellipse\]) as $d=\beta$, ensures that $H(z_j,y_j)$ is positive outside the ball $$z_j^2+y_j^2\leq \tfrac{(\beta+1)^2}{4\beta \gamma}.$$
Now consider $V(z,y) = S(z_1,y_1) + \ldots + S(z_n, y_n)$. Then the strict semi-passivity property of the FHN neurons implies $$\dot V \leq -H(z_1,y_1) - \ldots - H(z_n,y_n) - \sigma y^T L y.$$ Notice that the matrix $L+L^T$ is the Laplacian matrix of the undirected ring, which is known to be positive semi-definite. Hence $$y^T L y = \tfrac{1}{2} y^T (L+L^T) y \geq 0,$$ and consequently\
$$\dot V \leq -H(z_1,y_1) - \ldots - H(z_n,y_n).$$ Therefore, setting the value of $d$ in (\[eq:semi-passivity:dV\]) equal to $\alpha\beta$ results in $$\dot V \leq - \sum_{j=1}^n \beta z_j^2 + \beta \alpha y_j^2 + n \tfrac{(\alpha\beta
+1)^2}{4\gamma} = - \beta\alpha V + n \tfrac{(\alpha\beta
+1)^2}{4\gamma}.$$ Noticing that the function $V$ is radially unbounded, positive-definite, we invoke the Comparison Lemma (see e.g. [@Khalil]) in order to conclude that solutions of the coupled system are bounded and converge asymptotically to a compact set of which the size is independent of the parameter $\sigma$.
Sufficient conditions for synchronization
-----------------------------------------
### Directed chain: “no looking back”
First we consider the dynamics of two coupled systems in the leader-follower configuration: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:directed_chain}
&\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\dot z_1 = \alpha \left( y_1 - \beta z_1 \right) \\
\dot y_1 = y_1 - \gamma y_1^3 -z_1
\end{array}\right. \\[2ex]
&\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\dot z_2 = \alpha \left( y_2 - \beta z_2 \right) \\
\dot y_2 = y_2 - \gamma y_2^3 -z_2 +\sigma(y_1 - y_2).
\end{array}\right. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
\[theorem:chain\] Consider the system of coupled FHN oscillators (\[eq:directed\_chain\]) in which the parameter $\sigma$ is chosen so that $$\sigma>1.$$ Then solutions of the system asymptotically synchronize for all values of initial conditions.
In accordance with Lemma \[lem:boundedness\] solutions of the coupled system exist and are bounded for all $t>0$. Define $$\tilde z = z_1 - z_2, \quad \tilde y = y_1-y_2,$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{\tilde z} = \alpha\left(\tilde y - \beta \tilde z \right) \\
&\dot{\tilde y} = \tilde y -\gamma (y_1^3 - y_2^3) - \tilde z - \sigma \tilde y.\end{aligned}$$ Consider the function $$V = \tfrac{1}{2} \left(\tfrac{1}{\alpha} \tilde z^2 + \tilde y^2 \right),$$ then, using the equality $$(y_1-y_2)(y_1^3 - y_2^3) = \tfrac{1}{4} (y_1 -y_2)^2 \left( 3 (y_1+y_2)^2 + (y_1 -y_2)^2 \right),$$ we find $$\dot V = -\beta \tilde z^2 + (1-\sigma) \tilde y^2 -\tfrac{\gamma}{4} \tilde y^2 \left(3 (y_1 +y_2)^2+ \tilde y^2) \right).$$ Thus if $\sigma>1$ we have $\dot V<0$ and the chain of FHN neurons synchronizes.
Generalizing two coupled systems to a directed chain of $n$ oscillators, we observe that the Laplacian matrix of this configuration is $$L = \left( \begin{array}{rrrrr}
0 & 0 & 0& \cdots & 0 \\
-1 & 1 & 0& \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 1 & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right).$$ The matrix $L$ has only real eigenvalues; a simple zero eigenvalue and $n-1$ eigenvalues equal to $1$. The only type of stable correlated oscillations we can find in the chain are the completely synchronous oscillations. These synchronous oscillations will emerge for values of the coupling strength $\sigma$ for which the chain of $2$ FHN oscillators synchronize. Thus the conditions for synchronization are independent of the size of the network (i.e. the length of the chain). Numerical simulations below illustrate this statement.
Figure \[fig:LF1\] shows the outputs of two FHN oscillators and the synchronization output error for $\sigma=1.5$. Figure \[fig:LF2\] shows the results for longer chains; Even though the convergence to the synchronous state is slower for longer chains, the oscillators in the chains always end up in synchrony.
### Directed ring: “looking back”
Suppose now that the $n$-th oscillator is feeding back its output to the input of the $1$st, that is the network topology is that of the directed ring. As we shall see later the presence of such an extra connection has a drastic effect on the system’s performance with respect to the coupling strength needed to maintain stable full-state synchrony. This is reflected in the statement of the theorem below.
\[theorem:ring\] Consider the system of coupled FHN oscillators (\[eq:FHN\]), (\[eq:coupling\]), and let $\lambda_1\leq\lambda_2\leq\dots\leq\lambda_n$ be the eigenvalues of the symmetrized Laplacian of the network $\tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T)$. Then solutions of the coupled system asymptotically synchronize providing that $$\sigma \lambda_2 > 1$$
Consider the new variables $$\tilde z = L z,\quad \tilde y = L y,$$ where $L$ the Laplacian matrix of the ring, i.e. $$\tilde z = \begin{pmatrix}
\tilde z_1 \\ \tilde z_2 \\ \vdots \\ \tilde z_n
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
z_{1}-z_{n} \\ z_{2}-z_{1} \\ \vdots \\ z_{n-1}-z_{n}
\end{pmatrix}
\text{~~and~~}
\tilde y = \begin{pmatrix}
\tilde y_1 \\ \tilde y_2 \\ \vdots \\ \tilde y_n
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
y_{1}-y_{n} \\ y_{2}-y_{1} \\ \vdots \\ y_{n-1}-y_{n}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ It is clear that the systems are synchronized if and only if $$\tilde z=0 \text{~~and~~} \tilde y=0.$$ Observe that $\boldsymbol{1} \notin \mathrm{range}(L)$, hence there exist no vectors $z$ and $y$ such that $$L z = \boldsymbol{1}\text{~~and~~} L y = \boldsymbol{1}.$$ This means that the projections of $(z,y)$ via $L$ take values in the set $$\Omega := \{ (\tilde z,\tilde y) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} | \tilde z \perp \boldsymbol{1}, \tilde y \perp \boldsymbol{1} \}.$$ Thus all synchronization errors $\tilde z$ and $\tilde y$ are orthogonal to $\boldsymbol{1}$.
Consider the function $V:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$: $$V = \tfrac{1}{2} \left(\tfrac{1}{\alpha} \tilde z^T \tilde z + \tilde y^T \tilde y \right).$$ From the discussion on synchronization in the chain it follows that $$\dot V \leq -\beta \tilde z^T \tilde z + \tilde y^T (I-\sigma L) \tilde y - \tilde y^T W \tilde y$$ where $$W = \frac{\gamma}{4} \begin{pmatrix}
\left(3 (y_1 +y_n)^2+\tilde y_1^2 \right) & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & \left(3 (y_{n+1} +y_n)^2+\tilde y_n^2 \right)
\end{pmatrix},$$ which is positive semi-definite, hence $$\dot V \leq -\beta \tilde z^T \tilde z + \tilde y^T (I-\sigma L) \tilde y$$ For all vectors $\tilde y \perp \boldsymbol{1}$ the following inequality holds true: $$\tilde y^T (\sigma L -I) \tilde y = \tilde y^T (\sigma \tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T) -I) \tilde y \geq (\sigma \lambda_2-1) \tilde y^T \tilde y$$ where $\lambda_2=\lambda_2(\tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T))$ is the smallest non-zero eigenvalue of $\tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T)$. An application of LaSalle’s invariance principle, cf. [@LaSalle], implies that the synchronization errors $\tilde z$ and $\tilde y$ converge to zero asymptotically.
\[corollary:nonlinear\] For the network of $n$ coupled FHN oscillators, solutions globally asymptotically synchronize if the following inequality holds: $$\sigma \left(1-\cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{n}\right)\right)>1$$
Note that $\tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T)$ is the Laplacian matrix of the undirected ring, which has a simple zero eigenvalue with corresponding eigenvector in $\mathrm{span}(\boldsymbol{1})$. According to the properties of the spectrum of circulant matrices, cf. [@davis], we know that the second smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ of the symmetrized Laplacian $\tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T)$ equals the real part of the smallest (in absolute value) non-zero eigenvalue of $L$, which we denote as $\Re(\lambda_2(L))$. Then if $$\sigma \lambda_2(\tfrac{1}{2}(L+L^T))=\sigma \Re (\lambda_2(L)) > 1,$$ we have $\dot V <0$, i.e. $V$ is a Lyapunov function on $\Omega$. Note that $$\lambda_2(L)=1-e^{\frac{2\pi i (n-1)}{n}}$$ from which the result immediately follows.
Synchronization and rotating waves
----------------------------------
The results in the previous sections show that, on the one hand, when a system has a directed ring topology and the number of systems in the ring grows then their relative dynamics becomes more and more underdamped (Theorem \[theorem:linear\]). On the other hand, in accordance with Corollary \[corollary:nonlinear\], estimates of attraction rates of the diagonal synchronization manifold rapidly diminish to zero with increasing numbers of systems. The latter result is, however, sufficient and may be conservative. To get a clearer view of the network dynamics we performed an exhaustive numerical exploration of the system dynamics for various values of coupling strengths $\sigma$ as well as network sizes $n$.
We construct a grid $(n,\sigma)$ for number of systems $n=2,\dots,20$ and coupling strengths $\sigma = \{0.05, 0.1, 0.15,\ldots,10\}$. For each $(n,\sigma)$ 100 sets of initial conditions are drawn uniformly randomly from the domain $\vert y_i(0)\vert \leq \frac{3}{2}\sqrt{3}$ and $\vert z_i(0)\vert \leq \frac{15}{8}\sqrt{3}$, which can be shown to be positively invariant for both connectivity configurations (i.e. the directed simple cycle and the directed chain). The *MATLAB* numerical solver *ode45* was used with relative and absolute error tolerances of order $10^{-5}$ to integrate dynamics for a maximum of $20,000$ time steps. At regular intervals of $1000,2000,\ldots,20,000$ time steps we interrupt integration to check for synchronization or rotating wave solutions. After $20,000$ time steps, if neither synchronization nor a rotating wave solution is detected, we register ‘no solution’.
Synchronization is identified in terms of the absolute error between the states of neighbouring systems averaged over a $1000$ time step window being less than $2\times 10^{-5}$. In case of no synchronization, we investigate the existence of rotating waves of Mode Type $1$. Rotating waves are defined as periodic solutions where all systems take identical orbits with constant non-zero and equal phase shifts between neighbouring systems. The mode type describes the group velocity of the wave; for a periodic wave, Mode Type $1$ describes the case where the period of a rotating wave having non-zero wave velocity equals the period of individual oscillators. Identical orbits are identified if the absolute difference between the time shifted orbits - so that orbits are in-phase - of neighbouring systems averaged over the period of the orbit is less than $10^{-4}$. Constant and equal phase shifts (for a Mode Type 1 rotating wave) are identified if the maximum from all absolute differences between $n$ times the phase shifts between pairwise neighbouring systems and period $T$ is less than a tolerance of $10^{-2}$.
The results of this exploration are summarized in Figure \[Fig:FHN\_network\]. This figure shows that in addition to regions corresponding to mere full asymptotic synchronization there is a wide range of parameter combinations (growing with system size) for which the system admits an asymptotically stable rotating wave solution. The larger the number of systems, the larger values of the coupling parameter $\sigma$ are required to maintain global stability of the fully synchronous state.
![Bifurcation diagram for directed rings of FHN oscillators. The diagram is divided into the four regions of parameter space corresponding to: *Synchronization (1)*, global asymptotic synchronization that is guaranteed by the semi-passivity argument; *Synchronization (2)*, synchronization registered for every set of random initial conditions during numerical simulations; *Synchronization (3)* synchronization registered for every set of random initial conditions during numerical simulations, but Floquet stability analysis of solutions of the auxiliary system indicated existence of a locally asymptotically stable rotating wave solution; *Co-existence*, both the fully synchronous and rotating wave solutions were registered during numerical simulation.[]{data-label="Fig:FHN_network"}](bifurcation_diagram.eps){width="260pt"}
Two solid curves approximate boundaries between the parameter domains corresponding to analytically determined globally asymptotically stable full-state synchrony, and a partition of numerically determined globally asymptotically stable full-sate synchrony; The first region corresponds to synchronization registered for every set of random initial conditions during numerical simulations, whilst the second region corresponds to, in addition to synchronization registered for every set of random initial conditions during numerical simulations, where Floquet stability analysis of solutions of the auxiliary system indicated existence of a locally asymptotically stable rotating wave solution.
The first (lower) curve - separating analytical and numerical synchronization - was determined previously in the semi-passivity argument. The second (upper) curve - partitioning numerically determined globally asymptomatic synchronization - is determined from a local stability analysis (using Floquet theory) of the rotating wave solution. Details of the second are provided below.
Figure \[Fig:FHN\_network\_wave\_basin\_type1\] shows for each $\sigma$ and $n$ the proportion of initial conditions that yield a rotating wave solution of Mode Type $1$ whilst Figure \[Fig:FHN\_network\_wave\_basin\_all\] shows for all mode types, i.e. rotating waves that resonate with individual systems period of oscillation. For low coupling $\sigma$ and for increasing number of systems $n$, rotating wave solutions are found more often. This suggests a larger basin of attraction for the rotating wave than that for synchronization, and that this basin grows with increasing $n$ and decreasing $\sigma$ whilst at the same time the basin of attraction for synchronization shrinks. The relative sizes of basin of attraction result in higher or lower likelihoods for the systems to converge to a certain solution given uniformly random initial conditions.
![Proportion of samples that yield a rotating wave solution of Mode Type $1$. Red curve bounds the upper left region for which Floquet stability analysis indicated the existence of a rotating wave solution.[]{data-label="Fig:FHN_network_wave_basin_type1"}](rotating_wave_type1_new2.eps){width="260pt"}
![Proportion of samples that yield a rotating wave solution for all mode types.[]{data-label="Fig:FHN_network_wave_basin_all"}](rotating_wave_all_new.eps){width="260pt"}
### Local stability analysis of the rotating wave
Throughout this section we consider only the rotating wave of Mode Type $1$. Similar analysis can also be performed for other mode types.
Suppose that $n$ identical coupled systems have a non-constant, $T$-periodic solution $x_j=(z_j,y_j)$ for constant $T>0$, and for which the orbit of each system is identical and time shifted by some constant $\tau = \frac{T}{n}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rotating_wave_solution}
x_1(t) &=& x_2(t+\tau) = x_3(t+2\tau) = \cdots = x_n(t+(n-1)\tau)\nonumber\\
& =& x_1(t+n\tau) = x_1(t+T).\end{aligned}$$ We refer to this as the *rotating wave solution*. An example of a rotating wave solution for $n=5$ coupled FHN oscillators in the ring configuration is presented in Figure \[fig:FHN\_wave\_ex\].
Recall equation (\[eq:FHN\]) with $x_j=(z_j,y_j)$. If we restrict the coupled dynamics of the FHN oscillators to the rotating wave manifold, then using the periodicity of the rotating wave solution, substitution of equation (\[eq:rotating\_wave\_solution\]) into the dynamics of each coupled FHN oscillator (\[eq:FHN\]) yields $n$ identical uncoupled delay differential equations (DDEs) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_1(t) &= f(x_1(t)) + \sigma BC\left(x_1(t-\frac{(n-1)}{n}T) - x_1(t)\right)\\
\vdots \\
\dot{x}_n(t) &= f(x_n(t)) + \sigma BC\left(x_n(t-\frac{(n-1)}{n}T) - x_n(t)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus the rotating wave solution can only exist if the auxiliary system $$\label{eq:aux_syst}
\begin{split}
\dot{s}(t)=&f(s(t)) -\sigma BC[s(t)-s(t-\tau^*)],\\
\tau^* :=&T-\tau=\frac{n-1}{n}T,
\end{split}$$ has a non-constant, $T$-periodic solution: $$\label{eq:AuxSysEqu}
s_t=s_{t+T} \in \mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}([0,T],\mathbb{R}^2),$$ for which the set $\mathcal{C}$ is the set of continuous functions that map the interval $[0,T]$ into $\mathbb{R}^2$, and $s_t(\theta):=s(t+\theta)$, $\theta\in [0,T]$.
Define the errors between neighbouring systems around the rotating wave solution $$\begin{array}{ll}
e_j(t) &= x_{j+1}(t+\tau) - x_j(t),\;\;j=1,2,\ldots,n-1,\\
e_n(t) &= x_1(t+\tau)-x_n(t).
\end{array}$$ Taking the error dynamics we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:error_dynamics}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\dot{e}_1(t)\\
\dot{e}_2(t)\\
\vdots\\
\dot{e}_n(t)
\end{array}\right)&=&
\left(\begin{array}{c}
f(e_1(t)+x_1(t))-f(x_1(t))\\
f(e_2(t)+x_2(t))-f(x_2(t))\\
\vdots\\
f(e_n(t)+x_n(t))-f(x_n(t))\\
\end{array}\right)-
\sigma (L\otimes BC)\left(\begin{array}{c}
e_1(t)\\
e_2(t)\\
\vdots\\
e_n(t)\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Substitution of the rotating wave solution in terms of the auxiliary system variable $s(t)$ into equation (\[eq:error\_dynamics\]), such that $$s(t) = x_1(t) = x_2(t+\tau) = \cdots = x_n(t+(n-1)\tau),$$ and linearizing around the rotating wave solution yields the linear system (\[eq:wide\_linearized\]) $$\left(\begin{array}{c}\label{eq:wide_linearized}
\dot{\xi}_1(t)\\
\dot{\xi}_2(t)\\
\vdots\\
\dot{\xi}_n(t)
\end{array}\right)
=
\left[\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
J(s(t)) & & & \\
& J(s(t-\tau)) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & J(s(t-(n-1)\tau))\end{array}\right)
- \sigma (L\otimes BC)
\right]
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\xi_1(t)\\
\xi_2(t)\\
\vdots\\
\xi_n(t)
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\otimes$ is the Kronecker (tensor) product, $J(s(t))$ is defined as follows: $$J(s(t)) := \begin{pmatrix}
-\alpha \beta & \alpha \\
-1 & 1-\gamma s_2^2(t)
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $s_2(t)$ denotes the second component of $s(t)$. Note that $T$-periodicity of the system implies the linear error (\[eq:wide\_linearized\]) system to be $T$-periodic.
For the local stability analysis we first computed periodic solutions of the auxiliary system . Periodic solutions are determined using continuation methods that are available in the numerical software package *DDE-Biftool* [@DDEBiftool]. Figure (\[fig:SolutionSurface\]) characterizes solutions of the auxiliary system in the parameter domain $(T,\tau,\sigma)$. For the auxiliary system in which parameter $T$ and $\tau$ are allowed to vary continuously, a solution that describes the dynamics of a rotating wave solution satisfies the relation $\frac{T}{\tau}(n-1) = n$. However, for the solutions we obtained, parameters $T$ and $\tau$ have not been varied continuously. Therefore, we choose the solution that satisfies the following the inequality $$\label{eq:Ttau_to_n}
\left| \frac{T}{\tau}(n-1) - n \right| < \epsilon.$$ To maintain good accuracy of approximation of the auxiliary system to $n$ coupled FHN oscillators, the error $\epsilon$ must be small. For our stability analysis we took $\epsilon = 0.01$.
Figures \[fig:sigma095\] and \[fig:sigma675\] show two cross sections of the surface in Figure \[fig:SolutionSurface\] for coupling strengths $\sigma=0.95$ and $\sigma=6.75$, respectively. Dashed lines identify solutions that satisfy relation (\[eq:Ttau\_to\_n\]) and hence map solutions of the auxiliary system to an integer number $n$ of coupled FHN oscillators on the rotating wave manifold.
![Solutions of the auxiliary system characterized in the parameter domain of period time, delay, and coupling strength $(T,\tau,\sigma)$ presented as a surface for $T$ a function of pairs $(\tau,\sigma)$.[]{data-label="fig:SolutionSurface"}](solutionsurface_v2.eps){width="300pt"}
We assessed the stability of the rotating wave solution for pairs $(n,\sigma)$ by computing the Floquet multipliers of the periodic linearized error system (\[eq:wide\_linearized\]) (again with *DDE-Biftool*). Solutions are obtained by substituting in the solution of the auxiliary system corresponding to the pair $(n,\sigma)$ found by numerical continuation. Recall that if all Floquet multipliers except one (at $1$) have modulus strictly smaller than $1$, then the zero solution of the linearized error system is asymptotically stable, which implies the rotating wave solution to be locally orbitally stable. The red line in Figure \[Fig:FHN\_network\] (and Figure \[Fig:FHN\_network\_wave\_basin\_type1\]) is defined by the crossing of (at least) one multiplier with the boundary of the unit disc in $\mathbb{C}$.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Kinetic interpretation of (\[eq:sysP\])
---------------------------------------
Equation in Section \[sec:eigenvalues\] describes the temporal evolution of the first order kinetics. This equation is known as the [*Master Equation*]{}. The master equation obeys the principle of detailed balance if there exists a positive equilibrium $P^*$ ($p^*_i>0$) such that for each pair $i,j$ ($i\neq j$) $$\label{detbal}
q_{ij} p^*_j=q_{ji} p^*_i .$$ After Onsager [@Ons], it is well known that for systems with detailed balance the eigenvalues of $K$ are real because under conditions (\[detbal\]) $K$ is a self-adjoined matrix with respect to the entropic inner product $$\langle x,y\rangle=\sum_i \frac{x_i y_i}{p^*_i}$$ (see, for example, [@VanKampen1973; @YBGE1991]).
Detailed balance is a well known consequence of microreversibility. This principle was introduced in 1872 by Boltzmann for collisions [@Boltzmann1964]. In 1901 Wegscheider proposed it for chemical kinetics [@Wegscheider1901]. Einstein had used it as a principle for the quantum theory of light emission and absorption (1916, 1917). The backgrounds of detailed balance had been analyzed by Tolman [@Tolman1938]. The principle was studied further and generalized by several authors [@Gorban2014; @YangHlavacek2006; @GorbYabCES2012].
Systems without detailed balance appear in applications rather often. Usually, they represent a subsystem of a larger system, where concentrations of some of the components are considered as constant. For example, the simple cycle $$\label{simplecycle}
A_1 \to A_2 \to \ldots \to A_n \to A_1$$ is a typical subsystem of a catalytic reaction (a catalytic cycle). The complete reaction may have the form $$\label{Catcycle}
S+A_1 \to A_2 \to \ldots \to A_n \to A_1+P,$$ where $S$ is a substrate and $P$ is a product of reaction.
The irreversible cycle (\[simplecycle\]) cannot appear as a limit of systems with detailed balance when some of the constants tend to zero, whereas the whole catalytic reaction (\[Catcycle\]) can [@GorbYabCES2012]. The simple cycle (\[simplecycle\]) can be produced from the whole reaction (\[Catcycle\]) if we assume that concentrations of $S$ and $P$ are constant. This is possible in an open system, where we continually add the substrate and remove the product. Another situation when such an approximation makes sense is a significant excess of substrate in the system, $[S]\gg [A_i]$ (here we use the square brackets for the amount of the component in the system). Such excess implies separation of time and the system of intermediates $\{A_i\}$ relaxes much faster than the concentration of substrate changes.
In systems without detailed balance, damped oscillations are possible. The example in Section \[sec:eigenvalues\], which describes the case of all the reaction rate constants in the simple cycle being equal, $q_{j+1\, j}=q_{1n}=q>0$, shows that these oscillations are even weakly damped. The effect becomes acutely noticeable for $n$ large enough.
The simple cycle with equal rate constants yields the slowest decay of oscillations or, in some sense, the slowest relaxation among all first order kinetic systems with the same number of components. The extremal properties of the simple cycle with equal constants were noticed in numerical experiments $25$ years ago [@BochByk1987]. V.I. Bykov formulated the hypothesis that this system has extremal spectral properties. This paper provides the answer: yes, it has.
Two coupled cycles
------------------
Given the size of the region where multiple solutions co-exist, and the resilience to a coherent state; does the extremal property of the simple cycle give rise to further, more complex phenomena when two simple cycles are diffusively coupled via an undirected link between an oscillator in each cycle?
For a total of $2k$ coupled systems, two cycles are constructed with systems $1,\ldots,k$ in the first simple cycle and systems $k+1,\ldots,2k$ in the second, and coupled via systems $x_1$ and $x_{k+1}$. Clearly the synchronization manifold exists, as does the rotating wave solution in the form of two synchronized rotating waves, $$\begin{gathered}
x_1(t) = x_{k+1}(t) = x_2(t+\tau) = x_{k+2}(t+\tau) = \ldots \\
\ldots = x_{k-1}(t+(k-2)\tau) = x_{2k-1}(t+(k-2)\tau) = x_k(t+(k-1)\tau) = x_{2k}(t+(k-1)\tau).\end{gathered}$$ A full description of the phenomena of two coupled cycles is beyond the scope of this work; however, as a motivation for further study, we present a brief example.
We take $(n,\sigma)=(10,0.75)$, which, for a simple cycle lies in the region of co-existence of synchronization and rotating wave solutions. We observe in Figure (\[Fig:sync\_and\_wave\]) a stable state in which the trajectories of all systems in the first cycle (in red) are attracted to the synchronization manifold, whilst all trajectories of systems in the second cycle (in green) are attracted to the rotating wave solution. There is a clear competition of each cycle to attract the other to its own dynamical regime. The two diffusively coupled oscillators from each cycle periodically perturb each other, which prevents asymptotic convergence of systems to either the synchronization manifold or the rotating wave solution. Clearly, the extremal properties of the simple cycle can give rise to multiple regimes of complex patterns of dynamics when embedded into larger network structures.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We considered the problem of how “closing” a chain of interconnected systems with directed coupling by adding a directed feedback from the last element in the chain to the first may affect the dynamics of the system. This problem is closely related to the fundamental question of how network topology influences the dynamics of collective behavior in the system. Two general settings have been investigated. In the first one we analyzed the behavior of a simple linear system. We showed that the simple cycle with equal interaction weights has the slowest decay of the oscillations among all linear systems with the same number of states. In the second setting we considered directed rings and chains of identical nonlinear oscillators. For directed rings, a lower bound $\sigma_c$ for the connection strengths that guarantee asymptotic synchronization in the network is found to follow a pattern similar to that of a simple cycle. Furthermore, numerical analysis revealed that, depending on the network size $n$, multiple dynamic regimes co-exist in the system’s state space.
In addition to the fully synchronous state, for sufficiently large networks an asymptotically stable rotating wave solution emerges. The emergence of the rotating wave is a phenomenon that persists over a broad range of coupling strengths and network sizes, and can be viewed as a form of extreme sensitivity of the network dynamics to the removal or addition of a single connection. The result confirms the significance of shortcuts in networks with large numbers of nodes. Emergence of asymptotically stable rotative wave solutions has been analyzed numerically for a specific class of systems in which the dynamics of each node was identical and satisfied Fitzhugh-Nagumo equations [@FitzHugh]. Extending the analysis to systems with heterogeneous nodes as well as considering nodes with Hindmarsh-Rose and Hodgkin-Huxley dynamics [@Izhikevich], known to be capable of bursting and chaotic behavior, will be the topic of our future studies.
Coming back to the question if leaders should look back. To stay in synchrony we advise a leader either not to look back at all or to look back just a few links; looking back too far induces oscillations that destroy the coherent state.
The authors are thankful to anonymous Referees for their encouraging and helpful suggestions and comments. Ivan Tyukin is also thankful to the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (research project No. 15-38-20178) for partial support. Cees van Leeuwen was supported by an Odysseus Grant from the Belgion Foundation for Science, F.W.O.
[1]{}
I. Belykh, V. Belykh, M. Hasler. *Hierarchy and stability of partially synchronous oscillations of diffusively coupled dynamical systems*. Phys. Rev. E, [62]{} (5) (2000), 6332–6345.
V. Belykh, I. Belykh, M. Hasler. *Connection graph stability method for synchronized coupled chaotic systems*. Physica D., [195]{} (1-2) (2004), 159–187.
I. Belykh, V. Belykh, M. Hasler. *Blinking model and synchronization in small-world networks with a time-varying coupling.* Physica D., [195]{} (1-2) (2004), 188–206.
A.N. Bocharov, V.I. Bykov. *Parametric analysis of eigenvalues of matrices corresponding to linear one-route catalytic reaction mechanism*. React. Kinet. Catal. Lett., [34]{} (1) (1987), 75–80.
B. Bollobas. [ Modern graph theory.]{} Springer, 1998.
L. Boltzmann. [ Lectures on gas theory]{}. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1964.
V.K. Chandrasekar, J.H. Sheeba, B. Subash, M. Lakshmanan, J. Kurths. *Adaptive coupling induced multi-stable states in complex networks.* Physica D., [ 267]{} (2014), 36–48.
P.J. Davis. [ Circulant matrices.]{} AMS Chelsea Publising, New York, 1994.
N. Dmitriev, E. Dynkin.*On characteristic roots of stochastic matrices*. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 10 (2) (1946), 167–184
K. Engelborghs, T. Luzyanina, G. Samaey. [ DDE-BIFTOOL v. 2.00 user manual: a Matlab package for bifurcation analysis of delay differential equations]{}. Technical Report TW-330, Department of Computer Science, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2001.
R. FitzHugh. *Mathematical models of threshold phenomena in the nerve membrane.* Bull. Math. Biophysics, [17]{} (1955), 257–278.
C. Gaiteri, J.E. Rubin. *The interaction of intrinsic dynamics and network topology in determining network burst synchrony.* Front. Comput. Neurosci., [5]{} (2011), 10.
G.C. Garcia, A. Lesne, C.C. Hilgetag, M-T. Hutt. *Role of long cycles in excitable dynamics on graphs.* Phys. Rev. E., [ 90]{} (2014), 052805.
P. Gong, C. van Leeuwen. *Evolution to a Small-world Network with Chaotic Units.* Europhys. Lett., [ 67]{} (2) (2004), 328–333.
A.N. Gorban. *Detailed balance in micro- and macrokinetics and micro-distinguishability of macro-processes*. Results in Physics, 4 (2014), 142–147.
A.N. Gorban, O. Radulescu, A.Y. Zinovyev. *Asymptotology of chemical reaction networks*. Chem. Eng. Sci., [ 65]{} (2010), 2310–2324.
A.N. Gorban, G.S. Yablonskii. *Extended detailed balance for systems with irreversible reactions*. Chem. Eng. Sci., [66]{} (2011), 5388–5399. arXiv:1101.5280. \[cond-mat.stat-mech\].
E.M. Izhikevich. [ Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience.]{} The MIT Press, 2008.
N. Jarman, C. Trengove, E. Steur, I. Tyukin, C. van Leeuwen. *Spatially constrained adaptive rewiring in cortical neworks creates spatially modular small world architectures*. Cognitive Neurodynamics, [ 8]{} (6) (2014), 479–497.
F.I. Karpelevich. *On the characteristic roots of matrices with nonnegative elements*, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 15 (1951) 361–383 (in Russian); \[English translation in Eleven Papers Translated from Russian, American Mathematical Society Translations–Series 2, Providence, RI, 1988.\]
H.K. Khalil. [ Nonlinear Systems.]{} Prentice Hall, 2002.
J.P. LaSalle. Some extensions of Liapunov’s second method. *IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory*, CT-7 (1969), 520–527.
T. Mäki-Marttunen, J. Aćimović, K. Ruohonen, M.-L. Linne. *Structure-dynamics relationships in bursting neuronal networks revealed using a prediction framework*. PLOS ONE, [8]{} (7) (2013), e69373. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069373.
L. Onsager. *Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes.* I. Phys. Rev., [37]{} (1931), 405–426.
A.Y. Pogromskiy. *Passivity based design of synchronizing systems.* Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos App. Sci. Eng., [8]{} (2) (1998), 295–319.
A.Y. Pogromskiy, N. Kuznetsov, G.A. Leonov. *Pattern generation in diffusive networks: how do those brainless centipedes walk?* [In: Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC)]{}. Orlando, USA, 2011, 7849 – 7854.
A.Y. Pogromskiy, G. Santoboni, H. Nijmeijer. *Partial synchronization: from symmetry towards stability.* Physica D, [172]{} (1-4) (2002), 65–87.
O. Radulescu, A.N. Gorban, A.Y. Zinovyev, A. Lilienbaum. *Robust simplifications of multiscale biochemical networks.* BMC Systems Biology, [ 2]{} (86) (2008). doi:10.1186/1752-0509-2-86.
E. Steur, I. Tyukin, H. Nijmeijer. *Semi-passivity and synchronization in diffusively coupled neural oscillators.* Physica D, [238]{} (2009), 2119–2128.
R.C. Tolman. [ The Principles of Statistical Mechanics.]{} Oxford University Press, London, 1938.
N.G. van Kampen. *Nonlinear irreversible processes*. Physica, [67]{} (1) (1973), 1–22
B. van der Pol. *On relaxation oscillations.* Phil. Mag., [ 2]{} (11) (1926), 978–992.
R. Wegscheider. *Über simultane Gleichgewichte und die Beziehungen zwischen Thermodynamik und Reactionskinetik homogener Systeme*. Monatshefte für Chemie / Chemical Monthly [32]{} (8) (1901), 849–906.
G.S. Yablonskii, V.I. Bykov, A.N. Gorban, V.I. Elokhin. [ Kinetic Models of Catalytic Reactions]{} (Series “Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics", Volume 32). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991.
J. Yang, W.J. Bruno, W.S. Hlavacek, J. Pearson. *On imposing detailed balance in complex reaction mechanisms*. Biophys. J., [91]{} (2006), 1136–1141.
[^1]: E. Steur is now with Eindhoven University of Technology, Institute for Complex Molecular Systems and Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Netherlands
[^2]:
[^3]: A Metzler matrix is a matrix with non-negative off-diagonal entries
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A new mechanism which leads to a linearized massless graviton localized on the brane is found in the $AdS$/CFT setting, [*i.e.*]{} in a single copy of $AdS_5$ spacetime with a singular brane on the boundary, within the Randall-Sundrum brane-world scenario. With an help of a recent development in path-integral techniques, a one-parameter family of propagators for linearized gravity is obtained analytically, in which a parameter $\xi$ reflects various kinds of boundary conditions that arise as a result of the half-line constraint. In the case of a Dirichlet boundary condition ($\xi = 0$) the graviton localized on the brane can be massless [*via*]{} coupling constant renormalization. Our result supports a conjecture that the usual Randall-Sundrum scenario is a regularized version of a certain underlying theory.'
address: |
$^1$ Department of Physics, Kyungnam University, Masan, 631-701, Korea\
$^2$ Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics\
Randall Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Michigan\
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120, USA\
$^3$ Theory Department, Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan–36, 375036, Armenia\
$4$ Department of Physics, University of Kaiserslautern, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany
author:
- 'D. K. Park and S. Tamaryan'
title: 'Compromise of Localized Graviton with a Small Cosmological Constant in Randall-Sundrum Scenario'
---
The most remarkable feature of the Randall-Sundrum(RS) brane-world scenario is that it leads to a massless graviton localized on the 3-brane at the linearized fluctuation level [@rs99]. In fact, this striking feature seems to furnish a motivation for the recent application of this scenario to various branches of physics such as cosmology [@bine00; @csa99-1; @cli99; @kanti99; @csa99-2], the cosmological constant hierarchy [@kim00; @kim01; @alex01], and blackhole physics [@emp99; @gid00; @emp00]. The fact that RS spacetime is composed of the two copies of $AdS_5$ attached along the boundary($y=0$) also provides another motivation for the recent activity on the relation of this scenario to $AdS$/CFT [@gid00; @verl99; @lykk99; @gub99; @duff00; @anc00; @deg00; @pere01].
When solving a linearized fluctuation equation, however, the authors of Ref.[@alex01] chose a Dirichlet boundary condition (BC) on the brane to explain a small cosmological constant of the brane. In this BC the 3-brane acts effectively as a perfectly reflecting mirror, and the cosmological constant becomes naturally very small through thermal radiation of vacuum energy from the brane into the bulk. Then, it is very unclear why two different BCs are necessary to explain two distinct phenomena. There should exist a single physical BC which explains these two different phenomena simultaneously. In this context it is important to find a possible compromise of these two phenomena, which is a purpose of this letter. As will be shown below, there exists a novel mechanism which leads to a massless physical graviton with the Dirichlet BC [*via*]{} coupling constant renormalization in the $AdS$/CFT setting, [*i.e.*]{} that of a single $AdS_5$ spacetime with a singular brane on the boundary. We argue here that the mixture procedure of Dirichlet BC and the coupling constant renormalization is a most probable candidate for the compromise. It also makes us conjecture that RS scenario is a regularized version of a certain underlying theory.
Recently, it was shown[@park01] that at nonzero temperature only half of the full spacetime in the RS scenario becomes Schwarzschild-$AdS_5$ due to the manifest $Z_2$-symmetry breaking. Therefore, the choice of a single $AdS_5$ in the RS scenario also guarantees that the close relationship of the RS scenario with $AdS$/CFT is maintained at finite temperature.
We start with the gravitational fluctuation equation[@rs99] in the RS scenario, [*i.e.*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fluctua}
& &\hat{H}_{RS} \hat{\psi}(z) = \frac{m^2}{2} \hat{\psi}(z), \\ \nonumber
& &\hat{H}_{RS} = -\frac{1}{2} \partial_z^2 +
\frac{15}{8(|z| + \frac{1}{k})^2} - \frac{3}{2} k \delta(z),\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\psi}(z)$ is related to a linearized gravitational field $h(\bar{x}, y)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relation1}
h(\bar{x}, y)&=&\psi(y) e^{ip\bar{x}}, \\ \nonumber
\hat{\psi}(z)&=&\psi(y) e^{\frac{k|y|}{2}}\end{aligned}$$ where $z=\epsilon(y)(e^{k|y|} - 1) / k$, $p^2 = - m^2$, and $\bar{x}$ is the worldvolume coordinate. Since all components are the same, the Lorentz indices are suppressed in Eq.(\[relation1\]). When deriving the fluctuation equation, RS used the gauge choice $$\label{gauge}
h_{55}=h_{\mu 5}=0,
\hspace{1.0cm}
h_{\mu}^{\nu}{}_{,\nu} =0, h_{\mu}^{\mu} = 0$$ where $\mu, \nu = 0, 1, 2, 3$. However, the choice of this gauge in the bulk generates in general a non-trivial bending structure of the 3-brane which is fully discussed in Refs.[@gid00; @garr00; @kaku01]. Since it does not change the main conclusion, we will not explore the subtlety of this gauge choice in detail here. What we want to do is to examine the properties of the Feynman propagator explicitly for the general Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defhamil}
\hat{H}&=&\hat{H}_0 - v \delta(z), \\ \nonumber
\hat{H}_0&=& -\frac{1}{2} \partial_z^2 +
\frac{g}{(|z| + c)^2},\end{aligned}$$ when $z$ is non-negative. Of course, $\hat{H}$ coincides with $\hat{H}_{RS}$ when $g=15/8$, $c=1/k\equiv R$, and $v=3k/2$, where $R$ is the radius of $AdS_5$.
From the purely mathematical point of view the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ is a singular operator due to its point interaction. While the proper treatment of the one-dimensional $\delta$-function potential in the Schrödinger picture was found long ago [@kron34], it is not quite so long ago that one understood how to treat it within the path-integral formalism. Following Schulman’s procedure[@gave86; @schul86], it is possible to express the fixed-energy amplitude $\hat{G}[z_1,z_2:E]$ for $\hat{H}$ in terms of the fixed-energy amplitude $\hat{G}_0[z_1,z_2:E]$ for $\hat{H}_0$ as follows[^1] $$\label{g0g}
\hat{G}[z_1, z_2: E] = \hat{G}_0[z_1, z_2: E] +
\frac{\hat{G}_0[z_1, 0: E] \hat{G}_0[0, z_2: E]}
{\frac{1}{v} - \hat{G}_0[0, 0, E]}.$$ The remaining problem, therefore, is to compute a fixed-energy amplitude for the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0$.
As mentioned before, we would like to use only half of the full RS spacetime for the computation of $\hat{G}_0[z_1, z_2: E]$. In this case the fixed-energy amplitude is in general dependent upon the BC at the boundary arising due to the half-line constraint, $z \geq 0$. In this half-line $\hat{H}_0$ becomes simply $$\label{hamil0}
\hat{H}_0 = -\frac{1}{2} \partial_x^2 + \frac{g}{x^2}$$ where $x = z + c$. Thus our half-line constraint $z \geq 0$ is changed into $x \geq c$. If $c = 0$, the Euclidean propagator $G_{>0}[a, b: t]$ and the corresponding fixed-energy amplitude $\hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E]$ for Hamiltonian (\[hamil0\]) are well-known [@schul81]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wcis0}
G_{>0}[a, b: t]&=&\frac{\sqrt{a b}}{t} e^{-\frac{a^2 + b^2}{2 t}}
I_{\gamma}\left(\frac{ab}{t}\right), \\ \nonumber
\hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E]&=&2 \sqrt{a b} I_{\gamma} \left( \sqrt{\frac{E}{2}}
((a + b) - |a - b|) \right)
K_{\gamma} \left( \sqrt{\frac{E}{2}}
((a + b) + |a - b|) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{\gamma}(z)$ and $K_{\gamma}(z)$ are the usual modified Bessel functions, and $\gamma = \sqrt{1 + 8g} / 2$.
The difficulty of the computation of the fixed-energy amplitude for $\hat{H}_0$ is mainly due to the fact that the constraint is not half-line in terms of $x$ but $x > c$, [*i.e.*]{} $\hat{G}_0[a, b: E] = \hat{G}_{>c}[a,b:E]$. It may be extremely difficult to compute a path-integral directly with our asymmetric constraint. In this letter, instead of this direct approach, we adopt the following technique to solve the problem. First, we impose the usual half-line constraint $x > 0$. Then, we introduce an infinite energy barrier at $x = c$ in $\hat{H}_0$ to forbid a penetration into the region $0 < x < c$. The infinite energy barrier can be consistently introduced within the path-integral formalism using $\delta$- and $\delta^{\prime}$-functions by assuming an infinitely large coupling constant [@grosch93; @grosch95; @grosch98]. For the Dirichlet and Neumann BC cases the fixed-energy amplitudes $\hat{G}_0^D[a,b:E]$ and $\hat{G}_0^N[a,b:E]$ for $\hat{H}_0$ with the infinite barrier are obtained from $\hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E]$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gdgn}
\hat{G}_0^D[a, b: E]&=& \hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E] -
\frac{\hat{G}_{>0}[a, c: E] \hat{G}_{>0}[c, b: E]}
{\hat{G}_{>0}[c^+, c: E]}, \\ \nonumber
\hat{G}_0^N[a, b: E]&=& \hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E] -
\frac{\hat{G}_{>0, b}[a, c: E] \hat{G}_{>0, a}[c, b: E]}
{\hat{G}_{>0, ab}[c^+, c: E]}\end{aligned}$$ where we used a point-splitting method to avoid an infinity arising in $\hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E]$ and $\hat{G}_{>0, ab}[a, b: E]$ at $a = b$.
The quantities $\hat{G}_0^D[a, b: E]$ and $\hat{G}_0^N[a, b: E]$ are straightforwardly computed using Eq.(\[gdgn\]). The explicit expressions are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{explicit}
\hat{G}_0^D[a, b: E]&=&\hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E] -
2 \sqrt{ab} \frac{I_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)}{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)}
K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} a) K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} b),
\\ \nonumber
\hat{G}_0^N[a, b: E]&=&\hat{G}_{>0}[a, b: E] +
2 \sqrt{ab} \frac{f_I(E)}{f_K(E)}
K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} a) K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} b)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fkfi}
f_K(E)&=&\frac{\gamma - \frac{1}{2}}{\sqrt{2 E} c} K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)
+ K_{\gamma - 1}(\sqrt{2E} c),
\\ \nonumber
f_I(E)&=&I_{\gamma - 1}(\sqrt{2E} c) -
\frac{\gamma - \frac{1}{2}}{\sqrt{2 E} c} I_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c).\end{aligned}$$ It is simple to show that $\hat{G}_0^D[a,b:E]$ and $\hat{G}_0^N[a,b:E]$ satisfy the usual Dirichlet and Neumann BCs at $x = c$.
One may impose a mixing of Dirichlet and Neumann BCs at $x = c$. In this case the fixed-energy amplitude $\hat{G}_0[a, b: E]$ for $\hat{H}_0$ becomes a one parameter family of propagators[^2] $$\label{genbc}
\hat{G}_0[a, b: E] = \xi \hat{G}_0^N[a, b: E] + (1 - \xi) \hat{G}_0^D[a, b: E]$$ where $0 \leq \xi \leq 1$. Of course, the cases $\xi = 0$ and $\xi = 1$ correspond to pure Dirichlet and pure Neumann BC cases. Another interesting case is the value $\xi = 1/2$, in which the contributions of Neumann and Dirichlet have equal weighting factors. Since $\hat{G}_0[a, b: E]$ is expressed in terms of eigenvalues $E_n$ and eigenfunctions $\phi_n$ of $\hat{H}_0$ as follows $$\label{rg0phi}
\hat{G}_0[a, b: E] = \sum_n \frac{\phi_n(a) \phi_n^{\ast}(b)}{E - E_n},$$ the $\xi = 1/2$ case should correspond to the gravitational propagator without any constraint in $x$. As will be shown below, this case exactly reproduces the original RS result.
Inserting (\[genbc\]) into (\[g0g\]) one can finally obtain the $\xi$-dependent propagator for $\hat{H}$ whose explicit form is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xi-dep}
\hat{G}[a, b: E]&=& 2 \sqrt{a b} \Bigg[ I_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} min(a, b))
K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} max(a, b))
\\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} a) K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} b)}
{f_K(E)}
\bigg[ \xi \left( f_I(E) + \frac{1}{cE}
[\frac{f_K(E)}{\xi v} - \sqrt{\frac{2}{E}}
K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E}c)]^{-1}\right)
\\ \nonumber
& & \hspace{3.0cm}
- (1 - \xi) \frac{I_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)}
{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)}
f_K(E)
\bigg]
\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$
We now consider special cases of Eq.(\[xi-dep\]). As expected, taking $\xi = 1/2$ with $g = v = 0$ makes $\hat{G}[a, b: E]$ the exact free-particle amplitude. If one takes the RS limit $g = 15/8$, $c = 1/k=R$, $v = 3k/2$ and $E=m^2/2$ at the same $\xi$ value, it is possible to show that Eq.(\[xi-dep\]) yields $$\label{rspropa1}
\hat{G}^{RS}[a=R, b: m] = \frac{1}{m} \sqrt{\frac{b}{R}}
\frac{K_2(mb)}{K_1(mR)}.$$ If we takes $b = R$, the amplitude becomes simply $$\label{rspropa2}
\hat{G}^{RS}[R, R: m] = R (\Delta_0 + \Delta_{KK}),$$ where $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_{KK}$ represent zero-mass localized gravity and higher Kaluza-Klein excitation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D0DKK}
\Delta_0&=& \frac{2}{m^2 R^2}, \\ \nonumber
\Delta_{KK}&=& \frac{1}{mR} \frac{K_0(mR)}{K_1(mR)},\end{aligned}$$ respectively. In this case, when the separation between masses on the brane is very large, Newton’s law becomes $$\label{rsnewton}
V_{RS} \sim \frac{1}{r} \left[ 1 + \left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^2\right]$$ which agrees with the RS result[@rs99].
The first term in Eq.(\[rsnewton\]) is a usual Newton potential contributed from the zero mode $\Delta_0$. The second term represents the correction to the potential and is generated from the Kaluza-Klein excitation $\Delta_{KK}$. It is worthwhile noting that the correction to the potential is also computed in Ref.[@garr00] using somewhat different method and the final result is different from Eq.(\[rsnewton\]): $$\label{revise1}
V_{RS} \sim \frac{1}{r} \left[ 1 + \frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^2\right].$$ The $2/3$ factor in Eq.(\[revise1\]) is derived by considering the source term arising from the bending structure of the $3$-brane. Thus, the factor difference in potential is due to our ignorance of the bending effect. It is interesting to examine how to involve the bending effect within the path-integral formalism.
If we choose $\xi = 1$ with RS limit, $\hat{G}[a, b: E]$ of Eq.(\[xi-dep\]) reduces to $$\label{neupropa}
\hat{G}^N[R, R: E] = 2 R \frac{\Delta}{1 - \frac{3}{2} \Delta}$$ where $\Delta = \Delta_0 + \Delta_{KK}$. Numerical calculation shows that there exists a massive graviton bound on the brane in this case whose mass is $$\label{neumass}
m_N \approx 2.48 R^{-1}.$$ It is well-known that the potential due to the exchange of a massive particle is exponentially suppressed at long distance. This result is reasonable because the massive particle in general cannot propagate a long distance freely.
Finally, we consider the case $\xi = 0$. In this case the result (\[xi-dep\]) of the usual Schulman procedure does not yield an any modification due to the Dirichlet BC if the coupling constant $v$ is finite. As shown in [@jack91; @park95], however, we can obtain a non-trivial modification of the fixed-energy amplitude in this case [*via*]{} coupling constant renormalization if $v$ is an infinite bare quantity. In this letter we will follow this procedure by treating $v$ as an unphysical infinite quantity. This means we abandon the RS limit $v=3k/2$ at $\xi=0$ case. As will be shown shortly, this procedure also generates a massless gravity localized on the brane when the renormalized coupling constant becomes a particular value.
To show this more explicitly we introduce a positive infinitesimal parameter $\epsilon$ for the regularization and rewrite Eq.(\[g0g\]) in the form: $$\label{g0g-1}
\hat{G}^D[a, b: E] = \hat{G}_0^D[a, b: E] +
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+}
\frac{\hat{G}_0^D[a, c + \epsilon: E] \hat{G}_0^D[c + \epsilon, b: E]}
{\frac{1}{v} - \hat{G}_0^D[c + \epsilon, c + \epsilon: E]}.$$ Using the expansions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dexpand}
\hat{G}_0^D[a, c + \epsilon: E]&=&2 \sqrt{\frac{a}{c}}
\frac{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} a)}{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)} \epsilon
+ O(\epsilon^2),
\\ \nonumber
\hat{G}_0^D[c + \epsilon, b: E]&=& 2 \sqrt{\frac{b}{c}}
\frac{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} b)}{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)} \epsilon
+ O(\epsilon^2),
\\ \nonumber
\hat{G}_0^D[c + \epsilon, c + \epsilon: E]&=& 2 \epsilon +
\frac{2 \epsilon^2}{c} \Omega(\sqrt{2E} c, \gamma) + O(\epsilon^3),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{defomega}
\Omega(z, \nu) = 1 + z \frac{K_{\nu}^{\prime}(z)}{K_{\nu}(z)}
+ \frac{z^2}{2} (I_{\nu}^{\prime \prime}(z) K_{\nu}(z)
- I_{\nu}(z) K_{\nu}^{\prime \prime}(z)),$$ it is straightforward to derive a non-trivial fixed-energy amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dipropa}
\hat{G}^D[a, b: E]&=& 2 \sqrt{a b}
\Bigg[I_{\gamma}[\sqrt{2E} min(a, b)] K_{\gamma}[\sqrt{2E} max(a, b)]
\\ \nonumber
&-& \frac{K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} a) K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} b)}
{K_{\gamma}^2(\sqrt{2E} c)}
\left[ I_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c) K_{\gamma}(\sqrt{2E} c)
+ \frac{1}{2[\Omega(\sqrt{2E} c, \gamma) - v^{ren} c]}
\right] \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ where the renormalized coupling constant $v^{ren}$ is defined in terms of the bare coupling constant as follows: $$\label{reandba}
v^{ren} = \frac{1}{2 \epsilon^2} \left( \frac{1}{v} - 2 \epsilon \right).$$ One can easily show that $v^{ren}$ has the same dimension as the bare coupling constant $v$. Following the philosophy of renormalization we regard $v^{ren}$ as a finite quantity. Taking the remaining RS limit $g = 15/8$, $c = 1/k = R$, and $E = m^2 / 2$, one can show that the fixed-energy amplitude in this case is $$\label{dddd}
\hat{G}^D[R, b: E] = \sqrt{R b} \frac{K_2(mb)}{K_2(mR)}
\frac{1}{v^{ren} R - \Omega(mR, 2)}.$$ Using $$\label{omega2}
\Omega(mR, 2) = -\frac{3}{2} - m R \frac{K_1(mR)}{K_2(mR)}$$ it is possible to show that the corresponding gravitational potential at long range is $$\label{dgra2}
V_D \sim \frac{1}{r} \left[ 1 + \left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^2
\right] = V_{RS}$$ when $R v^{ren} + 3/2 = 0$. Hence, we obtain a massless graviton localized on the brane when $v^{ren} = -3 / (2 R)$. Eq.(\[dgra2\]) is a surprising result. Although we obtained a massless graviton through completely different BC and completely different procedure, its gravitational potential on the 3-brane is exactly the same as that of the original RS result. This exact coincidence strongly supports the conjecture that the Dirichlet BC for Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0$ is a genuine physical BC in the linearized gravity theory of RS scenario. The requirement of the coupling constant renormalization supports another conjecture that RS scenario is a regularized version of a certain underlying theory. It would be interesting to find and examine the underlying theory which might be our future work.
At $v^{ren} = -3 / (2R)$ the graviton propagator (\[dipropa\]) reduces to the following simple form in the RS limit $$\label{final1}
\hat{G}^D[a, b: m] = \hat{G}_0^D[a, b: m] + \sqrt{a b}
\frac{K_2(m a) K_2(m b)}{K_2^2(m R)}
\left(\Delta_0 + \Delta_{KK} \right).$$ The first term in Eq.(\[final1\]) is responsible for the small cosmological constant through thermal radiation of vacuum energy from the brane into the bulk due to its Dirichlet nature [@alex01]. The second term is responsible for the massless graviton localized on the brane. Of course, because of the second term the $3$-brane cannot act as a perfectly reflecting mirror in the bulk. This may be a physical reason why the cosmological constant of our universe is nonzero. Therefore, it might be also interesting to estimate the value of the cosmological constant within the present scenario and compare it with real experimental data $(0.01 eV)^4$.
[99]{} L. Randall and R. Sundrum, An Alternative to Compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4690 \[hep-th/9906064\]. P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois, Non-conventional Cosmology from a brane universe, Nucl. Phys. [**B565**]{} (2000) 269 \[hep-th/9905012\]. C. Cs[á]{}ki, M. Graesser, C. Kolda, and J. Terning, Cosmology of One Extra Dimension with Localized Gravity, Phys. Lett. [**B462**]{} (1999) 34 \[hep-ph/9906513\]. J. M. Cline, C. Grojean, and G. Servant, Cosmological Expansion in the Presence of an Extra Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4245 \[hep-ph/9906523\]. P. Kanti, I. I. Kogan, K. A. Olive, and M. Pospelov, Cosmological 3-Brane Solutions, Phys. Lett. [**B468**]{} (1999) 31 \[hep-ph/9909481\]. C. Cs[á]{}ki, M. Graesser, L. Randall, and J. Terning, Cosmology of Brane Models with Radion Stabilization, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 045015 \[hep-ph/9911406\]. J. E. Kim, B. Kyae, and H. M. Lee, Model for self-tuning the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 4223 \[hep-th/0011118\]. J. E. Kim, B. Kyae, and H. M. Lee, Self-tunning solution of the cosmological constant problem with antisymmetric tensor field \[hep-th/0101027\]. S. Alexander, Y. Ling, and L. Smolin, A thermal instability for positive brane cosmological constant in the Randall-Sundrum cosmologies \[hep-th/0106097\]. R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz, and R. C. Myers, Exact Description of Black Holes on Branes, JHEP [**0001**]{} (2000) 007 \[hep-th/9911043\]. S. B. Giddings, E. Katz, and L. Randall, Linearized Gravity in Brane Backgrounds, JHEP [**0003**]{} (2000) 023 \[hep-th/0002091\]. R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz, and R. C. Myers, Black Holes Radiate Mainly on the Brane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 499 \[hep-th/0003118\]. H. Verlinde, Holography and Compactification, Nucl. Phys. [**B580**]{} (2000) 264 \[hep-th/9906182\]. J. Lykken and L. Randall, The Shape of Gravity, JHEP [**0006**]{} (2000) 014 \[hep-th/9908076\]. S. S. Gubser, AdS/CFT and gravity, Phys. Rev. [**D63**]{} (2001) 084017 \[hep-th/9912001\]. M. J. Duff and J. T. Liu, Complementarity of the Maldacena and Randall-Sundrum Pictures, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 2052 \[hep-th/0003237\] . L. Anchordoqui, C. Nunez, and K. Olsen, Quantum Cosmology and $AdS$/CFT, JHEP [**0010**]{} (2000) 050 \[hep-th/0007064\]. N. S. Deger and A. Kaya, AdS/CFT and Randall-Sundrum Model without a Brane, JHEP [**0105**]{} (2001) 030 \[hep-th/0010141\]. M. Pérez-Victoria, Randall-Sundrum models and the regularized AdS/CFT correspondence, JHEP [**0105**]{} (2001) 064 \[hep-th/0105048\]. D. K. Park, H. S. Kim, Y. G. Miao, and H. J. W. Müller-Kirsten, Randall-Sundrum Scenario at Nonzero Temperature, Phys. Lett. [**B 519**]{} (2001) 159 \[hep-th/0107156\]. J. Garriga and T. Tanaka, Gravity in the Randall-Sundrum Brane World, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 2778 \[hep-th/9911055\]. Z. Kakushadze, Gravity in Randall-Sundrum Brane World Revisted, Phys. Lett. [**B497**]{} (2001) 125 \[hep-th/0008128\]. R. de L. Kronig and W. G. Penny, Quantum mechanics of electrons in crystal lattices, Proc. Roy. Soc. [**A 130**]{} (1931) 499. B. Gaveau and L. S. Schulman, Explicit time-dependent Schrödinger Propagator, J. Phys. [**A19**]{} (1986) 1833. L. S. Schulman, in [*Path Integrals from mev to MeV*]{}, edited by M. C. Gutzwiller, A. Inomata, J. R. Klauder, and L. Streit (World Scientific, Singapore, 1986). L. S. Schulman, [*Techniques and Applications of Path Integrals*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1981). C. Grosche, $\delta$-function perturbations and boundary problems by path integration, Ann. Physik [**2**]{} (1993) 557 \[hep-th/9302055\]. C. Grosche, $\delta^{\prime}$-Function Perturbations and Neumann Boundary-Conditions by Path Integration, J. Phys. [**A28**]{} (1995) L99 \[hep-th/9402110\]. C. Grosche and F. Steiner, [*Handbook of Feynman Path Integrals*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1998). S. Albeverio, Z. Brzeniak, and L. Dabrowski, Time-dependent propagator with point interaction, J. Phys. [**A27**]{} (1994) 4933. D. K. Park, Proper incorporation of self-adjoint extension method to Green’s function formalism: one-dimensional $\delta^{\prime}$-function potential case, J. Phys. [**A29**]{} (1996) 6407 \[hep-th/9512097\]. R. Jackiw, in [*M. A. Bég Memorial Volume*]{}, edited by A. Ali and P. Hoodbhoy (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991). D. K. Park, Green’s-function approach to two- and three-dimensional delta-function potential and application to the spin-1/2 Aharonov-Bohm problem, J. Math. Phys. [**36**]{} (1995) 5453 \[hep-th/9405020\].
[^1]: The definition of the fixed-energy amplitude $\hat{G}[x,y:E]$ in this letter is a Laplace transform of the usual Euclidean Feynman propagator $G[x,y:t]$.
[^2]: The boundary condition for the one-dimensional singular operator involves in general four real self-adjoint parameters [@alb94; @park96]. In this letter, however, we do not explore this purely mathematically oriented approach.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The pair-breaking critical current density, $j_{d}$, of magnesium diboride was determined over its entire temperature range by a pulsed dc transport measurement. At fixed low values of current density $j$, the resistive transition temperature shifts in the classic $\Delta T_{C}(j)/T_{C}(0) \propto
-[j/j_{d}(0)]^{2/3}$ manner, with a projected $j_{d}(0) \approx 2
\times 10^{7}$ A/cm$^{2}$. The directly measured $j_{d}(0)$, from current-voltage ($I$-$V$) curves at different fixed temperatures, has a similar value and the overall temperature dependence $j_{d}(T)$ and magnitude are consistent with Ginzburg-Landau theory.
author:
- 'Milind N. Kunchur'
- 'Sung-Ik Lee'
- 'W. N. Kang'
title: 'The pair-breaking critical current density of magnesium diboride'
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
Magnesium diboride () recently made an impact as a promising new superconductor with a surprisingly high critical temperature for a simple binary compound. This has spurred considerable research activity into investigating the myriad properties associated with its superconducting state. Besides the critical temperature and the upper critical field , an intrinsic parameter that sets a fundamental limit to the survival of superconductivity is the pair-breaking (or depairing) critical current density . We report the first measurement of this important quantity in the superconductor, which sets an absolute limit to the maximum current-carrying performance under ideal conditions. This also represents, to our knowledge, the only complete ($0 \alt T \alt$ ) measurement of by a direct transport method in any type-II superconductor. When a superconducting state is formed, charge carriers correlate and condense into a coherent macroscopic quantum state. The formation of this state is governed principally by a competition between four energies: condensation, magnetic-field expulsion, thermal, and kinetic. The order parameter $\Delta$, that describes the extent of condensation and the strength of the superconducting state, is reduced as the temperature $T$, magntetic field $H$, and electric current density $j$ are increased. The boundary in the $T$-$H$-$j$ phase space that separates the superconducting and normal states is where $\Delta$ vanishes, and the three parameters attain their critical values $T_{c}(H,j)$, $H_{c2}(T,j)$, and $j_{d}(T,H)$. In practice, a superconductor loses its ability to carry resistanceless current long before $j$ reaches . Any process that causes the phase difference between two points to change with time—such as the motion of flux vortices, phase slip centers in narrow wires, junctions, and fluctuations—can generate a finite voltage and hence resistance. The conventional critical-current density marks this onset of dissipation—depending on extrinsic variables such as vortex pinning by defects—and in type-II superconductors can be a few orders of magnitude lower than . Thus the transport becomes resistive and intensely dissipative long before the thermodynamic limit is reached, tending to mask a direct measurement of by sample heating. In this work we use a highly evolved pulsed-current technique (which we have refined over ten years) to reduce heating and obtain $(T\rightarrow 0)$ both from (1) a direct measurement of $j$ required to drive the system normal at $T \ll $and (2) from the shift in as a function of $j$ near $T \sim $.
Theoretical background
======================
A theoretical estimate of can be obtained from the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory, in which the strength of the superconducting state is expressed through the complex phenomenogical order parameter $\psi=|\psi|e^{i \varphi}$. The superfluid density near is proportional to $|\psi|^{2}$ and the free-energy density $f$ of the system (w.r.t. the free-energy density in the normal state) can be expressed as a power expansion in $|\psi|^{2}$ (In “dirty” superconductors—superconductors with a high impurity scattering rate—the approximate validity of the GL expressions extends down to $T \ll$ .). In the absence of significant magnetic fields and in situations where the magnitude of the order parameter $|\psi|$ is uniform (either because the dimensions of the sample are small compared to the coherence length or because of the principle of minimum entropy production at high dissipation levels[@metal]) $f$ can be expressed as[@tinkhamtext] $$\label{free}
f=%f_{n0} +
\alpha |\psi|^{2} + \frac{\beta}{2} |\psi|^{4} +
%\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m^{*}} (\nabla |\psi|)^{2} +
\frac{1}{2}|\psi|^2 m^{*}v_{s}^{2}.$$ $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are negative and positive constants respectively ($\alpha$ becomes positive above ), and the positive third term is the kinetic energy density expressed in terms of the superfluid velocity $\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_{s}=\frac{\hbar \nabla \varphi}{m^{*}}
-\frac{e^{*}\mbox{\boldmath $A$}}{cm^{*}}$; where $e^{*}$ and $m^{*}$ are respectively the effective charge and mass of a cooper pair. For zero $v_{s}$, the equilibrium value of $|\psi|^{2}$ that minimizes the free energy (Eq. \[free\]) is $|\psi_{\infty}|^{2}=-\alpha/\beta$. For a finite $v_{s}$ it becomes $$|\psi|^{2}=|\psi_{\infty}|^{2} \left( 1 - \frac{m^{*}v_{s}^{2}}{2
|\alpha|} \right).$$ The corresponding supercurrent density is $$j= e^{*}|\psi|^{2}
v_{s}
%=e^{*}|\psi|^{2}\left(\frac{\hbar \nabla \varphi}{m^{*}}
%-\frac{e^{*}\mbox{\boldmath $A$}}{cm^{*}} \right)
= 2e |\psi_{\infty}|^{2}
%\psi_{\infty}^{2}
\left(1 -
\frac{m^{*}v_{s}^{2}}{2 |\alpha|} \right) v_{s}.$$ The maximum possible value of this expression can now be identified with $j_{d}$: $$j_{d}(T)= 2e |\psi_{\infty}|^{2}
\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{2\alpha}{3m^{*}} \right)^{1/2} =
\frac{c H_{c}(T)}{3\sqrt{6} \pi \lambda (T)}$$ where the GL-theory parameters were replaced by their expressions $\alpha(T)=-(e^{*2}/m^{*}c^{2})H_{c}^{2}(T)\lambda^{2}(T)$ and $\beta(T)=(4\pi e^{*4}/m^{*2}c^{4})H_{c}^{2}(T)\lambda^{4}(T)$ in terms of the physically measureable quantities $H_{c}$ (thermodynamic critical field) and $\lambda$ (magnetic penetration depth). The relations $H_{c}(T) \approx H_{c}(0)[1-(T/T_{c})^{2}]$ and $\lambda(T) \approx \lambda(0)/\sqrt{[1-(T/T_{c})^{4}]}$ give $$\label{jdtfull}
j_{d}(T) \approx j_{d}(0) [1-(T/T_{c})^{2}]^{\frac{3}{2}}
[1+(T/T_{c})^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ where $$\label{jdtzero}
j_{d}(0)=cH_{c}(0)/[3\sqrt{6}\pi \lambda(0)]$$ is the zero-temperature depairing current density. Close to , Eq. \[jdtfull\] reduces to $ j_{d} (T \approx T_{c}) \approx
% \equiv J_{d}^{(GL)} =
%1.73 \sqrt{2} j_{d}(0) (1-T/T_{c})^{\frac{3}{2}}
4j_{d}(0)[1-T/T_{c}]^{\frac{3}{2}}$. This can be inverted to give the shift in transition temperature $T_{c}(j)$ at small currents, with the well-known $j^{2/3}$ proportionality: $$\label{tcjsmall}
\frac{T_{c}(0)-T_{c}(j)}{T_{c}(0)} \approx
%\left(\frac{1}{1.73 \sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
\left[\frac{j}{j_{d}(0)}\right] ^{\frac{2}{3}}.$$ (The preceding discussion is based on Refs. [@tinkhamtext] and [@bardeen].) Note that if heat removal from the sample is ineffective, Joule heating will give an apparent shift $\Delta T_{c} \propto \rho
j^{2}$, which is the cube of the intrinsic $\sim j^{2/3}$ depairing shift near , and hence easily distinguishable.
Experimental details
====================
The samples are 400 nm thick films of MgB$_{2}$ fabricated using a two-step method whose details are described elsewhere[@sampleprep; @sampleprep2]. An amorphous boron film was deposited on a (1102) Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ substrate at room temperature by pulsed-laser ablation. The boron film was then put into a Nb tube with high-purity Mg metal (99.9%) and the Nb tube was then sealed using an arc furnace in an argon atmosphere. Finally, the heat treatment was carried out at 900$^{\circ}$ C for 30 min. in an evacuated quartz ampoule sealed under high vacuum. X-ray diffraction indicates a highly c-axis-oriented crystal structure normal to the substrate surface with no impurity phases. The films were photolithographically patterned down to narrow bridges. In this paper we show data on three bridges, labelled S, M, and L (for small, medium, and large) with lateral dimensions 2.8 x 33, 3.0 x 61, and 9.7 x 172 $\mu$m$^{2}$ respectively. The lateral dimensions are uncertain by $\pm 0.7 \mu$m and the thickness by $\pm 50$ nm. The electrical transport measurements were made using a pulsed signal source with pulse durations ranging 0.1–4 $\mu$s and a duty cycle of about 1 ppm. From past experience with other films (e.g., on LaAlO$_{3}$) we found that micron-wide bridges typically have thermal resistances of order $R_{th} \sim$ 1–10 nK.cm$^{3}$/W at microsecond timescales [@unstable; @metal; @mplb]. For the present film-substrate combination, complete information about the thermal constants was not available to calculate from first principles, but we are able to show by other means that sample heating is not appreciable. Further details of the measurement techniques have been published in a previous review article [@mplb] and other recent papers [@metal; @unstable]. All measurements were made in zero applied magnetic field and the highest self field of the current ($\sim 300$ G) is of the order of the lower-critical field =185 G [@wang].
Results and analysis
====================
Fig. \[rtcurves\](a) shows the resistive transitions at different electric currents $I$ for the medium sample. The inset shows the sample geometry. The horizontal sections of the current leads add a small ($\sim 15$ %) series resistance to the actual resistance of the bridge. Because $j$ in these wide regions is negligible, this resistance freezes out at the nominal unshifted , making the onset seem to not shift. However over the main portions of the curves, there are substantial and relatively parallel shifts induced by current. Fig. \[rtcurves\](b) provides a magnified view of the central two-thirds portion of the transitions. The dashed line represents half the normal-state resistance ($R_{n}$) of the bridge, which serves as the criterion (resistive-transition-midpoint) for defining $(j)$. Panels (c) and (d) show similar sets of curves for the other two (small and large) samples.
=
=0.7
Fig. \[laws\] shows the midpoint ’s and their corresponding currents (ranging from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-2}$ A) plotted as $I^{2/3}$ (expected for pair-breaking) and as $I^{2}$ (expected for Joule heating). The shifts are closely proportional to $I^{2/3}$ rather than to $I^{2}$, showing that heating is not appreciable (the plots for samples S and L look similar). The slope $d I^{2/3}/dT_{c}(j)$ together with Eq. \[tcjsmall\] gives a zero-temperature depairing current value of 257 mA. Dividing this by the cross-sectional area gives a current density of $(0)=2.1 \times 10^{7}$ A/. The respective values for samples S and L are $(0) =
2.2 \times 10^{7}$ and $1.8 \times 10^{7}$ A/. The three values are consistent within the uncertainities in the sample dimensions, implying a cross-sectionally uniform current density. This is expected for the dissipative state of a superconductor (In the fluctuation region near the $(j)$ boundary and during flux motion–when the superconductor is resistive—the current flow becomes macroscopically uniform, as in a normal conductor, due to the principle of minimum entropy production. This has been discussed and verifed elsewhere [@metal].) and close to the $(j)$ boundary where $\lambda$ and $\xi$ (coherence length) diverge.
------- -------
=0.52 =0.51
------- -------
Fig. \[ivcurves\](a) shows current-voltage ($IV$) characteristics at various fixed temperatures for sample M (results for samples S and L are similar). As $I$ is increased $V$ remains close to zero until some critical value. Above this it shows Ohmic behavior $V=I R_{n}$. Note that at $T$=35.5K the transition is gradual, whereas at the lower temperatures it is rather abrupt. This is in part because a type II superconducting phase transition changes from second order to first order at lower temperatures in the presence of a current [@bardeen] and possibly because of a thermal component. The “s” shape arises because the external circuit feeding the pulsed signal has a source impedance $R_{s}$ of about 12 $\Omega$. Thus when the sample is driven normal, the current will drop discontinuously by the fraction $R_{n}/(R_{n}+R_{s}) \sim 20\%$ as observed. Although the amount of Joule heating cannot be directly estimated, its significance can be assessed by measuring the $IV$ curves in different thermal environments. The previous curves in Fig. \[ivcurves\](a) were all measured with the sample in helium vapour. Such measurements were repeated with the samples in superfluid and normal liquid helium, and in vacuum, and Fig. \[ivcurves\](b) shows one such set for the large sample (its lower surface-to-volume ratio gives it the worst thermal resistance). Fig. \[ivcurves\](b) shows no significant systematic influence of the environment on the observed value of , which would not be the case if Joule heating were a serious problem [@huebener].
From such $IV$ characteristics measured at the lowest temperature (1.5 K) in superfluid helium, the current required to drive the sample normal provides a direct lower bound on $(T\approx
0)$ (This lower bound will equal in the case of uniform current flow. We return to this point again later.). For the three samples S, M, and L these respective values are $(0) = 1.9 \times 10^{7}$, $2.0 \times 10^{7}$, and $1.7 \times 10^{7}$ A/, which are consistent with the values obtained earlier ($2.2 \times 10^{7}$, $2.1 \times 10^{7}$, and $1.8 \times 10^{7}$ A/) from the shifts in the resistive transitions near (Fig. \[laws\] and Eq. \[tcjsmall\]).
=0.7
Fig. \[glcurve\] shows the values of at different temperatures obtained from the $IV$ characteristics of Fig. \[ivcurves\](a). Also shown are the values of obtained from the shifts in the resistive transition near (from Fig. \[laws\]). The solid line is a plot of Eq. \[jdtfull\] in which the values of $(0)$ and $(0)$ came directly from the observed $j^{2/3}$ behavior of Fig. \[laws\] and were not adjusted to fit the other data over the extended temperature range, nor was $(0)$ adjusted to fit the actual measured value from the $IV$ characteristic at low $T$ (i.e., Fig. \[ivcurves\]). Nevertheless, the $(T)$ data tend to follow the general trend of Eq. \[jdtfull\]. An aspect of these data that may seem surprising is that even for $T \ll$ (where the sample width $w \gg \lambda, \xi$), the average current density in the bridge reaches essentially the full before the system becomes normal. By contrast, previous studies [@skocpol] of in wide low-type-I bridges found that the current distribution was non-uniform and the sample was driven normal when the peak $j$ near the surface exceeded . Using their model with our sample dimensions and parameters, our effective should have been reduced by a factor of 3, but it is not. In our present relatively high-type II material, it seems that the slight flux motion induced by the self field and fluctuations (because of the proximity to the $(j)$ phase boundary and much higher $T$) serve to homogenize the current distribution. Ironically, such incipient dissipation may actually stabilize the flow and permit the average $j$ to get closer to before the system becomes normal. In conclusion, we have measured the fundamental pair-breaking critical current density of magnesium diboride over the entire temperature range for in-plane current transport. The measured $(T)$ function is consistent with the Ginzburg-Landau form and conforms exactly to the $\Delta T_{c} \propto j^{2/3}$ behavior predicted near . $(0)$ obtained from the value of current required to drive the sample normal at $T \rightarrow 0$, agrees with the $(0)$ deduced from the $\Delta T_{c} \propto j^{2/3}$ behavior close to . The average value for all samples by both methods is $(0) \approx
1.9 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{7}$ A/. This is comparable in order of magnitude to the value of $6.1 \times 10^{7}$ A/calculated from Eq. \[jdtzero\] and the published values of =2500 G and $\lambda = 185$ nm from the review on by Wang et al. [@wang], in view of the uncertainities in those parameters. From a technological standpoint, the depairing current density of is about an order of magnitude lower than the high-cuprates [@pair]. The good news is that the flux pinning in films is so strong (because of the larger coherence length and more isotropically 3-D behavior) that the depinning at modest fields appear to be within an order of magnitude of [@otherhighjs], whereas for the cuprates and can be separated by two or three orders of magnitude[@mgbfluxflow].
Acknowledgements
================
The authors acknowledge useful discussions and other assistance from J. M. Knight, B. I. Ivlev, C. Wu, D. H. Arcos, H.H.Acros, H.J. Kim, E.M. Choi, K.J. Kim, and D. K. Finnemore. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy through grant number DE-FG02-99ER45763 and by the Creative Research Initiatives of the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology.
M. N. Kunchur, B. I. Ivlev, D. K. Christen, J. M. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5204 (2000). Michael Tinkham, [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{}, 2nd Edition (McGraw Hill, New York, 1996). J. Bardeen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**34**]{}, 667 (1962). W. N. Kang, H.-J. Kim, E.-M. Choi, C. U. Jung, S.-I. Lee, Science 292, 1521 (2001); (10.1126/science. 1060822). W. N. Kang, E.-M. Choi, H.-J. Kim, H.-J. Kim, and S.-I. Lee, Preprint: cond-mat/0209226 at xxx.lanl.gov (2002). M. N. Kunchur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 137005 (2002). M. N. Kunchur, Mod. Phys. Lett. B. [**9**]{}, 399 (1995). Y. Wang, T. Plackowski, A. Junod, Physica C [**355**]{}, 179 (2001). O. M. Stoll, S. Kaiser, R. P. Huebener, and M. Naito, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2994 (2001). W. J. Skocpol, Phys. Rev. [**B 14**]{}, 1045 (1975). M. N. Kunchur, D. K. Christen, C. E. Klabunde, and J. M. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 752 (1994). H.-J. Kim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 87002 (2001); S. H. Moon et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2429 (2001); and C. B. Eom et al. Nature [**411**]{}, 558 (2001). Preliminary in-field measurements on at low temperatures indicate $IV$ curves that are highly non-linear with no Ohmic free-flux-flow behavior at all. Instead the resistivity rises rapidly from its onset to its full normal-state value due to a combination of pair breaking and flux motion. Details of this non-linear flux flow behavior will be discussed elsewhere.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove an optimal semiclassical bound on the trace norm of the following commutators $[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),x]$, $[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),-i\hbar\nabla]$ and $[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),e^{itx}]$, where $H_\hbar$ is a Schrödinger operator with a semiclassical parameter $\hbar$, $x$ is the position operator and $-i\hbar\nabla$ is the momentum operator. These bounds corresponds to a mean-field version of bounds introduced as an assumption by N. Benedikter, M. Porta and B. Schlein in a study of the mean-field evolution of a fermionic system.'
author:
- 'S[ø]{}ren Fournais and S[ø]{}ren Mikkelsen'
bibliography:
- 'Bib\_paperA.bib'
title: An optimal semiclassical bound on certain commutators
---
Introduction and main result
============================
We consider a Schrödinger operator $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2\Delta + V$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$. Here $\Delta$ is the Laplacian acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and $V$ is a real valued function. We will be interested in the following trace norms of commutators: $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),x_j] \rVert}_{1}, &&
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),Q_j] \rVert}_{1} && \text{and}
&& {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),e^{itx}] \rVert}_{1},\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$ and $x_j$ is the position operator for $j \in\{1,\dots,d\}$. Moreover $\boldsymbol{1}_A$ denotes the characteristic function of a set $A$ and ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_1$ denotes the trace norm. The main theorem will be the bound for the first two commutators and the bound on the last will follow as a corollary.
Let us specify the assumptions on the function $V$ for which we study the operator $H_\hbar$.
\[A.general\_assumptions\_on\_V\] Let $V:{\mathbb{R}}^d\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a function for which there exists an open set $\Omega_V\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\varepsilon>0$ such that
1. $V$ is in $C^\infty(\Omega_V)$.
2. There exists an open bounded set $\Omega_\varepsilon$ such that $\overline{\Omega}_\varepsilon \subset \Omega_V$ such that $V\geq\varepsilon$ for all $x\in\Omega_\varepsilon^c$.
3. $V\boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega_V^c}$ is an element of $L^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$.
The assumption of smoothness in the set $\Omega_V$ is needed in order to use the theory of pseudo-differential operators. The second assumption is needed to ensure that we have non continuous spectrum in $(-\infty,0]$ and enable us to localise the operator. The last assumption is just to ensure that we can define the operator $H_\hbar$ by a Friedrichs extension of the associated form. We can now state our main theorem:
\[A.Main\_Theorem\] Let $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2 \Delta + V$ be a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$, where $V$ satisfies Assumption \[A.general\_assumptions\_on\_V\] and let $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$ for $j\in\{1,\dots,d\}$ futhermore, let $\hbar_0$ be a strictly positive number. Then the following bounds hold $$\label{A.Bounds_to_prove}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),x_j] \rVert}_{1} \leq C \hbar^{1-d}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),Q_j] \rVert}_{1} \leq C \hbar^{1-d} ,$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$, where $C$ is a positive constant.
From Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] we get the corollary:
\[A.cor\_Main\_Theorem\] Let $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2 \Delta + V$ be a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$, where $V$ satisfies Assumption \[A.general\_assumptions\_on\_V\] futhermore, let $\hbar_0$ be a strictly positive number. Then the following bound holds $$\label{A.Bound_to_prove_2}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),e^{i \langle t,x\rangle}] \rVert}_{1} \leq C {\left| t \right|} \hbar^{1-d},$$ for all $t$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$, where $\langle t,x\rangle$ is the Euclidean inner product and $C$ is a positive constant.
Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] and Corollary \[A.cor\_Main\_Theorem\] are semiclassical in the sense that they are of most interest in the cases where the semiclassical parameter $\hbar$ is small. The upper bound $\hbar_0$ on the semiclassical parameter is needed in order to control the constants as we do not have uniformity for $\hbar$ tending to infinity.
The proofs of Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] and Corollary \[A.cor\_Main\_Theorem\] are given in section \[A.Proof\_of\_Main\]. The proof of Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] is divided into three parts. First a local version of the theorem (see Theorem \[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\]) is proven with a noncritical assumption . This proof is based on local Weyl-asymptotics proven in the paper [@MR1343781] and an $\hbar$ dependent dyadic decomposition which will be introduced in the proof. In the first part we will not be considering the operator $H_\hbar$ directly but an abstract operator $\mathcal{H}$ which satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] below. The abstract version is needed for the later multiscale argument.
The second part is to remove the non-critical condition by a multiscale argument as in [@MR1343781] (see also [@MR1631419; @MR1240575]). The main idea is to make a partition of unity and on each partition scale the operator in such a way that a non-critical assumption is achieved and then use the theorem with the non-critical condition. The final step in this part is to remove the dependence of the partition by integration.
The third part is to first note that the theorem obtained in the second part gives the desired estimate in the classically allowed region $\{V<\varepsilon\}$ and then prove that the classically forbidden region $\{V>\varepsilon\}$ contributes less to the error term than the desired estimate. This is done by applying an Agmon type bound on the eigenfunctions of the operator $H_\hbar$.
Commutator bounds of the type considered in this paper were introduced as assumptions in a series of papers by N. Benedikter, M. Porta and B. Schlein et. al. [@MR3570479; @MR3248060; @MR3202863; @MR3381147] where they considered mean-field dynamics of fermions in different settings. The bounds considered here are a first step to verifying their assumption, since the bounds proven here correspond to a mean field version of the bounds they need. The assumption reappeared in the paper [@MR4009687].
Already the mean-field version of the bounds, treated in this paper, is non-trivial as they are optimal in terms of the semiclassical parameter $\hbar$, which is easily seen by the calculus of pseudo-differential operators.
Preliminaries
=============
Assumptions and notation
------------------------
First we will describe the operators we are working with. Under Assumption \[A.general\_assumptions\_on\_V\] we can define the operator $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2\Delta + V$ as the Friedrichs extension of the quadratic form given by $$\mathfrak{h}[f,g] = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \hbar^2\sum_{i=1}^d \partial_{x_i}f(x) \overline{\partial_{x_i}g(x)} + V(x)f(x)\overline{g(x)}\;dx, \qquad f,g \in \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{h}),$$ where $$\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{h}) = \left\{ f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d) | \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} {\left| p \right|}^2 {\left| \hat{f}(p) \right|}^2 \;dp<\infty \text{ and } \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} {\left| V(x) \right|}{\left| f(x) \right|}^2 \;dx <\infty \right\}.$$ In this set up the Friedrichs extension will be unique and self-adjoint see e.g. [@MR0493420]. Moreover, we will also consider operators that satisfy the following assumption
\[A.local\_assumptions\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be an operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that
1. $\mathcal{H}$ is selfadjoint and lower semibounded.
2. There exists an open set $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and a realvalued function $V_{loc}$ in $C_0^ \infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $C_0^\infty(\Omega) \subset \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H})$ and $$\mathcal{H} u = H_\hbar^{loc} u$$ for all $u$ in $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$, where $H_\hbar^{loc}=-\hbar^2 \Delta + V_{loc}$.
The above assumption is exactly the same as in [@MR1343781]. It is important to note that the assumptions made on the the operator $H_\hbar$ in Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] imply that $H_\hbar$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] for a suitable $V_{loc}$. When referring to this assumption further on we will omit the $loc$ on the operator $H_\hbar^{loc}$ and the function $V_{loc}$ when we only consider an operator satisfying the assumption.
The construction of the operator via a Friedrichs extension will also work for the local Schrödinger operator, where $V_{loc}$ is $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$. But in this case the operator can also be constructed as the closure of an $\hbar$-pseudo-differential operator ($\hbar$-$\Psi$DO) defined on the Schwarz space. By an $\hbar$-$\Psi$DO, $A = \operatorname{Op_\hbar^w}(a)$ we mean the operator with Weyl symbol $a$, that is $$\operatorname{Op_\hbar^w}(a)\psi(x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi \hbar)^{d}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{i \hbar^{-1} {\langle x-y , p \rangle} }
a\left( \tfrac{x+y}{2},p\right) \psi(y) \;d{y}\;d{p},$$ for $\psi \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ (the Schwarz space). The symbol $a$ is assumed to be in $C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}_x^d \times {\mathbb{R}}_p^d)$ and to satisfy the condition $$\label{A.sym_bound}
{\left| \partial_x^\alpha \partial_p^\beta a(x,p) \right|} \leq C_{\alpha,\beta} m (x,p),$$ for all multi-index $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and some tempered weight function $m$. The above integrals should be understod as oscillating integrals. We need this as the results on Weyl-asymptotics needed is based on ($\hbar$-$\Psi$DOs). For more details see e.g. the monographs [@MR897108; @MR1735654; @MR2952218].
We call a number $E$ in ${\mathbb{R}}$ a non-critical value for a symbol $a$ if $$(\nabla_x a(x,p),\nabla_p a(x,p)) \neq 0 \qquad \forall (x,p) \in a^{-1}(\{E\}).$$ In the case where $a(x,p)=p^2+V(x)$ the non-critical condition can be expressed only in terms of the function $V$ by assuming that $${\left| \nabla_x V(x) \right|}^2 + {\left| E-V(x) \right|}> 0, \qquad \forall (x,p) \in a^{-1}(\{E\}),$$ since it is immediate that $${\left| \nabla_x a(x,p) \right|}^2+{\left| \nabla_p a(x,p) \right|}^2 = {\left| \nabla_x V(x) \right|}^2 + 4{\left| E-V(x) \right|}, \qquad \forall (x,p) \in a^{-1}(\{E\}).$$
Optimal Weyl-asymptotics
------------------------
We are interested in optimal Weyl-asymptotics for an operator $\mathcal{H}$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ satisfying Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\]. When we only have one operator we will not write the $loc$ subscript on the operator. In the following we will denote the open ball with radius $R$ by $B(0,R)$. For this kind of operators we have from [@MR1343781 Theorem 4.1] the following theorem:
\[A.Sobolev\_4.1\] Suppose the operator $\mathcal{H}$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$ obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for $R>0$ and $$\label{A.non_critical_assumption}
{\left| V(x) \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq c,$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$ furthermore, let $\hbar_0$ be a strictly positive number. For $\varphi$ in $C_0^\infty(B(0,R/2))$ it holds that $$\Big|\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi] - \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^d}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \boldsymbol{1}_{\{p^2 + V(x) \leq 0\}} (x,p) \varphi(x) \;d{x}\;d{p} \Big| \leq C\hbar^{1-d},$$ for $C$ a positive constant and all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$. The constant $C$ depends on the numbers $R$, $\hbar_0$ and $c$ in and on the bounds on the derivatives of $V$ and $\varphi$.
One can note that in our “non-critical” assumption in the above theorem there has appeared an $\hbar$. This assumption would either imply that $ {\left| V(x) \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 \geq c/2$ or $\hbar\geq c/2$. In the first case the assumption gives us our noncritical assumption. In the second both sides will be finite and the formula can be made true by an appropriate choice of constants.
\[A.Weyl\_used\_local\] Suppose the operator $\mathcal{H}$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$ obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for $R>0$. Moreover suppose there is an $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$\label{A.non_critical_assumption_prop}
{\left| V(x)-E \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq c,$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$ and all $E$ in $[-2\varepsilon,2\varepsilon]$ furthermore let $\hbar_0$ be a strictly positive number. For $\varphi$ in $C_0^\infty(B(0,R/2))$ and two numbers $a$ and $b$ such that $$-\varepsilon < a \leq b <\varepsilon,$$ it holds that $$\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{[a,b]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi] \leq C_1 | b-a| \hbar^{-d} + C_2\hbar^{1-d},$$ for two positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ and all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$. The constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ depend only on the numbers $R$, $\hbar_0$ and $c$ in and on the bounds on the derivatives of $V$ and $\varphi$.
We suppose we have an operator $\mathcal{H}$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$, which obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for $R>0$. If it is assumed that there exists a $c>0$ for which $${\left| V(x) \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq c,$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$, then by continuity this would imply the existence of a $\tilde{c}>0$ and an $\varepsilon>0$ such that $${\left| V(x)-E \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq c,$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$ and all $E$ in $[-2\varepsilon,2\varepsilon]$. That is we could generalise the assumptions in the proposition. But we have chosen this form of the proposition due to later applications.
We can rewrite the trace of interest as $$\label{A.Prop_1}
\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft \operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{[a,
b]}(\mathcal{H})\varphi] =
\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,b]}(\mathcal{H})\varphi]
- \operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,a)}(\mathcal{H})\varphi].
\end{aligned}$$ If we consider the trace $\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,b]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi]$ then we can rewrite this in the following way $$\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,b]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi]=\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}-b) \varphi].$$ The operator $\mathcal{H}-b$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $V$ replaced by $V-b$ and by assumption we have $$\label{A.non_critical_assumption_prop_1}
{\left| V(x)-b \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq c,$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$. The $b$ should be understood as $b\chi(x)$ where $\chi$ is $C_0^\infty( B(0,4R))$ and $\chi(x)=1$ for $x$ in $B(0,3R)$. Hence we can omit the $\chi$ when we are localised to $B(0,2R)$. By Theorem \[A.Sobolev\_4.1\] we have the following identity $$\label{A.Prop_2}
\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft
\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,b]}(\mathcal{H})
\varphi] = \operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H} -
b) \varphi]
\\
&= \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}
\boldsymbol{1}_{\{p^2 + V(x) -b \leq 0\}} (x,p)
\varphi(x) \;d{x}d{p} + \mathcal{O}( \hbar^{1-d})
\\
&= \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}
\boldsymbol{1}_{\{p^2 + V(x) \leq b\}} (x,p)
\varphi(x) \;d{x}d{p} + \mathcal{O}( \hbar^{1-d}),
\end{aligned}$$ where the error term is independent of $b$. Analogously we get that $$\label{A.Prop_3}
\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,a]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi]
= \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \boldsymbol{1}_{\{p^2 + V(x) \leq a\}}
(x,p) \varphi(x) \;d{x}d{p} + \mathcal{O}( \hbar^{1-d}).$$ Since the two error terms are of the same order we can, when subtracting the two traces, add the two error terms and obtain a new error term of order $\hbar^{1-d}$. Hence we will consider the integral $$\label{A.prop_phase_space_int}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \boldsymbol{1}_{\{ p^2 +V(x) \leq b\}}(x,p) \varphi(x)
- \boldsymbol{1}_{\{ p^2 +V(x) \leq a\}}(x,p) \varphi(x) \;d{x}d{p}.$$ By assumption this integral is finite. In order to evaluate these integrals we note that by assumption we are in one of the following two cases $$\label{A.prop_first_case}
\hbar>\frac{c}{2}$$ or $$\label{A.non_critical_assumption_prop_2}
{\left| V(x)-E \right|} + {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 \geq \frac{c}{2},$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$ and all $E$ in $[-2\varepsilon,2\varepsilon]$. In the first case we can estimate the integrals by a constant and replace $\hbar^{-d}$ by $\hbar^{1-d}$ at the cost of $\frac{2}{c}$. For the second case we have, by the Coarea formula, the equality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Prop_4}
\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \boldsymbol{1}_{\{ p^2 +V(x) \leq
b\}}&(x,p) \varphi(x) - \boldsymbol{1}_{\{ p^2
+V(x) \leq a\}}(x,p) \varphi(x) \;d{x}d{p}
\\
&= \int_{a}^{b } \int_{\{p^2+V(x)=E \}}
\varphi(x) \frac{1}{{\left| (\nabla_x V(x),\nabla_p p^2) \right|}} \;d{S}
d{E},
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ is the surface measure. By support properties of $\varphi$ and we have that $$\label{A.Prop_6}
\sup_{E\in[-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]} \int_{\{p^2+V(x)=E \}}
\varphi(x) \frac{1}{{\left| (\nabla_x V(x),\nabla_p p^2) \right|}} \;d{S} \leq C.$$ Using we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Prop_5}
\begin{split}
\int_{a}^{b } &\int_{\{p^2+V(x)=E \}}
\varphi(x)\frac{1}{{\left| (\nabla_x V(x),\nabla_p p^2) \right|}} \;d{S}
d{E} \leq \int_{a}^{b} C d{E} \leq C |b-a|,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the constant from , which is independent of $a$, $b$ and $\hbar$. By combining , , , and we get $$\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{[a,b]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi] \leq C_1 | b-a| \hbar^{-d} + C_2\hbar^{1-d} .$$ Which is the desired estimate and this ends the proof.
The previous proposition gives that we can get the right order in $\hbar$ of the trace if we consider sufficiently small intervals. This will be a crucial point in the proof of Theorem \[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\].
Furthermore we will be needing a corollary to the Cwikel-Lieb-Rosenbljum (CLR) bound. This corollary is stated in [@MR2583992 Chapter 4].
\[A.clr\_cor\] Let $d\geq1$, $\gamma>0$, $\lambda>0$ and $H=-\Delta + V$ be a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $(V+\frac{\lambda}{2})_{-}$ in $L^{\frac{d}{2}+\gamma}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and $V_{+}$ in $L^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Then $$\operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,-\lambda]}(H)) \leq \frac{2^\gamma}{\lambda^\gamma } \frac{1}{(4\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}} \frac{\Gamma(\gamma)}{\Gamma(\tfrac{d}{2}+\gamma)} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} (V(x)+\tfrac{\lambda}{2})_{-}^{\frac{d}{2}+\gamma} \,dx,$$ where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function.
We will use this corollary in the following way.
\[A.clr\_bound\_remark\] Let $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2\Delta+V$ be a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and suppose it satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\]. We will later need an a priori estimate on the number $\operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,\frac{\varepsilon}{4}]}(H_\hbar))$. To obtain this we will consider the operator $\widetilde{H}_\hbar= -\hbar^2\Delta+V -
\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}$. Clearly, $$\label{A.local_eq14}
\operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}]}(H_\hbar-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2})) = \operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4\hbar^2}]}(-\Delta + \tfrac{V}{\hbar^2}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2\hbar^2})).$$ If we apply Corollary \[A.clr\_cor\] to the right hand side of with $\gamma=1$ and $\lambda=\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4\hbar^2}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.local_eq15}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4\hbar^2}]}(-\Delta
+ \tfrac{V}{\hbar^2}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2\hbar^2})) &\leq c_d
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{\varepsilon} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}
(\tfrac{V(x)}{\hbar^2}-\tfrac{3\varepsilon}{8
\hbar^2})_{-}^{\frac{d}{2}+1} \,dx
\\
&= \frac{ c_d}{\varepsilon \hbar^d} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} (V(x)-
\tfrac{3\varepsilon}{8})_{-}^{\frac{d}{2}+1} \,dx.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ The last integral in is finite by Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] since the support of $(V(x)-\tfrac{3\varepsilon}{8})_{-}$ is compact and the function is continuous. Combining with we get the bound $$\label{A.local_eq16}
\operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}]}(H_\hbar)) \leq \frac{C}{\hbar^{d}}.$$ where we have absorbed the integral and $\varepsilon$ into the constant.
Trace norm estimates of operators
---------------------------------
In this subsection we will list some results on trace norms and estimates of trace norms for operators. First recall that for an operator $A$ the trace norm is $${\lVert A \rVert}_1=\operatorname{Tr}\left([AA^*]^\frac{1}{2}\right)$$ and the Hilbert-Schmidt norm is $${\lVert A \rVert}_2=\sqrt{\operatorname{Tr}\left(AA^*\right)}$$ Moreover we will use the convention that ${\lVert A \rVert}$ is the operator norm of $A$. The following lemma is a modification of [@MR1343781 Lemma 3.9]. The proofs are completely analogous.
\[A.trace\_norm\_est\_H\] Let $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2\Delta + V$ be a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $V$ in $ C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Let $f$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\varphi$ in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. We let $r\in\{0,1\}$, $\hbar_0>0$ and $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$ for $j \in\{1,\dots,d\}$. Then $${\lVert \varphi Q_j^r f(H_\hbar) \rVert}_1 \leq C \hbar^{-d},$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$. If $\psi$ is a bounded function from $C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and $c>0$ such that $$\label{A.lemme_dep_c}
\mathrm{dist}[\operatorname{supp}(\varphi),\operatorname{supp}(\psi)] \geq c.$$ Then for any $N$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ $${\lVert \varphi Q_j^r f(H_\hbar)\psi \rVert}_1 \leq C_N \hbar^{N},$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$. Both constants $C$ and $C_N$ depend on the dimension, the functions $\varphi$ and $\psi$, the numbers $\hbar_0$, ${\lVert \partial^\alpha V \rVert}_\infty$ for $\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^d$, ${\lVert \partial^j f \rVert}_\infty$ for $j$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$, $c$ in and $\sup(\operatorname{supp}(f))$.
The following theorem is an extension of Theorem 3.12 from the paper [@MR1343781] as an extra operator has been added. It is less general in the sense that we only consider compactly supported, smooth functions applied to the operator, whereas in the paper more general functions are considered. Again we omit the easy modifications of the proof in [@MR1343781].
\[A.change\_operator\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ satisfy Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for an $R>0$. Let $f$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ and let $r\in\{0,1\}$, $\hbar_0>0$ and $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$ for $j \in\{1,\dots,d\}$. If $\varphi$ is in $C_0^\infty(B(0,3R))$ then for any $N\geq0$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert \varphi Q_j^r[f(\mathcal{H})-f(H_\hbar)] \rVert}_1 &\leq C_N
\hbar^N \intertext{and} {\lVert \varphi Q_j^r f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_1
&\leq C\hbar^{-d}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$, where the constants $C_N$ and $C$ only depend on the dimension and the numbers $\hbar_0$, ${\lVert \partial^j f \rVert}_\infty$ for $j$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\lVert \partial^\alpha V \rVert}_\infty$, ${\lVert \partial^\alpha\varphi \rVert}_\infty$ for $\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^d$.
Local case
==========
In this section we will present the first step in the proof of Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] where we prove a local version of the theorem under a non-critical condition. It should be noted that we are not trying to get optimal constants in the following.
Auxiliary bounds
----------------
Before we proceed we will consider a simple case where the function applied to the operator is a smooth function with compact support. Moreover we will prove a bound on a Hilbert-Schmidt norm which will prove to be useful.
The first auxiliary result is a simple case of Theorem \[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\], where we consider the same commutators as in the theorem but we apply a smooth, compactly supported function to our operator instead of the characteristic function.
\[A.simpel\_case\] Suppose the operator $\mathcal{H}$ obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for $R>0$ and let $f$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\hbar_0>0$. For $\varphi$ in $C_0^\infty(B(0,3R))$ and $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$ for $j \in\{1,\dots,d\}$ it holds that $${\lVert [f(\mathcal{H}), \varphi] \rVert}_{1} \leq C \hbar^{1-d} \qquad\text{and}\qquad {\lVert [f(\mathcal{H}), \varphi Q_j] \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d},$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$ and a positive constant $C$, where $C$ only depend on the dimension, the function $\varphi$, the numbers $\hbar_0$, ${\lVert \partial^\alpha V \rVert}_\infty$ for $\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^d$, ${\lVert \partial^j f \rVert}_\infty$ for $j$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ and $\sup(\operatorname{supp}(f))$.
We start by proving the first commutator bound. By Theorem \[A.change\_operator\] we note that for any $N\geq0$ $$\label{A.Estimate_1.1}
{\lVert [f(\mathcal{H}), \varphi] \rVert}_{1} \leq {\lVert [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}_{1} + C_N\hbar^N,$$ hence we need only prove the bound for the trace norm of $[f(H_\hbar), \varphi]$. Let $g\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $g(t)f(t)=f(t)$ and $0\leq g(t) \leq 1$ for all $t$ in ${\mathbb{R}}$. Then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
[f(H_\hbar), \varphi] &= f(H_\hbar) \varphi - \varphi f(H_\hbar)
\\
&= g(H_\hbar)f(H_\hbar) \varphi - \varphi g(H_\hbar) f(H_\hbar) +
g(H_\hbar)\varphi f(H_\hbar) - g(H_\hbar)\varphi f(H_\hbar)
\\
&=g(H_\hbar) [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] + [g(H_\hbar), \varphi]
f(H_\hbar).
\end{aligned}$$ These equalities implie that $$\label{A.Estimate_1.2}
{\lVert [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}_{1} \leq {\lVert g(H_\hbar) [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}_1 + {\lVert [g(H_\hbar), \varphi] f(H_\hbar) \rVert}_1.$$ We start by considering the first trace norm ${\lVert g(H_\hbar) [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}_1$ and the second can be treated by an analogous argument. Let $\widetilde{\varphi}$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $\widetilde{\varphi}\varphi=\varphi$ and $0\leq \widetilde{\varphi}\leq1$. Then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Estimate_1.3}
\begin{split}
{\lVert g(H_\hbar) [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}_1 &\leq
{\lVert g(H_\hbar)\widetilde{\varphi} [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}_1 +
{\lVert g(H_\hbar)(1-\widetilde{\varphi}) f(H_\hbar) \varphi \rVert}_1
\\
&\leq {\lVert g(H_\hbar)\widetilde{\varphi} \rVert}_1 {\lVert [f(H_\hbar),
\varphi] \rVert}+ {\lVert (1-\widetilde{\varphi}) f(H_\hbar) \varphi \rVert}_1
\\
&\leq C\hbar^{-d} {\lVert [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert} + C_N \hbar^N,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $N\geq 0$, where we have used Lemma \[A.trace\_norm\_est\_H\] in the last inequality. That $${\lVert [f(H_\hbar), \varphi] \rVert}\leq C\hbar,$$ is a consequence of the functional calculus for $\hbar$-$\Psi$DOs presented in [@MR897108]. It also follows fairly easily from an argument using the Helffer-Sjöstrand formula [@MR1349825] and the resolvent identities. The estimate on the second term in is similar and will be left to the reader. This estimate concludes the proof.
The next lemma is very similar to the above lemma.
\[A.Est\_help\] Suppose the operator $\mathcal{H}$ obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for $R>0$ and let $f$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\hbar_0>0$. For $\varphi$ in $C_0^\infty(B(0,3R))$ it holds that $${\lVert [\mathcal{H},\varphi]f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2 \leq C\hbar^{1-\frac{d}{2}},$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$ for a positive constant $C$, where $C$ only depends on the dimension, the function $\varphi$, the numbers $\hbar_0$, ${\lVert \partial^\alpha V \rVert}_\infty$ for $\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^d$, ${\lVert \partial^j f \rVert}_\infty$ for $j$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ and $\sup(\operatorname{supp}(f))$.
Let $\varphi_1$ be in $C_0^\infty(B(0,3R))$ such that $\varphi_1\varphi=\varphi$ and $0\leq \varphi_1\leq1$. Then by Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] the commutator $[\mathcal{H},\varphi]$ is local in the sense that $$[\mathcal{H},\varphi]=[H_\hbar,\varphi]\varphi_1,$$ where $H_\hbar$ is the operator from Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] i.e. $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2\Delta + V$, where $V$ is in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Therefore there exists a $\lambda_0\geq0$ such that $-\lambda_0$ is in the resolvent set of $H_\hbar$ and the operator $H_\hbar+\lambda_0$ is positive (e.g. $\lambda_0=1+{\lVert V \rVert}_\infty$) We then have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Estimate_2.1}
\begin{split}
{\lVert [\mathcal{H},\varphi]f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2 =&
{\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi]\varphi_1R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)
(H_\hbar+\lambda_0)f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2
\\
\leq& {\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)\varphi_1
(H_\hbar+\lambda_0) f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2
\\
\hbox{} &+ {\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] [\varphi_1 , R_{H_\hbar}
(-\lambda_0)] (H_\hbar+\lambda_0)f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{H_\hbar}(z)=(H_\hbar-z)^{-1}$. If we now consider each of the terms separately we can for the first term note that by Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] and Theorem \[A.change\_operator\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Estimate_2.2}
\begin{split}
{\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)\varphi_1
(H_\hbar+\lambda_0) f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2 &\leq
{\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0) \rVert} {\lVert \varphi_1
(\mathcal{H}+\lambda_0) f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2
\\
&\leq c \hbar^{-\frac{d}{2}} {\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi]
R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0) \rVert}
\\
&\leq C \hbar^{1-\frac{d}{2}},
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the bound $$\label{A.bound_com_proof_1}
{\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0) \rVert}\leq \hbar \sum_{j=1}^d {\lVert (2\varphi_{x_j} Q_j - i\hbar\varphi_{x_j x_j})R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0) \rVert} \leq c \hbar,$$ where we have calculated the commutator explicitly. The bound in is valid since $\mathcal{D}(H_\hbar)\subset \mathcal{D}(Q_j)$ for all $j\in\{1,\dots,d\}$. Moreover in we have used the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert \varphi_1 (\mathcal{H}+\lambda_0) f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2^2 &=
\operatorname{Tr}[\varphi_1 (\mathcal{H}+\lambda_0) f(\mathcal{H})^2
(\mathcal{H}+\lambda_0)\varphi_1 ]
\\
&\leq {\lVert \varphi_1 (\mathcal{H}+\lambda_0) f(\mathcal{H})^2
(\mathcal{H}+\lambda_0)\varphi_1 \rVert}_1 \leq C\hbar^{-d},
\end{aligned}$$ by Theorem \[A.change\_operator\]. For the other term on the right hand side of we note that $$\label{A.Estimate_2.3}
{\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] [\varphi_1 , R_{H_\hbar} (-\lambda_0)] (H_\hbar+\lambda_0)f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2 = {\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0) [H_\hbar,\varphi_1 ] f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2$$ Let $\varphi_2$ be in $C_0^\infty(B(0,3R))$ such that $\varphi_2\varphi_1=\varphi_1$ and $0\leq \varphi_2\leq1$ and note that by Theorem \[A.change\_operator\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Estimate_2.3}
\begin{split}
\lVert[H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)
&[H_\hbar,\varphi_1 ] f(\mathcal{H})\rVert_2
\\
&= {\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)
[H_\hbar,\varphi_1 ]\varphi_2 f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2
\\
&\leq {\lVert [H_\hbar,\varphi] R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)^\frac{1}{2} \rVert}
{\lVert R_{H_\hbar}(-\lambda_0)^\frac{1}{2} [H_\hbar,\varphi_1
] \rVert}{\lVert \varphi_2 f(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_2
\\
&\leq C \hbar^{2-\frac{d}{2}},
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that the commutators $[H_\hbar,\varphi]$ and $[H_\hbar,\varphi_1]$ can be calculated explicitly and that their domains contains the form domain of $H_\hbar$. Combining estimates , and we get the desired bound.
Local case with a non-critical condition
----------------------------------------
We will now state and prove the local version of the main theorem (Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\]) with a non-critical condition. It should be noted that we are only dealing with open balls as the domain in Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] since when we extend the result we will use them to cover a general open set.
\[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\] Suppose the operator $\mathcal{H}$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$ obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,4R)$ for $R>0$ and $$\label{A.noncrit.Main_Local_Theorem_wnc}
{\left| V(x) \right|}+ {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq c,$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$, where $c>0$. Furthermore, let $\hbar_0$ be a strictly positive number. For $\varphi$ in $C_0^\infty(B(0,R/2))$ it holds that $$\label{A.local_bounds}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}), \varphi] \rVert}_{1} \leq C \hbar^{1-d}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}), \varphi Q_j] \rVert}_{1} \leq C \hbar^{1-d},$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$ and $j\in\{1,\dots,d\}$, where $Q_j= -i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$. The constant $C$ only depends on the dimension, the numbers ${\lVert \partial_x^\alpha V \rVert}_\infty$ and ${\lVert \partial_x^\alpha \varphi \rVert}_\infty$ for all $\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^d$, and the numbers $R$ and $c$ in .
We start by proving the first bound in . We notice that $$\label{A.local_eq_1}
[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}),\varphi] = \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) - \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}).$$ We will consider each of the terms in separately and they can be handled with analogous arguments. So we only consider the term $\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H})$. By and continuity, there exists an $\varepsilon>0$ such that for all $E$ in $[-2\varepsilon,2\varepsilon]$ we have $${\left| E-V(x) \right|}+ {\left| \nabla V(x) \right|}^2 + \hbar \geq \frac{c}{2},$$ for all $x$ in $B(0,2R)$. Without loss of generality we can assume $\varepsilon\leq1$. Let $g_1$ and $g_0$ be two functions such that
- $g_1(\mathcal{H}) + g_0(\mathcal{H}) =
\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H})$.
- $\operatorname{supp}(g_0) \subset [-\varepsilon,0]$ and $g_0(t)=1$ for $t \in [-\varepsilon/2,0]$.
- $g_1 \in C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$.
That $g_1$ can assumed to be compactly supported is due to the fact that the spectrum of $\mathcal{H}$ is bounded from below. With these functions we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.local_eq_2}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) &= g_1(\mathcal{H})
\varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) +
g_0(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H})
\\
&= [g_1(\mathcal{H}), \varphi]
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) + g_0(\mathcal{H})
\varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ For the first term we note that by Lemma \[A.simpel\_case\] we have the estimate: $$\label{A.local_eq_3}
{\lVert [g_1(\mathcal{H}), \varphi] \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} \leq {\lVert [g_1(\mathcal{H}), \varphi] \rVert}_{1}
\leq C \hbar^{1-d}.$$ In order to estimate the term $g_0(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H})$ we let $f$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $f(t)=1$ on $[-\varepsilon,0]$ and $\operatorname{supp}(f) \subset[-2\varepsilon,\varepsilon]$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
g_0(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H})
&= g_0(\mathcal{H})f(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(\varepsilon,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) +
g_0(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H})
\\
& = g_0(\mathcal{H}) [f(\mathcal{H}), \varphi ]
\boldsymbol{1}_{(\varepsilon,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) +
g_0(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H}).
\end{aligned}$$ Again from Lemma \[A.simpel\_case\] we have the estimate: $$\label{A.local_eq_13}
{\lVert g_0(\mathcal{H}) [f(\mathcal{H}), \varphi ] \boldsymbol{1}_{(\varepsilon,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq {\lVert [f(\mathcal{H}), \varphi ] \rVert}_{1}
\leq C\hbar^{1-d}.$$ What remains is to get an estimate of the trace norm of the term $g_0(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H})$. In order to estimate this term we define the following $\hbar$ dependent dyadic decomposition: $$\chi_{n,\hbar} (t) =
\begin{cases}
\boldsymbol{1}_{(\hbar,0]}(t) & n=0
\\
\boldsymbol{1}_{(-4^n\hbar,-4^{n-1}\hbar]}(t) & n\in{\mathbb{N}}.
\end{cases}$$ moreover we let $\widetilde{\chi}_{n,\hbar}(t) = \chi_{n,\hbar} (-t)$. Then there exist $N(\hbar)$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$g_0(\mathcal{H}) = \sum_{n=0}^{N(\hbar)} g_0(\mathcal{H})\chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H})
\quad\text{and}\quad
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H}) = \sum_{m=0}^{N(\hbar)} \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H}).
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}).$$ With these equalities we get the following inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Full_sum}
\begin{split}
\lVert g_1 &(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H})\rVert_{1} \leq
\sum_{n=0}^{N(\hbar)} \sum_{m=0}^{N(\hbar)}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\\
= & \sum_{n=1}^{N(\hbar)}\sum_{m\geq n}^{N(\hbar)}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} +
\sum_{m=1}^{N(\hbar)}\sum_{n> m}^{N(\hbar)}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\\
& \hbox{} + \sum_{n=1}^{N(\hbar)}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{0,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
+\sum_{m=1}^{N(\hbar)}{\lVert \chi_{0,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} +
{\lVert \chi_{0,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{0,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ We will start by considering a term from the first double sum. Hence we assume that $m\geq n>0$. The support of $\chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H})$ is $[-4^n \hbar ,-4^{n-1} \hbar] = [-2^{2n}\hbar,-2^{2(n-1)}\hbar]$, which contains the point $-2^{2n-1}\hbar$, and similarly the support of $\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H})$ is $[4^{m-1}\hbar,4^{m}\hbar] = [2^{2(m-1)}\hbar,2^{2m}\hbar]$. We note that we can make the following estimate, using the spectral theorem. $$\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft[3] \lVert\chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H})\rVert_{1}
\\
={}& {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi (\mathcal{H}
+2^{2n-1}\hbar) \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) (\mathcal{H}
+ 2^{2n-1}\hbar)^{-1} \rVert}_{1}
\\
\leq{} & {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H})\varphi (\mathcal{H} +
2^{2n-1}\hbar)
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}(2^{2(m-1)}\hbar+
2^{2n-1}\hbar)^{-1}
\\
\leq{} &(2^{2(m-1)}\hbar+ 2^{2n-1}\hbar)^{-1} \big\{
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) (\mathcal{H} +
2^{2n-1}\hbar)\varphi \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\\
&+ {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) [\varphi,\mathcal{H}]
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} \big\}
\\
\leq{} & \frac{2^{2n-1}}{2^{2(m-1)}+ 2^{2n-1}}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\\
&+ (2^{2(m-1)}\hbar+ 2^{2n-1}\hbar)^{-1} {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}
(\mathcal{H}) [\varphi,\mathcal{H}]
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1},
\end{aligned}$$ With $$a \coloneqq \frac{2^{2n-1}}{2^{2(m-1)}+ 2^{2n-1}} .$$ The above calculation implies that $$(1-a) {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} \leq (2^{2(m-1)}\hbar+ 2^{2n-1}\hbar)^{-1} {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})
[\varphi, \mathcal{H}] \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}.$$ This implies the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.local_eq_4}
\begin{split}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} \leq& (1-a)^{-1}
(2^{2(m-1)}\hbar+ 2^{2n-1}\hbar)^{-1} {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}
(\mathcal{H}) [\varphi,\mathcal{H}]
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\\
\leq& \frac{1}{2^{2(m-1)}\hbar}{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}
(\mathcal{H}) [\varphi,\mathcal{H}]
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Due to the double sum in we need to repeat the argument. By an analogous argument the following estimate holds $$\label{A.local_eq_5}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) [\varphi,\mathcal{H}] \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq \frac{1}{2^{2(m-1)}\hbar} {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})
[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}.$$ By combining and we get that $$\label{A.Estimate_1_III}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \varphi \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq \frac{1}{4^{2(m-1)}\hbar^2} {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})
[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}.$$ We will now prove that $$\label{A.local_eq_12}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \varphi \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq C \frac{4^{\frac{m+n}{2}} \hbar^{3-d}}{4^{2(m-1)}\hbar^2} = \frac{16 C }{4^{\frac{3}{4}m - \frac{1}{2}n}} \hbar^{1-d},$$ for $m\geq n \geq1$ is true. By Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] we have that $$\label{A.local_eq_21}
[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] = [[\varphi,H_\hbar],H_\hbar],$$ since we have assumed that the operator $\mathcal{H}$ acts on $C_0^\infty(B(0,4R))$ as the operator $H_\hbar$. By a calculation we note that $$\label{A.local_eq_6}
[[\varphi,H_\hbar],H_\hbar]
= \hbar^2 \sum_{j=1}^d \sum_{l=1}^d \big[ -2( Q_l \varphi_{x_j x_l} Q_j + Q_j \varphi_{x_j x_l} Q_l) + 2 \varphi_{x_j} V_{x_j} + \hbar^2 \varphi_{x_j x_j x_l x_l } \big],$$ where $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_j}$ and $\varphi_{x_j}(x)=(\partial_{x_j}\varphi)(x)$. With this form of the double commutator we have $$\label{A.local_eq_7}
{\lVert R_{H_\hbar}(i) [[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] R_{H_\hbar}(i) \rVert} \leq c \hbar^2,$$ where $R_{H_\hbar}(i)=(H_\hbar-i)^{-1}$ is the resolvent at the point $i$, since $\mathcal{D}(H_\hbar)\subset \mathcal{D}(Q_j)$ for all $j\in\{1,\dots,d\}$. In order to estimate the right hand side in let $\psi$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $\psi(x)=1$ for all $x$ in $\operatorname{supp}(\varphi)$ and $\operatorname{supp}(\psi)\subset B(0,R/2)$. As the double commutator is local, which follows from and , we have $$\label{A.local_eq_8}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
=
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \psi [[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] \psi \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}.$$ By inserting two resolvents, applying a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the estimate , we have $$\label{A.local_eq_9}
\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft \lVert\chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \psi
[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] \psi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H})\rVert_{1}
\\
&= {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \psi(H_\hbar-i)
R_{H_\hbar}(i) [[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}]
R_{H_\hbar}(i) (H_\hbar-i) \psi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\\
&\leq c \hbar^2 {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})
\psi(H_\hbar-i) \rVert}_{2} {\lVert (H_\hbar-i) \psi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ If we consider the first of the two Hilbert-Schmidt norms we have $$\label{A.local_eq_10}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \psi(H_\hbar-i) \rVert}_{2} \leq {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) (H_\hbar-i) \psi \rVert}_{2} + {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) [\psi,H_\hbar] \rVert}_{2}.$$ By Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] and Proposition \[A.Weyl\_used\_local\] we have $$\label{A.local_eq_11}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) (H_\hbar-i) \psi \rVert}_{2} \leq 2 {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \psi \rVert}_{2} = 2 \sqrt{\operatorname{Tr}[\psi \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})^2 \psi ] }\leq 2 \sqrt{C 4^n \hbar^{1-d}}.$$ For the second term in let $f$ be in $C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $f(t)=1$ for $t\in[-\frac32 \varepsilon,\frac32 \varepsilon]$ and $f(t)=0$ for ${\left| t \right|}\geq 2\varepsilon$. Then we have the bound $${\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) [\psi,H_\hbar] \rVert}_{2}= {\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) f(\mathcal{H}) [\psi,H_\hbar] \rVert}_{2} \leq {\lVert f(\mathcal{H}) [\psi,H_\hbar] \rVert}_{2} \leq c\hbar^{1-\frac{d}{2}}.$$ by Lemma \[A.Est\_help\]. Combining this estimate with and we get $$\label{A.local_eq_17}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H}) \psi(H_\hbar-i) \rVert}_{2} \leq \sqrt{\widetilde{C} 4^n \hbar^{1-d}}.$$ By analogous estimates we also get $$\label{A.local_eq_18}
{\lVert (H_\hbar-i) \psi \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{2} \leq \sqrt{\widetilde{C} 4^m \hbar^{1-d}}.$$ Now by combing and with and we get $$\label{A.Estimate_3_III}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar} (\mathcal{H})[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] \widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq
C 4^{\frac{n+m}{2}} \hbar^{1-d}.$$ By and we have the estimate . Using we can now estimate the double sum $$\sum_{n=1}^{N(\hbar)}\sum_{m\geq n}^{N(\hbar)}
{\lVert \chi_{n,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi
\widetilde{\chi}_{m,\hbar}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}\leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m\geq n}^{\infty} \frac{C
}{4^{\frac{3}{4}m - \frac{1}{2}n}} \hbar^{1-d} \leq \widetilde{C} \hbar^{1-d}.$$ The remaining terms in can be estimated in a similar way. The second double sum is estimated by the same argument but with the roles of $m$ and $n$ interchanged. To estimate the two single sums we only need to introduce one commutator to make the sum converge and then use the same arguments as for the double sum. For the last term we use a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Adding all our estimates up we have the bound $$\label{A.local_eq_14}
{\lVert g_1(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\varepsilon]}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d}.$$ By combining with and we get the estimate $$\label{A.local_eq_19}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq C\hbar^{1-d}.$$ Since the trace norm satisfies the equality ${\lVert A \rVert}_1 = {\lVert A^{*} \rVert}_1$ we also have the bound, $$\label{A.local_eq_20}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(0,\infty)}(\mathcal{H}) \varphi \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}) \rVert}_{1}
\leq C\hbar^{1-d}.$$ By combining and with we obtain the desired bound for the first part of .
For the second estimate in we essentially repeat the argument. The main difference occurs when the double commutator $[[\varphi,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}]$ is calculated. In this case, one has to calculate the commutator $[[\varphi Q_i,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}]$. This can be done and one obtains the result $$\begin{aligned}
[[\varphi Q_i,&\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}] = [[\varphi
Q_i,H_\hbar],H_\hbar]
\\
=& \hbar^2 \sum_{j=1}^d 2 \varphi_{x_j} V_{x_i} Q_j + 2
\varphi_{x_j} V_{x_j} Q_i - 2 i \hbar \varphi_{x_j} V_{x_j x_i} -
i \hbar \varphi_{x_j x_j} V_{x_i}
\\
&\hbox{} + \hbar^2 \sum_{k=1}^d\Big\{ 2 (\varphi V_{x_i})_{x_k}
Q_k - i \hbar (\varphi V_{x_i})_{x_k x_k} + \sum_{j=1}^d \big[ - 4
Q_k \varphi_{x_j x_k} Q_i Q_j
\\
&\hbox{} - 4 i \hbar \varphi_{x_j x_k x_k} Q_i Q_j + 2i \hbar
\varphi_{x_j x_k} Q_i Q_j + 2 \hbar \varphi_{x_j x_j x_k} Q_i Q_k
+ \hbar^2 \varphi_{x_j x_j x_k x_k} Q_i \big] \Big\},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\]. From this form we can note that again we have a bound of the type $${\lVert R_{H_\hbar}(i) [[\varphi Q_i,\mathcal{H}],\mathcal{H}]R_{H_\hbar}(i) \rVert} \leq c\hbar^2,$$ since $\mathcal{D}(H_\hbar)\subset \mathcal{D}(Q_j Q_i)$ for all $j,i\in\{1,\dots,d\}$. From here the proof proceeds as above just with some extra terms to consider. We omit the details.
Local case without non-critical condition
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection we will apply the multiscale techniques of [@MR1343781] (see also [@MR1631419; @MR1240575]). Using this approach will allow us to remove the non critical assumption on the potential. Before we state and prove our theorem we will need a lemma and a remark.
\[A.partition\_lemma\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be an open set and let $f$ be a function in $C^1(\bar{\Omega})$ such that $f>0$ on $\bar{\Omega}$ and assume that there exists $\rho$ in $(0,1)$ such that $${\left| \nabla_x f(x) \right|} \leq \rho,$$ for all $x$ in $\Omega$.
Then
1. There exists a sequence $\{x_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ in $\Omega$ such that the open balls $B(x_k,f(x_k))$ form a covering of $\Omega$. Furthermore, there exists a constant $N_\rho$, depending only on the constant $\rho$, such that the intersection of more than $N_\rho$ balls is empty.
2. One can choose a sequence $\{\varphi_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ such that $\varphi_k \in C_0^\infty(B(x_k,f(x_k)))$ for all $k$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover, for all multiindices $\alpha$ and all $k$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ $${\left| \partial_x^\alpha \varphi_k(x) \right|}\leq C_\alpha f(x_k)^{-{{\left| \alpha \right|}}},$$ and $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \varphi_k(x) = 1,$$ for all $x$ in $\Omega$.
This lemma is taken from [@MR1343781] where it is Lemma 5.4. The proof is analogous to the proof of [@MR1996773 Theorem 1.4.10].
\[A.con\_remark\] A crucial step in the following proof is scaling of our operator. Let $D_f$ and $T_z$, for $f>0$ and $z\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, be the unitary dilation and translation operators defined by $$(D_f u)(x) = f^\frac{d}{2} u(fx) ,$$ and $$(T_z u)(x) = u(x+z) ,$$ for $u$ in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. We let $f$ be a positive number and suppose $\mathcal{H}$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega$ being the open ball $B(z,f)$. We will consider the operator $$\widetilde{\mathcal{H}} = f^{-2} ( T_z U_f) \mathcal{H}( T_z U_f)^{*}.$$ The operator $\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}$ is selfadjoint and lower semibounded since $\mathcal{H}$ is assumed to be selfadjoint and lower semibounded which is the first part of Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\]. The last part of the assumption will be fulfilled with the set $B(0,1)$, the function $\widetilde{V}_f(x)=f^{-2} V(fx+z)$ and a scaled $\hbar$ which we will call $h$. To see this note that for $\varphi \in C_0^\infty(B(0,1))$ it holds that $( T_z U_f)^{*} \varphi$ is an element of $C_0^\infty(B(z,f))$ since $$( T_z U_f)^{*} \varphi(x) = f^{-\frac{d}{2}} \varphi\big( \tfrac{x-z}{f} \big).$$ Hence we have that, using Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] for $\mathcal{H}$ $$\widetilde{\mathcal{H}} \varphi = -\left(\tfrac{\hbar}{ f^2}\right)^2 \Delta \varphi (x) + f^{-2} V(fx+z) \varphi(x),$$ This calculation shows that our operator $\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=B(0,1)$, $V_{loc}=\widetilde{V}_f$ and the new “Planck’s constant” $h= \frac{\hbar}{ f^2}$.
We are now ready to remove the non-critical assumption.
\[A.main\_local\_nc\] Suppose the operator $\mathcal{H}$ acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$ obeys Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with an open set $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and let $\hbar_0$ be a strictly positive number. For $\psi$ in $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ it holds that $$\label{A.bound_without_nc}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}), \psi] \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}), \psi Q_j] \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d},$$ for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$, where $C$ is a positive constant.
First note that by assumption $\psi$ is in $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$. Hence there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$\text{dist}(\operatorname{supp}(\psi), \partial\Omega) >\varepsilon.$$ We define the function $f$ by $$\label{A.def_of_func_f}
f(x) = A^{-1} \left[ V(x)^2 + {\left| \nabla_xV(x) \right|}^4 + \hbar^2 \right]^\frac14 \qquad A>0,$$ where we have to choose a sufficiently large $A$. It can be noted that $f$ is a positive function due to $\hbar$ being a fixed positive number. We will need to choose $A$ such that $$\label{A.l_bound}
f(x) \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{9} \quad\text{and}\quad {\left| \nabla_x f(x) \right|} \leq \rho < \frac18.$$ Since $V$ is smooth with compact support $A$ can be chosen such that is satisfied. The construction of $f$ allows us to choose $A$ such that the bounds are valid for all $\hbar$ in $(0,\hbar_0]$. Hence $A$ will be independent of $\hbar$, for $\hbar$ in the interval $(0,\hbar_0]$. Moreover, we observe that this construction gives the estimates $$\label{A.uniform-est-V_f}
{\left| V(x) \right|} \leq A f(x)^2,
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\left| \partial_{x_i} V(x) \right|} \leq A f(x).$$ This observation will prove useful for controlling bounds on some derivatives.
By Lemma \[A.partition\_lemma\] with the set $\Omega$ and our function $f$ there exists a sequence $\{x_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ in $\Omega$ such that $\Omega\subset \bigcup_{k=0}^\infty B(x_k, f(x_k))$ and there exists a constant $N_{\frac18}$ in $\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\bigcap_{k \in \mathcal{I}} B(x_k,f(x_k)) = \emptyset,$$ for all $\mathcal{I}\subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $\#\mathcal{I}>N_{\frac18}$. Moreover, there exists a sequence $\{\varphi_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ such that $\varphi_k \in C_0^\infty(B(x_k,f(x_k)))$, $${\left| \partial_x^\alpha \varphi_k \right|} \leq C_\alpha f(x_k)^{-{\left| \alpha \right|}} \qquad \forall \alpha\in {\mathbb{N}}^d,$$ and $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \varphi_k(x) = 1 \qquad \forall x\in \Omega.$$ Since $\operatorname{supp}(\psi)\subset \Omega$ the union $\bigcup_{k=0}^\infty B(x_k, f(x_k))$ forms an open cover of $\operatorname{supp}(\psi)$ by assumption the support is compact hence there exists $\mathcal{I} \subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $\# \mathcal{I}<\infty$ and $$\Omega \subset \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal{I}} B(x_k, f(x_k)).$$ We can assume that each ball has a nontrivial intersection with $\Omega$. Since at most $N_\frac18$ balls intersect nontrivially we can without loss of generality assume that $$\sum_{k\in \mathcal{I}} \varphi_k(x) = 1 \qquad \forall x\in \operatorname{supp}(\psi).$$ From this we get the following estimate: $$\label{A.Esimate_4.1}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}), \psi] \rVert}_{1} \leq \sum_{k\in \mathcal{I}}{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}),\varphi_k \psi] \rVert}_{1}.$$ We will consider each term separately. We can note that the function $\varphi_k\psi$ is smooth and supported in the ball $B(x_k,f(x_k))$. The idea is now to make a unitary conjugation of our commutator such that a non-critical assumption is obtained.
Let $T_{x_k}$ be the unitary translation with $x_k$ and let $U_{f(x_k)}$ be the unitary scaling operator with $f(x_k)$. We will use the notation from Remark \[A.con\_remark\] and let $$\widetilde{\varphi_k\psi}(x) = \varphi_k\psi(f(x_k)x+x_k).$$ Since the trace norm is invariant under unitary conjugation we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}),\varphi_k
\psi] \rVert}_{1}
\\
&=f(x_k)^2 {\lVert f(x_k)^{-2} (T_{x_k} U_{f(x_k)})
[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}),\varphi_k \psi]
(T_{x_k} U_{f(x_k)})^* \rVert}_{1}
\\
&=f(x_k)^2
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}),\widetilde{\varphi_k
\psi}] \rVert}_{1}.
\end{aligned}$$ By Remark \[A.con\_remark\], $\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $h=\hbar f(x_k)^{-2}$, $\widetilde{V}_f$ and $B(0,8)$, since by construction we have that $B(x_k,8f(x_k)) \subset \Omega$.
For all $x$ in $B(x_k,8f(x_k))$ we have that $$\label{A.Main_wonc_pr_1}
\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft f(x) = f(x) - f(x_k) + f(x_k)
\\
&\geq - \max_{c\in[0,1]} {\left| \nabla_xf(cx+(1-c)x_k) \right|} {\left| x-x_k \right|}
+f(x_k)
\\
&\geq (1- 8\rho)f(x_k).
\end{aligned}$$ Analogously we can note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.Main_wonc_pr_2}
f(x) \leq (1+ 8\rho)f(x_k),
\end{aligned}$$ for all $x$ in $B(x_k,8 f(x_k))$. We note that the numbers $1\pm 8\rho$ are independent of $k$. The aim is to use Theorem \[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\]. To see that the non-critical assumption is satisfied we note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \widetilde{V}_f(x) \right|} +& h + {\left| \nabla_x \widetilde{V}_f(x) \right|}^2
\\
&= f(x_k)^{-2}\left( {\left| V(f(x_k)x+x_k) \right|} + \hbar + {\left| (\nabla_x
V)(f(x_k) x + x_k ) \right|}^2 \right)
\\
&= f(x_k)^{-2}\left( \sqrt{{\left| V(f(x_k)x+x_k) \right|}^2} +
\sqrt{\hbar^2} + \sqrt{{\left| (\nabla_x V)(f(x_k) x + x_k ) \right|}^4}
\right)
\\
&\geq f(x_k)^{-2}\left({\left| V(f(x_k)x+x_k) \right|}^2 +\hbar^2 +
{\left| (\nabla_x V)(f(x_k) x + x_k ) \right|}^4 \right)^{\frac12}
\\
&= f(x_k)^{-2} A^2 f(f(x_k) x + x_k )^2
\\
&\geq c A^2 >0.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used and to get the cancelation. Therefore the assumption is valid for the operator $\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}$. In order to ensure uniformity of the error terms from Theorem \[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\] we need the derivatives of $\widetilde{V}_f$ and $\widetilde{\varphi_k \psi}$ to be bounded uniformly in $k$. We note that $${\left| \partial_x^\alpha \widetilde{V}_f \right|}
= {\left| f(x_k)^{{\left| \alpha \right|}-2} (\partial_x^\alpha V)(f(x_k)x+x_k) \right|} \leq C_\alpha,$$ where we in the cases of $\alpha=0$ and ${\left| \alpha \right|}=1$ use the estimates from equation . For $\widetilde{\varphi_k \psi}$ we note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \partial_x^\alpha \widetilde{\varphi_k \psi} \right|} &=
{\left| f(x_k)^{{\left| \alpha \right|}} \sum_{\beta\leq \alpha}
{\binom{\alpha}{\beta}} (\partial_x^{\beta}
\varphi_k)(f(x_k)x+x_k) (\partial_x^{\alpha - \beta}
\psi)(f(x_k)x+x_k) \right|}
\\
&\leq \sum_{\beta\leq \alpha} {\binom{\alpha}{\beta}}
f(x_k)^{{\left| \alpha-\beta \right|}} {\left| (\partial_x^{\alpha - \beta}
\psi)(f(x_k)x+x_k) \right|} \leq \widetilde{C}_\alpha.
\end{aligned}$$ Lastly we need to verify that the new semiclassical parameter is bounded. By the choice of $A$ we have $$h_k= \frac{\hbar}{f(x_k)^2} \leq A^2,$$ where we have used the definition of the function $f$ . Hence we are in a situation where we can use Theorem \[A.Main\_Local\_Theorem \_wnc\] which implies that $$\label{A.Main_wonc_pr_3}
\begin{aligned}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H}),\varphi_k
\psi] \rVert}_{1} &=f(x_k)^2
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}),\widetilde{\varphi_k
\psi}] \rVert}_{1}
\\
&\leq f(x_k)^2 c \left(\frac{\hbar}{f(x_k)^2}\right)^{1-d}
\\
&\leq C \hbar^{1-d} \int_{B(x_k,f(x_k))} f(x)^{d} \,d{x},
\end{aligned}$$ with $C$ independent of $k$ in $\mathcal{I}$ and where we also have used and in the last estimate. Since $f$ is a bounded function and at most $N_{\frac18}$ of the balls $B(x_k,f(x_k))$ can intersect non-empty we get the estimate $$\label{A.Main_wonc_pr_4}
\sum_{k\in \mathcal{I}} \int_{B(x_k,f(x_k))} f(x)^{d} \;d{x} \leq
C(N_{\frac18}) \text{Vol}(\Omega).$$ By combining and with we get the estimate $${\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H_\hbar}), \psi] \rVert}_{1} \leq \sum_{k\in \mathcal{I}}{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(\mathcal{H_\hbar}),\varphi_k \psi] \rVert}_{1} \leq C \hbar^{1-d} ,$$ where $C$ depends on the set $\Omega$, the number $N_{\frac18}$, the derivatives of $\psi$ and the potential $V$. We now need to prove the second bound in . The proof of this bound is completely analogous. Notice that when the unitary conjugation is made one should multiply by $f(x_k)^3 f(x_k)^{-3}$ instead of $f(x_k)^2 f(x_k)^{-2}$ due to the extra derivative. This ends the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] and Corollary \[A.cor\_Main\_Theorem\] {#A.Proof_of_Main}
===========================================================================
In this section we will use the results obtained in the previous sections to prove Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\] and then use this theorem to prove Corollary \[A.cor\_Main\_Theorem\]. First the proof of Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\]:
Recall that we are in the setting with $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2 \Delta + V$ being a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $d\geq2$, where $V$ satisfies Assumption \[A.general\_assumptions\_on\_V\] and $\hbar$ is bounded by a strictly positive number $\hbar_0$. We will here prove the following bounds $$\label{A.cbound_3}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),x_i] \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),Q_j] \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d} ,$$ where $Q_j=-i\hbar\partial_{x_i}$ and $j \in\{1,\dots,d\}$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $V$ attains negative values. If not, then $H_\hbar$ would be a positive operator with purely positive spectrum which implies both commutators would be zero and hence satisfy the estimate.
By assumption we have the open set $\Omega_V$ for which $V\in C^\infty(\Omega_V)$ and the bounded set $\Omega_\varepsilon$ satisfying that $\overline{\Omega}_\varepsilon \subset
\Omega_V$. Hence we can find an open set $U$ satisfying that it is bounded and $$\Omega_\varepsilon \subset \subset U \subset \subset \Omega_V$$ where $ \subset \subset$ means compactly imbedded. We let $\chi$ be in $C_0^\infty(U)$ such that $0\leq\chi\leq1$ and $\chi(x)=1$ for all $x$ in $\overline{\Omega}_\varepsilon$. Moreover we let $\widetilde{\chi}$ be in $C_0^\infty(\Omega_V)$ such that $0\leq\widetilde{\chi}\leq1$ and $\widetilde{\chi}(x)=1$ for all $x$ in $\overline{U}$. With these sets and functions we have that our operator $H_\hbar$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=U$ and $V_{loc}=V\widetilde{\chi}$. With this setup we are ready to prove the bounds in .
We will now consider the first commutator in and note that $$\label{A.proof_main_1}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),x_i] \rVert}_{1} \leq {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),\chi x_i] \rVert}_{1}
+ {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),(1-\chi)x_i] \rVert}_{1}.$$ For the first term in we are in a situation where we can use Theorem \[A.main\_local\_nc\] since $\chi x_i$ is in $C_0^\infty(U)$ and $H_\hbar$ satisfies Assumption \[A.local\_assumptions\] with $\Omega=U$. Then the theorem gives us the bound: $$\label{A.finalbound_1}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),\chi x_i] \rVert}_{1} \leq C\hbar^{1-d}.$$ For the other term we note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),(1-\chi)x_i] \rVert}_{1}
&\leq {\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{1}
+{\lVert (1-\chi)x_i\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \rVert}_{1}
\\
&= 2{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{1}.
\end{aligned}$$ By a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.finalbound_2}
\begin{split}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{1}
&\leq {\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \rVert}_{2}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{2}
\\
&= \operatorname{Tr}(\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar))^\frac12
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{2}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ The first term squared can be estimated by a constant times $\hbar^{-\frac{d}{2}}$ by Remark \[A.clr\_bound\_remark\]. For the second term we calculate the trace in a basis of eigenfunctions for $H_\hbar$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.finalbound_3}
\begin{split}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{2}^2 &=
\operatorname{Tr}[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i^2(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)]
\\
&= \sum_{\lambda_n \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{4}}
{\langle \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i^2(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , \psi_n \rangle}
\\
&= \sum_{\lambda_n \leq 0} {\lVert (1-\chi)x_i\psi_n \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate the $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$-norm, we let $d(x)=\mathrm{dist}(x,\Omega_\varepsilon)$. For all $x$ in the support of $1-\chi$ we have that $d(x)>0$ since $\Omega_\varepsilon$ is a proper subset of the support of $\chi$. We can note that $V$ is an element of $L_{loc}^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ hence Lemma \[A.Agmon\_type\_lem\] gives the existence of a constant $C$ only depending on $V$ such that for all eigenvectors $\psi_n$ with eigenvalue less than $\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}$ we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert e^{\delta d \hbar^{-1}} \psi_n \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} \leq C,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta=\tfrac{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}{8}$. With these observations we can note that for all norms in the last sum of we have for all $N$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$ the bound $$\label{A.trick_small_norm_end}
\begin{aligned}
{\lVert (1-\chi)x_i\psi_n \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2 &\leq {\lVert (1-\chi)x_i e^{-\delta\varphi\hbar^{-1}} \rVert}_\infty^2
{\lVert e^{\delta\varphi\hbar^{-1}} \psi_n \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2
\\
&\leq C {\lVert (1-\chi)x_i (\frac {\hbar}{\delta \varphi})^N
(\frac{\delta \varphi}{\hbar})^N
e^{-\delta\varphi\hbar^{-1}} \rVert}_\infty^2
\\
&\leq C_N \hbar^{2N},
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant depends on the choice of the set $U$, $\delta(\varepsilon)$ and the power $N$. If we now combine this estimate with we get $$\label{A.final_bound_4}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{2}^2 \leq C \hbar^{2N-d} ,$$ where we have used Remark \[A.clr\_bound\_remark\] to estimate the number of terms in the sum in . Combining with we get $${\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)x_i \rVert}_{1} \leq C_N \hbar^{N-d}.$$ Now by combining this bound with we get the desired bound in .
For the second bound in we take the same $\chi$ as above and note that $${\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),Q_i] \rVert}_{1} \leq {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),\chi Q_i] \rVert}_{1} + {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),(1-\chi)Q_i] \rVert}_{1}.$$ The first term can as above be estimated by applying Theorem \[A.main\_local\_nc\]. The second term will be proven to be small as before. We note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),(1-\chi)Q_i] \rVert}_{1}
&\leq {\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)Q_i \rVert}_{1}
+ {\lVert (1-\chi)Q_i\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \rVert}_{1}
\\
&\leq 2
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)Q_i \rVert}_{1} +\hbar
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\partial_{x_i}\chi \rVert}_{1}.
\end{aligned}$$ The second term is on the same form as the left hand side of and hence can be treated as above. For the first term we have that $${\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)Q_i \rVert}_{1}
\leq
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \rVert}_{2}{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)Q_i \rVert}_{2}.$$ The first term can be controlled by Remark \[A.clr\_bound\_remark\]. For the second term we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)Q_i \rVert}_{2} =&
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)Q_i^2(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \rVert}_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\\
\leq&
{\lVert \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)(H_\hbar+c)(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \rVert}_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$c=1-\inf_{x \in\Omega_\varepsilon}(V(x)).$$ If we now calculate the trace norm by choosing a basis of eigenfunctions of $H_\hbar$ we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)&(1-\chi)(H_\hbar+c)(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\rVert_{1}
\\
&= \sum_{\lambda_n \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{4}}
{\langle \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)(H_\hbar+c)(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , \psi_n \rangle}.
\end{aligned}$$ If we consider just one of the terms we have by the IMS formula that $$\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft {\langle \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)(1-\chi)(H_\hbar+c)(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , \psi_n \rangle}
\\
={}& c {\langle (1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , (1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n \rangle}
\\
&+ {\langle H_\hbar(1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , (1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n \rangle}
\\
={}& c {\langle (1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , (1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n \rangle}
\\
&+{\langle (1-\chi)H_\hbar \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n , (1-\chi)\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\psi_n \rangle}
\\
&+ \hbar^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} {\left| \nabla_x\chi \right|}^2 {\left| \psi_n \right|}^2
\; d{x}
\\
\leq{}& (c+\lambda_n){\lVert (1-\chi)\psi_n \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2 + \hbar^2
{\lVert {\left| \nabla_x\chi \right|} \psi_n \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ We can note that the number $ c+\lambda_n$ is less than or equal to $c+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ for the possible values of $\lambda_n$. For the two norms we can use the same trick as in and thereby show that they are small in $\hbar$. This completes the proof.
Now the proof of the corollary:
We start by observing that the operator $$[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),x],$$ is a trace class operator by Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\], where the commutator is interpreted as the sum of the commutators with each entry in the vector $x$. Moreover we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.exp_com}
\begin{split}
[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),e^{i \langle t,x\rangle}]
&= \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)e^{i \langle t,x\rangle}
- e^{i \langle t,x\rangle} \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)
\\
&= e^{i \langle t,x\rangle}\Big( e^{-i \langle
t,x\rangle}\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)e^{i \langle
t,x\rangle} - \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)\Big).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ We define the function $f:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d))$, where $\mathcal{B}(L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d))$ are the bounded operators on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, by $$f(s) = e^{-i \langle t,x\rangle s}\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar)e^{i\langle t,x\rangle s}.$$ For this function we note that $$e^{i \langle t,x\rangle}(f(1) - f(0)) = [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),e^{i \langle t,x\rangle}].$$ By we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}f(s) &= - i \langle t,x\rangle e^{-i\langle t,x\rangle
s} \boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) e^{i\langle t,x\rangle
s} + i e^{-\langle t,x\rangle s}
\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) \langle t,x\rangle
e^{i\langle t,x\rangle s}
\\
&=i e^{- i \langle t,x\rangle s}
[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) ,\langle t,x\rangle ]
e^{i\langle t,x\rangle s}.
\end{aligned}$$ With this we note by the fundamental theorem of calculus that $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar),e^{i \langle
t,x\rangle}] \rVert}_1 &= {\lVert \int_0^1 e^{i\langle t,x\rangle(1-
s)} [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) ,\langle t,x\rangle
] e^{i\langle t,x\rangle s} \; ds \rVert}_1
\\
&\leq {\lVert [\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) ,\langle
t,x\rangle ] \rVert}_1 \leq \sum_{j=1}^d {\left| t_j \right|} {\lVert
[\boldsymbol{1}_{(-\infty,0]}(H_\hbar) ,x_j ] \rVert}_1.
\end{aligned}$$ With this bound the desired result follows from Theorem \[A.Main\_Theorem\].
Agmon type estimates
====================
In this appendix we will prove an Agmon type estimate, that is exponential decay of eigenfunctions for a Schrödinger operator. Such results were proven by S. Agmon see [@MR745286].
\[A.Agmon\_type\_lem\] Let $H_\hbar=-\hbar^2\Delta +V$ be a Schrödinger operator acting in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, where $V$ is in $L^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and suppose that there exist an $\varepsilon>0$ and a open bounded sets $U$ such that $$V(x) \geq {\varepsilon} \quad \text{when } x\in U^c.$$ Let $d(x) = \operatorname{dist}(x,\Omega_\varepsilon)$ and $\psi$ be a normalised solution to the equation $$H_\hbar\psi=E\psi,$$ with $E<\varepsilon/4$. Then there exists a $C>0$ depending on $V$ and $\varepsilon$ such that $${\lVert e^{\delta \hbar^{-1} d } \psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} \leq C,$$ for $\delta=\tfrac{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}{8}$.
We start by defining the set $\Omega_\varepsilon$ by $$\Omega_\varepsilon = \{ x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d \, |\, \operatorname{dist}(x,U)<1\}.$$ For convenience and without loss of generality we assume that $0\in U$, which implies that $d(x)\leq{\left| x \right|}$ for all $x$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. For $\gamma\in(0,1]$ we define the function $\varphi_\gamma$ by $$\varphi_\gamma(x) = \frac{d(x)}{1+\gamma {\left| x \right|}^2}.$$ Then $\varphi_\gamma$ is a bounded function for all $\gamma$’s by construction. Moreover we can note that $d(x)$ is almost everywhere differentiable with the norm of the gradient bounded by 1 since it is Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant 1. Hence $ \varphi_\gamma$ is almost everywhere differentiable. We will prove the bound on the 2-norm is uniform in the parameter $\gamma$ for the functions $\varphi_\gamma$ and let $\gamma$ tend to zero.
In order to prove the desired bound we need a partition of unity. We let $\chi:{\mathbb{R}}^d\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function such that $0\leq\chi\leq1$, $\chi(x)=1$ for all $x$ in $\Omega_\varepsilon^c$ and $\mathrm{Supp}(\chi)\subset U^c$. For this function we note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} \psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} \leq&
{\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}(1-\chi) \psi
\rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} + {\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi
\rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}
\\
\leq& 1 + {\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi
\rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $1-\chi$ is supported in $\Omega_\varepsilon$ and $\varphi_\gamma(x)=0$ for $x\in\Omega_\varepsilon$. Since $\varphi_\gamma$ is a bounded function the left hand side in the above inequality is well defined. What remains is to estimate the last term in the above inequality.
To this end we note that since $\psi$ is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue $E$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-E){\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi
\rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2 &= (\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-E)\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}
e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi^2{\left| \psi \right|}^2 \;dx
\\
&= \langle e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi^2 \psi,
(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-H) \psi \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above expression is real, hence we can take the real part of the right hand side without changing it. If we do this and use the IMS-formula we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathrm{Re}}(\langle e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi^2 \psi,
(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-H) \psi \rangle) =& \operatorname{\mathrm{Re}}(\langle e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \psi ,
(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-H) e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi
\psi \rangle)
\\
&\hbox{}+ \hbar^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} {\left| \nabla
e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \right|}^2 {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above gradient is well defined almost everywhere due to our previous observations. Since $e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \psi \in \mathcal{Q}(H)$ and is supported in $U^c$ we have that $$\operatorname{\mathrm{Re}}(\langle e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \psi
, (\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-H) e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \psi \rangle) \leq 0,$$ since $(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-H)$ is a negative operator when restricted to $U^c$. From this we obtain the inequality $$(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-E){\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2
\leq
\hbar^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} {\left| \nabla e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \right|}^2{\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x}.$$ We note that $$\label{A.agmont_bd_gra}
{\left| \nabla e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi \right|}^2
\leq
4{\left| \nabla e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} \right|}^2 \chi^2
+4 e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} {\left| \nabla \chi \right|}^2,$$ where the gradients are defined almost everywhere with respect to the Lebesgue measure. The first term in is almost everywhere given by $$\begin{aligned}
4{\left| \nabla e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} \right|}^2 \chi^2 =
4\frac{\delta^2}{\hbar^2} {\left| \nabla \varphi_\gamma \right|}^2
e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi^2.
\end{aligned}$$ We note that for $x$ in $\Omega_\varepsilon$ ${\left| \nabla \varphi_\gamma(x) \right|}=0$, and for almost all $x$ in $\Omega_\varepsilon^c$ $${\left| \nabla \varphi_\gamma(x) \right|}
\leq \frac{{\left| \nabla d(x) \right|}}{1+\gamma {\left| x \right|}^2} + 2 \frac{d(x)\gamma{\left| x \right|}}{(1+\gamma{\left| x \right|}^2)^2}
\leq 1 +2 \frac{\gamma{\left| x \right|}^2}{(1+\gamma{\left| x \right|}^2)^2} \leq 2.$$ Hence for all $x$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ we have, $${\left| \nabla \varphi_\gamma(x) \right|} \leq 2.$$ With these estimates we get that $$\begin{aligned}
(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-E)&{\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi
\rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2
\\
&\leq 8 \delta^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}
e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi^2 {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x} +
4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} {\left| \nabla
\chi \right|}^2 {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x}
\\
&= 8 \delta^2 {\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi
\rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2 + 4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}
{\left| \nabla \chi \right|}^2 {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x}.
\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-E- 8 \delta^2){\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2
\leq
4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} {\left| \nabla \chi \right|}^2 {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x} .$$ With our choice of $\delta=\frac{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}{8}$ we have that $$(\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}-E- 8 \delta^2)\geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2} - \frac{\varepsilon}{4} - 8\frac{\varepsilon}{64}
= \frac{\varepsilon}{8},$$ which implies that $${\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2
\leq
\frac{32}{\varepsilon} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} {\left| \nabla \chi \right|}^2
{\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x} .$$ We note that ${\left| \nabla \chi \right|}^2 $ is supported on the set $\Omega_\varepsilon\setminus U$ and hence uniformly bounded by a constant which depends on the sets. Hence we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} {\left| \nabla
\chi \right|}^2 {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x} &\leq C
\int_{\Omega_\varepsilon\setminus U}
e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x}
\\
&\leq C \int_{\Omega_\varepsilon\setminus U} {\left| \psi \right|}^2 \; d{x}
\leq C,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $e^{2\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}=1$ for all $x$ in $\Omega_\varepsilon$. This implies that there exists a constant $C>0$ which only depends on the potential $V$ such that $${\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}}\chi\psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^2 \leq C .$$ This estimate implies that we have the following uniform bound in $\gamma$ $${\lVert e^{\delta\varphi_\gamma\hbar^{-1}} \psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}
\leq
1 + C.$$ By monotone convergence we can take $\gamma$ to zero and we obtain the desired result: $${\lVert e^{\delta\varphi\hbar^{-1}} \psi \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}
\leq
C,$$ with a constant only depending on the potential $V$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We design a new algorithm for batch active learning with deep neural network models. Our algorithm, Batch Active learning by Diverse Gradient Embeddings ([$\operatorname{\textsc{BADGE}}$]{}), samples groups of points that are disparate and high magnitude when represented in a hallucinated gradient space, a strategy designed to incorporate both predictive uncertainty and sample diversity into every selected batch. Crucially, [$\operatorname{\textsc{BADGE}}$]{}trades off between uncertainty and diversity without requiring any hand-tuned hyperparameters. While other approaches sometimes succeed for particular batch sizes or architectures, [$\operatorname{\textsc{BADGE}}$]{}consistently performs as well or better, making it a useful option for real world active learning problems. =-1'
author:
- |
Jordan T. Ash\
Princeton University Chicheng Zhang\
University of Arizona Akshay Krishnamurthy\
Microsoft Research NYC John Langford\
Microsoft Research NYC Alekh Agarwal\
Microsoft Research Redmond
bibliography:
- 'deepactive.bib'
title: |
Deep Batch Active Learning by\
Diverse, Uncertain Gradient Lower Bounds
---
-2cm
Discussion
==========
We have established that [$\operatorname{\textsc{BADGE}}$]{} is empirically an effective deep active learning algorithm across different architectures and batch sizes, performing similar to or better than other active learning algorithms. A fundamental remaining question is: “Why?” While deep learning is notoriously difficult to analyze theoretically, there are several intuitively appealing properties of [$\operatorname{\textsc{BADGE}}$]{}:
1. The definition of uncertainty (a lower bound on the gradient magnitude of the last layer) guarantees some update of parameters.
2. It optimizes for diversity as well as uncertainty, eliminating a failure mode of choosing many identical uncertain examples in a batch, and does so without requiring any hyperparameters.
3. The randomization associated with the [$\operatorname{\textsc{$k$-means++}}$]{}initialization sampler implies that, even for adversarially constructed datasets, it eventually converges to a good solution.
-0.2cm The combination of these properties appears to generate the robustness that we observe empirically.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive the S-matrix for the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ symmetric spin-chain of ${\textup{AdS}}_3/{\textup{CFT}}_2$ by considering the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra acting on the spin-chain excitations. The S-matrix is determined uniquely up to four scalar factors, which are further constrained by a set of crossing relations. The resulting scattering includes non-trivial processes between magnons of different masses that were previously overlooked.'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
---
ITP-UU-12/46\
SPIN-12/43
**A dynamic ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ S-matrix for ${\textup{AdS}}_3/{\textup{CFT}}_2$**
*Institute for Theoretical Physics and Spinoza Institute,\
Utrecht University, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands*
`[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]`
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re; @Witten:1998qj; @Gubser:1998bc] conjectures the equivalence of two seemingly different theories: a string theory on some ${\textup{AdS}}_{d+1}\times X$, where $X$ is a compact space, and a conformal field theory (CFT) on the $d$-dimensional boundary of AdS. A significant success in the investigation of the correspondence was obtained in the case of type IIB strings on ${\textup{AdS}}_5\times {\textup{S}}^5$ and $\mathcal{N}=4$ Super-Yang-Mills (SYM) in the ’t Hooft limit, where it was found that integrability techniques could be applied to the computation of the string energy spectrum, or equivalently to the spectrum of the dilatation operator in SYM, see [@Arutyunov:2009ga; @Beisert:2010jr] for a review; later, similar integrable structures were found also for different instances of the AdS/CFT correspondence.
A particularly interesting case is the one of the ${\textup{AdS}}_3/{\textup{CFT}}_2$ correspondence. Historically, this was one of the earliest examples of holography [@Brown:1986nw]. In particular, we are interested in the case of type IIB strings on ${\textup{AdS}}_3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^1$, a background that preserves 16 supercharges. Due to the special properties of 2-dimensional CFTs, and to the fact that the background can be supported by a pure NSNS flux, the resulting string theory and dual conformal field theory are relatively well understood by means of representation theory of chiral algebras [@Giveon:1998ns; @Elitzur:1998mm; @Maldacena:2000hw; @Maldacena:2000kv]. The case of a RR background appears less manageable in terms of the NSR formalism [@Berkovits:1999im], but is strikingly similar to the ${\textup{AdS}}_5\times {\textup{S}}^5$ background. Importantly, the Green-Schwarz action on ${\textup{AdS}}_3\times {\textup{S}}^3 \times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^1$ can essentially be rewritten as a non-linear sigma model on the ${\mathbbm{Z}}_4$-graded supersymmetric coset $$\frac{{{\mathrm{D}}(2,1;\alpha)}\times {{\mathrm{D}}(2,1;\alpha)}}{{{\mathrm{SU}}}(1,1)\times {{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)\times {{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)} ,$$ which guarantees classical integrability [@Babichenko:2009dk; @Zarembo:2010yz]. However, the action for the coset sigma-model does not contain two massless modes of the original string theory, which have to be put in by hand [@Babichenko:2009dk; @Sundin:2012gc]. Classical integrability was later extended to a family of backgrounds interpolating between pure RR and pure NSNS [@Cagnazzo:2012se].
Focusing on a pure RR background and setting aside the issue of how the massless modes should be included in the full quantum theory, it was possible to use classical integrability to write down finite gap equations for the massive modes, out of which a plausible form of the all-loop Bethe ansatz was proposed, yielding an alternating ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain [@OhlssonSax:2011ms]. This was then compared to near plane wave calculations in the string theory, finding partial agreement [@Rughoonauth:2012qd]. The problem of incorporating the massless modes is still not well understood; a first step in this direction was taken in [@Sax:2012jv], where the decoupling of four additional massless modes in the limit where one of the ${\textup{S}}^3$’s blows up, which gives an ${\textup{AdS}}_3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{T}}^4$ background upon compactification, was studied in detail.
In this paper we will focus on the quantum integrability of the massive modes of ${\textup{AdS}}_3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^1$ strings, or equivalently of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain. We bootstrap the all-loop two-body S-matrix out of the symmetries of the theory, in a way conceptually similar to what was done for ${\textup{AdS}}_5\times {\textup{S}}^5$ strings and $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM in [@Beisert:2005tm]. To do so, we study the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ symmetry algebra, which is broken to a centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra by the choice of the vacuum, similarly to what was found from studying the symmetries of giant magnons in [@David:2008yk]. Invariance under this symmetry, together with unitarity requirements and a discrete ${\mathbbm{Z}}_2$ symmetry between excitations of left and right chirality yields essentially a unique S-matrix, which turns out to satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation, and hence is compatible with integrability. This S-matrix generalizes the result of [@Beisert:2005wm; @David:2010yg] by including both left- and right-movers, as well as excitations of different masses. To completely determine the S-matrix one needs to fix four antisymmetric phases that play a role similar to the dressing phase of ${\textup{AdS}}_5\times {\textup{S}}^5$ strings [@Arutyunov:2004vx; @Beisert:2006ez; @Beisert:2006ib; @Volin:2009uv; @Vieira:2010kb]. These must obey a set of crossing equations whose solution seemingly cannot be given in terms of simple expressions involving the Beisert-Eden-Staudacher dressing phase [@Beisert:2006ez]. Furthermore, some of these phases yield non-trivial scattering processes between modes of different mass that were not accounted for in [@Babichenko:2009dk; @OhlssonSax:2011ms].
The plan of the paper is as follows. In section \[sec:d21a-spin-chain\], we review the construction of the alternating ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ symmetric spin-chain. In section \[sec:centrally-extended-algebra\] we discuss the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra and how to construct its extension. In section \[sec:centrally-extended-representations\] we discuss the resulting representations, obtaining the dispersion relations and level matching conditions. Section \[sec:S-matrix\] is devoted to finding the S-matrix out of the extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ symmetry; we also discuss how this can be related to the ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ invariant S-matrix of [@Beisert:2005tm], and derive the crossing equations. Some technical details are given in the appendices.
The derivation of the Bethe ansatz equations resulting from this all-loop S-matrix, together with the comparison with string theory predictions [@Babichenko:2009dk; @Rughoonauth:2012qd] will be presented in a separate paper [@Borsato:2012ss].
**Note added:** At the final stage of the preparation of this article, another work aimed at finding the all-loop ${\textup{AdS}}_3/{\textup{CFT}}_2$ S-matrix appeared [@Ahn:2012hw]. The technique used as well as the results found there differ from the ones presented here; in particular the authors there reproduce the conjectured Bethe ansatz of [@Babichenko:2009dk; @OhlssonSax:2011ms], while our S-matrix leads to modification of the Bethe equations [@Borsato:2012ss]. For a further comparison of the results of this paper with those of [@Ahn:2012hw], see appendix \[sec:beisert-su11-S-matrix\].
The alternating d(2,1;a) x d(2,1;a) symmetric spin-chain {#sec:d21a-spin-chain}
========================================================
In [@OhlssonSax:2011ms], an alternating spin-chain with ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ symmetry was constructed. In this section we will review that construction. The two copies of the exceptional superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ describe, respectively, left- and right-movers in ${\textup{AdS}}_3 \times {\textup{S}}^3 \times {\textup{S}}^3 \times {\textup{S}}^1$. The parameter $\alpha$ is related to the ratio of the radii $R_+$ and $R_-$ of the two three-spheres in the string background. This background preserves 16 supersymmetries provided $R_+$, $R_-$ and the ${\textup{AdS}}_3$ radius $R_{{\textup{AdS}}}$ satisfy the relation $$\frac{1}{R_{{\textup{AdS}}}^2} = \frac{1}{R_+^2} + \frac{1}{R_-^2} .$$ This defines a one-parameter family of backgrounds, parametrized by $$\alpha = \frac{R_{{\textup{AdS}}}^2}{R_+^2} = 1 - \frac{R_{{\textup{AdS}}}^2}{R_-^2} ,$$ with $0<\alpha<1$.
In the weak coupling limit, the left- and right-movers decouple. The analysis of [@OhlssonSax:2011ms] was therefore focused on the left-moving sector only. When higher order corrections are accounted for, these sectors start to interact with each other. In this paper we will construct an all-loop two-particle S-matrix for the full spin-chain. However, in order to better understand the general setup it is useful to start by discussing the symmetries of the spin-chain at weak coupling.
The left-movers are described by an alternating spin-chain, with odd and even sites in the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ representations $(-\tfrac{\alpha}{2};\tfrac{1}{2};0)$ and $(-\tfrac{1-\alpha}{2};0;\tfrac{1}{2})$, respectively. In analogy with the gauge theory construction of spin-chains in, [*e.g.*]{}, ${\mathcal{N}}=4$ super Yang-Mills we will refer to these representations as the field modules, and correspondingly call the states sitting at a specific site “fields”, even though there is not an obvious correspondence to fundamental fields in the underlying CFT.
The bosonic subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ is given by ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2) \otimes {{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_+ \otimes {{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_-$, where we have added the subscripts $\pm$ on the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ factors to be able to distinguish them. We denote the corresponding triplets of generators by[^1] ${\mathfrak{J}}_0$, ${\mathfrak{J}}_{\pm}$ for the ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2)$ algebra; ${\mathfrak{L}}_5$, ${\mathfrak{L}}_{\pm}$ for ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_+$; and ${\mathfrak{R}}_8$, ${\mathfrak{R}}_{\pm}$ for ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_-$. In addition there are eight supercharges ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm\pm\pm}$ transforming as a tri-spinor under the bosonic subalgebra. The commutation relations of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ algebra are given in appendix \[sec:d21a-algebra\]. When we later consider left- and right-movers at the same time, we need to introduce some extra notation in order to distinguish the generators of each sector. For now we will keep the notation simpler, since we only focus on the left-moving sector.
In a superalgebra, there are in general several non-equivalent choices of simple roots, with different choices leading to different Cartan matrices and Dynkin diagrams. Here we will be considering two different such choices. First we have the mixed form, where the simple roots, up to some normalization factors, are given by $$\label{eq:d21a-pos-roots-I}
{\mathfrak{L}}_+ , \qquad
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--} , \qquad
{\mathfrak{R}}_+ .$$ This corresponds to the Dynkin diagram in figure \[fig:dynkin-d21a-orig\],
with the Cartan matrix given by $$\label{eq:cartan-matrix-I}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\phantom{+}4\alpha & -2\alpha & 0 \\
-2\alpha & 0 & -2(1-\alpha) \\
0 & -2(1-\alpha) & \phantom{+}4(1-\alpha)
\end{pmatrix},$$ Alternatively, we can use a fermionic set of simple roots, such as $$\label{eq:d21a-pos-roots-II}
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{++-} , \qquad
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++} , \qquad
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+-+} .$$ The corresponding Dynkin diagram is shown in figure \[fig:dynkin-d21a-dual\], and the Cartan matrix now reads $$\label{eq:cartan-matrix-II}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 2\alpha & -2 \\
2\alpha & 0 & 2(1-\alpha) \\
-2 & 2(1-\alpha) & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In both these bases, the generators $$\label{eq:d21a-pos-roots-common}
{\mathfrak{J}}_+, \qquad {\mathfrak{L}}_+, \qquad {\mathfrak{R}}_+, \qquad {\mathfrak{Q}}_{++-}, \qquad {\mathfrak{Q}}_{+-+}, \qquad {\mathfrak{Q}}_{+++}$$ corresponds to positive roots. Hence, the only difference between the two cases is whether ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--}$ or ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++}$ is considered a raising operator.
#### Spin-chain representations.
The two representations at the odd and even sites of the spin-chain are short representations of ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$. The representation $(-\tfrac{\alpha}{2};\tfrac{1}{2};0)$ at the odd sites consists of bosons $\phi^{(n)}_{\pm}$ transforming as a doublet under ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_+$, and fermions $\psi^{(n)}_{\pm}$ forming a doublet under ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_-$. The indices $n$ indicate the ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2)$ level of the fields. Similarly, the $(-\tfrac{1-\alpha}{2};0;\tfrac{1}{2})$ representation consists of the bosons $\tilde{\phi}_{\pm}^{(n)}$ and fermions $\tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(n)}$, which form doublets under ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_-$ and ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)_+$, respectively.
The action of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ generators on the representations can be found in appendix \[sec:d21a-algebra\]. Using these expressions, it is straightforward to check that the states $\phi_+^{(0)}$ and $\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}$ are annihilated by the charges in , as well as by ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--}$ and ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++}$. Additionally, $\phi_+^{(0)}$ is killed by ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{-+-}$, while $\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}$ is killed by ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{--+}$. Hence, these states are highest weight in both the bases discussed above. Since both highest weight states are annihilated by two extra supercharges, the two representations are 1/2-BPS.
#### The spin-chain ground state.
As a ground state for the alternating spin-chain we use the state $$\ket{0}_L = (\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)})^L ,$$ which is the highest weight state in the short $(-\frac{L}{2};\frac{L}{2};\frac{L}{2})$ representation. Note that the length $L$ refers to the number of pairs of odd and even sites, so that the number of sites in the full spin-chain actually is $2L$. This state is annihilated by ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--}$ and ${\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++}$ and is therefore 1/4-BPS. Hence, it satisfies the shortening condition $${\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++}\}} \ket{0}_L = {\mathfrak{H}} \ket{0}_L = 0 , \qquad
{\mathfrak{H}} = - {\mathfrak{J}}_0 - \alpha \, {\mathfrak{L}}_5 - (1-\alpha) \, {\mathfrak{R}}_8 ,$$ where we have introduced the left-moving spin-chain Hamiltonian ${\mathfrak{H}}$.
#### Spin-chain excitations.
Excited states are constructed by replacing one or more of the fields in the ground states by descendant states from the same module. If we only want to calculate the classical charges of a state, the exact positions of the excitations are not important, only the field content of the state. We can then denote an excited state by listing all pairs of odd and even sites where at least one field is different from the ground state. For example we write $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\phi_-^{(0)} \tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L &= (\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)})^{L-1} (\phi_-^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}) , \\
\ket{\psi_+^{(2)} \tilde{\phi}_-^{(1)} \psi_-^{(0)} \tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L &= (\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)})^{L-2} (\psi_-^{(2)}\tilde{\phi}_-^{(1)}\psi_-^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}) .
\end{aligned}$$ The charges of all states with an excitation at a single site is shown in table \[tab:charges-single-excitation\]. These charges are given as the difference between the charge of the excited state and the ground state, which has $(-J_0,L_5,R_8) = (\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})$, where we denote by $J_0$ the eigenvalue of ${\mathfrak{J}}_0$, and so on.
$-\delta J_0^L$ $\delta L_5$ $\delta R_8$ $H$
-------------------------------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------- --
$\ket{\phi_+^{(n)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L$ $n$ $0$ $0$ $n$
$\ket{\phi_-^{(n)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L$ $n$ $-1$ $0$ $n+\alpha$
$\ket{\psi_+^{(n)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L$ $n+\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $+\frac{1}{2}$ $n+\alpha$
$\ket{\psi_-^{(n)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L$ $n+\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $n+1$
$\ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(n)}}_L$ $n$ $0$ $0$ $n$
$\ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_-^{(n)}}_L$ $n$ $0$ $-1$ $n+1-\alpha$
$\ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(n)}}_L$ $n+\frac{1}{2}$ $+\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $n+1-\alpha$
$\ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_-^{(n)}}_L$ $n+\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $n+1$
: The charges of states with a single excitation on either an odd or an even site relative to the charges of the ground state of length $L$.[]{data-label="tab:charges-single-excitation"}
The lightest excited states in table \[tab:charges-single-excitation\] are $$\ket{\phi_-^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L , \qquad
\ket{\psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L , \qquad
\ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_-^{(0)}}_L \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)}}_L ,$$ the first two state having mass $\alpha$ and the second two $1-\alpha$. These play the role of fundamental excitations in the spin-chain. The states containing heavier excitations carry the same charges as a state with several fundamental excitations, and can hence be thought of as composite states. The first two such states are $$\label{eq:fundamental-excitations}
\ket{\psi_-^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L \qquad \text{and} \qquad \ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_-^{(0)}}_L .$$ These states are degenerate with each other and with the states $$\ket{\phi_-^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)}}_L \qquad \text{and} \qquad \ket{\psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_-^{(0)}}_L ,$$ and hence correspond to double excitations. Another instance is given by $$\ket{\phi_+^{(1)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L \qquad \text{and} \qquad \ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(1)}}_L ,$$ which are again double excitations consisting of $$\ket{\psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)}}_L .$$ In the same way any other excitation with a positive ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2)$ quantum number is related to a state containing a chain of $\psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)}$ excitations, [*e.g.*]{}, $$\ket{\psi_+^{(n)} \tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L \sim \ket{(\psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)})^n \psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)}}_L , \qquad
\ket{\phi_+^{(0)} \tilde{\psi}_+^{(n)}}_L \sim \ket{\phi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)} (\psi_+^{(0)}\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)})^n}_L .$$ Hence, all the excited states in table \[tab:charges-single-excitation\] are related to a state containing only the fundamental excitations in . The first step in the understanding of the symmetries of the spin-chain is therefore to study the properties of these excitations.[^2] In [@Sax:2012jv], a number of closed subsectors of the alternating ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ spin-chain were found. In particular there are two closely related sectors ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2|1)_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2|1)_-$, consisting of the ground state $\ket{0}_L$, and the excitations $\phi_-^{(0)}$, $\psi_+^{(0)}$ and $\tilde{\phi}_-^{(0)}$, $\tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)}$, respectively. This corresponds to restricting to states containing excitations of the same mass. In this paper we will also consider more general states, containing excitations of two different masses at once.
Symmetries of the ground state {#sec:ground-state-symmetries}
------------------------------
By choosing a ground state such as $\ket{0}_L$, we break the symmetry of the spin-chain. The residual symmetry preserving the ground state is generated by the supercharges ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{+--}$ and ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{-++}$ and the spin-chain Hamiltonian ${\mathfrak{H}}$. Together, these generators form an ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$. In order to describe the representations of this reduced algebra it is convenient to use a shorter notation. We thus introduce the composite fields $$Z = \phi_+^{(0)} \tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)} , \qquad
\phi^1 = \phi_-^{(0)} \tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)} , \qquad
\psi^1 = \psi_+^{(0)} \tilde{\phi}_+^{(0)} , \qquad
\phi^3 = \phi_+^{(0)} \tilde{\phi}_-^{(0)} , \qquad
\psi^3 = \phi_+^{(0)} \tilde{\psi}_+^{(0)} ,$$ where we used the indices $1$ and $3$ to distinguish the odd and even sites; these fields are all in the left-moving sector. Using the expressions from appendix \[sec:d21a-algebra\], we find that the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ generators act on the spin-chain excitations as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--} \ket{\phi^1}_L &= 0 , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--} \ket{\psi^1}_L &= {\mathrlap{\sqrt{\alpha} \ket{\phi^1}_L,}\phantom{\sqrt{1-\alpha} \ket{\phi^3},}} \\
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++} \ket{\phi^1}_L &= {\mathrlap{\sqrt{\alpha} \ket{\psi^1}_L,}\phantom{\sqrt{1-\alpha} \ket{\phi^3},}} &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++} \ket{\psi^1}_L &= 0 , \\
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--} \ket{\phi^3}_L &= 0 , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+--} \ket{\psi^3}_L &= \sqrt{1-\alpha} \ket{\phi^3}_L , \\
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++} \ket{\phi^3}_L &= \sqrt{1-\alpha} \ket{\psi^3}_L , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-++} \ket{\psi^3}_L &= 0 .
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the excitations on both odd and even sites transform in similar $(1|1)$ multiplets of ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$, differing only in the value of the central charge ${\mathfrak{H}}$.
It will also be useful to consider the additional generator $${\mathfrak{B}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} = - \tfrac{1}{2} {\mathfrak{L}}_5 - \tfrac{1}{2} {\mathfrak{R}}_8,$$ which extends the algebra to ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$. This charge acts on the spin-chain states by $${\mathfrak{B}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{0}_L = -\tfrac{L}{2} \ket{0}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \qquad
{\mathfrak{B}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi}_L = -\left(\tfrac{L}{2}-\tfrac{1}{2}\right) \ket{\phi}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \qquad
{\mathfrak{B}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi}_L = -\tfrac{L}{2} \ket{\psi}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} .$$ Hence, ${\mathfrak{B}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ does not preserve the ground state.
The full d(2,1;a) x d(2,1;a) spin-chain
---------------------------------------
So far we have only considered the weak coupling limit of the spin-chain, where the left- and right-movers decouple. A general state can then be described as the direct product of two alternating spin-chains of the type described above. In order to distinguish the two sectors we will denote the right-moving fields by a bar. We hence have a composite ground state $\bar{Z}$, and excitations $\bar{\phi}^{\bar{1}}$, $\bar{\psi}^{\bar{1}}$, $\bar{\phi}^{\bar{3}}$ and $\bar{\psi}^{\bar{3}}$. These excitations transform under a second ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ algebra, obtained from the other copy of ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$.
In the full spin-chain these sectors are coupled to each other through local interactions. Hence, the spin-chain states are no longer of direct product form. Instead we need to pair up sites of the two ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ spin-chains with each other. The ground state of the full spin-chain is then given by $$\ket{0}_L =
\Bigg|
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}Z\\\bar{Z}\end{pmatrix} \dotsm \begin{pmatrix}Z\\\bar{Z}\end{pmatrix}}_{L}
\Bigg\rangle .$$ For the excitations we use the notation $$\label{eq:spin-chain-excitations}
\phi^i = \begin{pmatrix} \phi^i \\ \bar{Z} \end{pmatrix} , \qquad
\psi^i = \begin{pmatrix} \psi^i \\ \bar{Z} \end{pmatrix} , \qquad
\bar{\phi}^{\bar{\imath}} = \begin{pmatrix} Z \\ \bar{\phi}^{\bar{\imath}} \end{pmatrix} , \qquad
\bar{\psi}^{\bar{\imath}} = \begin{pmatrix} Z \\ \bar{\psi}^{\bar{\imath}} \end{pmatrix} ,$$ with $i=1,3$ and $\bar{\imath} = \bar{1}, \bar{3}$. With a small abuse of notation we indicate in the same way the excitations of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ chain and the ones of the full ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ chain; hopefully this will not generate confusion, since from now on we will be focusing only on the latter. In order to construct an S-matrix, we only need to consider asymptotic states, where all the excitations are well separated: there is therefore no need to introduce notation for the case where one or more excitation would sit on the same composite site.
As above, the ground state breaks each of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ factors, so that the excitations in transform non-trivially under an ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra.
The centrally extended su(1|1) x su(1|1) algebra {#sec:centrally-extended-algebra}
================================================
In the previous section we saw that the excitations of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain transform under an ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra preserving the ground state. One of the charges of this algebra is the spin-chain Hamiltonian ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$, which is a function of the coupling contant $h$. In this section we will see how the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra is deformed to accomodate for this coupling dependence. Our final goal is to understand the S-matrix of the ${\textup{AdS}}_3$ spin-chain. However, in this section we find it useful to keep the notation generic. We will therefore consider representations whose parameters we leave unspecified. In section \[sec:d21a-S-matrix\], we will connect back to the notation of section \[sec:d21a-spin-chain\].
The su(1|1) algebra {#sec:u11-algebra}
-------------------
The algebra ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ consists of two supercharges ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$, a central charge ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$, and an outer automorphism ${{\mathfrak{B}}}$. The non-trivial commutation relations read $${\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}\}} = {{\mathfrak{H}}}, \qquad
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}]} = - \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}, \qquad
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}]} = + \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}.$$ This algebra has a two dimensional representation with the charges acting on a bosonic state $\ket{\phi}$ and a fermionic state $\ket{\psi}$, with the action given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= v \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= H \ket{\phi} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= (B - \tfrac{1}{2}) \ket{\phi} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}\ket{\psi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}\ket{\psi} &= H/v \ket{\phi} , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}\ket{\psi} &= H \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}\ket{\psi} &= (B - 1) \ket{\psi} .
\end{aligned}$$ This representation is labelled by the two numbers $H$ and $B$. The coefficient $v$ is not physically relevant, but parametrizes the difference in normalization of the states $\ket{\phi}$ and $\ket{\psi}$. Denoting this representation by $({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H,B}$, we note that the tensor product between two such states decomposes as $$({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H,B} \otimes ({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H',B'} = ({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H+H',B+B'-1/2} \oplus ({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})^*_{H+H',B+B'-1} ,$$ where the asterisk on the second representation on the right hand side indicates that the statistics of the states have been exchanged, so that the highest weight state is fermionic instead of bosonic.
The su(1|1) x su(1|1) algebra {#sec:su112-alg}
-----------------------------
We now consider a direct product of two copies of the ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ algebra. Hence we have two copies of each charge. The two copies (anti-)commute with each other, so that the supercharges satisfy $$\label{eq:su112-algebra}
\begin{aligned}
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \qquad &
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 , \qquad &
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 , \\
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , &
{\{{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 , &
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}\}} &= 0 .
\end{aligned}$$ Inspired by the notation in ${\textup{AdS}}_3$ we will refer to the two copies of the algebra as left- and right-moving. We also introduce the combinations $${{\mathfrak{H}}}= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} + {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \qquad
{{\mathfrak{M}}}= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} .$$ In terms of these generators, the first line above reads $${\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}\}} = \tfrac{1}{2} \left({{\mathfrak{H}}}+ {{\mathfrak{M}}}\right) , \qquad
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} = \tfrac{1}{2} \left({{\mathfrak{H}}}- {{\mathfrak{M}}}\right) .$$ In the spin-chain ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ plays the role of the energy. This charge will depend on the momentum of the excitations, as well as on the coupling constant. The charge ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$ will be treated as an additional central charge labeling the representation. Its eigenvalue appears as a mass in the dispersion relation, and we will assume that it is independent of the momentum.[^3] Below we will freely switch between the notations ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$ depending on what is convenient in a particular context.
In addition to the above generators we have two automorphisms ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ $${[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} = -\frac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \;\;
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} = +\frac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \;\;
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} = -\frac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \;\;
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} = +\frac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} .$$ The inclusion of these generators gives the algebra ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)^2$. However, while the charges ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ are conserved, they do not preserve the ground state of the spin-chain. The symmetry acting on the excitations is therefore ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$.
In the next section we will introduce two additional central extensions to the algebra, which appear in some of the anti-commutators in . Hence the centrally extended algebra will no longer be of direct product form.
#### Representations.
Before turning on any central extensions let us briefly consider representations of the undeformed ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra. Since the algebra is a direct product, any irreducible representation can be written as a tensor product of a left-moving and a right-moving part. For later convenience we will consider the two generators ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ to be lowering operators, while ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ are raising operators. A highest weight state hence satisfies $${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\text{h.w.}} = 0 , \qquad
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\text{h.w.}} = 0 .$$
As usual in a superalgebra we make a distinction between *short* and *long* representation. In the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra we have the two shortening conditions $H_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} = 0$ and $H_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} = 0$. A highest weight state with vanishing $H_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ is annihilated by the supercharge ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$. Such a representation will be referred to as a *left-moving* representation. The simplest case is given by the product $({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H,B}\otimes{\mathbf{1}}$. The two states in this representation are $\ket{\phi}$ and $\ket{\psi}$, with the generators acting as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= v \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= H \ket{\phi} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= (B-\tfrac{1}{2}) \ket{\phi} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi} &= H/v \ket{\phi} , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi} &= H \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi} &= (B-1) \ket{\psi} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 .
\end{aligned}$$ We also have *right-moving* representations with $H_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}=0$, whose highest weight states are annihilated by ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$. Here we will consider the representation ${\mathbf{1}}\otimes({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H,B}$, with the states $\ket{\bar{\phi}}$ and $\ket{\bar{\psi}}$ satisfying[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= v \ket{\bar{\psi}} , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= H \ket{\bar{\phi}} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}} &= (B-\tfrac{1}{2}) \ket{\bar{\phi}} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= H/v \ket{\bar{\phi}} , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= H \ket{\bar{\psi}} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= (B-1) \ket{\bar{\psi}} .
\end{aligned}$$ In the case of the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra, we can obtain additional short representations by considering any tensor product of simple ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ states in the left- or right-moving sector. However, when we add additional central charges the chirality constraint will be deformed and the number of short multiplets will be reduced.
Spin-chain states
-----------------
Our goal is to describe a spin-chain with excitations transforming under the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra. Before discussing the full algebra and its representations we introduce some notation for describing the states of this spin-chain. The spin-chain ground state is a state where each site of the chain is occupied by an ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ singlet which we call $Z$. For a spin-chain of length $L$ we hence have $$\ket{0}_L = \ket{Z^L},$$ where the exponent indicates that the state contains $L$ consecutive sites occupied by the state $Z$. We will usually suppress the subscript $L$ denoting the length of the chain.
While the ground state preserves the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra, it is charged under the automorphisms ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$, which act by $${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{0}_L = - \frac{L}{2} \ket{0}_L , \qquad
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{0}_L = - \frac{L}{2} \ket{0}_L .$$ Since the combination ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ does annihilate the ground state, it is useful to introduce two new generators $$\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}} = {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} + {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \qquad
{{\mathfrak{B}}}= {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} .$$ We can now introduce states with a single excitation at site $n$ $$\ket{\mathcal{X}_{(n)}}_L = \ket{Z^{n-1} \mathcal{X} Z^{L-n}}_L ,$$ where $\mathcal{X}$ is any excitations $\phi$, $\psi$, $\bar{\phi}$ or $\bar{\psi}$. From such states we can construct states of a specific momentum by $$\label{eq:momentum-state}
\ket{\mathcal{X}_p}_L = \sum_n e^{ipn} \ket{\mathcal{X}_{(n)}}_L.$$ It is now straightforward to construct multi-magnon states of the form $\ket{\phi_{p_1} \bar{\psi}_{p_2} \cdots \phi_{p_n}}_L$. We will always consider an asymptotic limit where $L\to\infty$, and where all excitations can be considered to be ordered and well separated. In general we will let each excitation carry different charges under ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$. As we will see below, the energy ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ is given as a function of the momenta.
Length-changing
---------------
The generators of the centrally extended algebra have the possibility of mixing states of different length. To capture this we introduce some additional notation. The insertion of the symbol $Z^+$ ($Z^-$) in a state indicates the insertion (removal) of a vacuum site at the specified location. For a single excitation, equation shows that adding or removing a vacuum site to the right of the excitation, such as in the state $\ket{\phi_p Z^\pm}$, does nothing except change the total length of the chain. However, if we insert or remove an excitation to the left of the excitation we can move it through the excitation $$\ket{Z^+\phi_p} = e^{-ip} \ket{\phi_p Z^+} , \qquad
\ket{Z^-\phi_p} = e^{+ip} \ket{\phi_p Z^-} .$$ In states with multiple excitations we will use the above result to move all occurrences of $Z^\pm$ to the far right, thereby trading them for additional momentum dependent phase factors.
The centrally extended su(1|1) x su(1|1) algebra {#sec:central-extension-I}
------------------------------------------------
The ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ can be extended by two additional central charges ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$, which appear in the anti-commutators between supercharges from different sectors. In order to figure out the possible length-changing actions of the supercharges, it is useful to consider the charges under the automorphisms ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ of the single excitation states and the supercharges. These are collected in table \[tab:charges-B1-B2\].
$\phantom{+}\mathllap{2}B_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ $\phantom{+}\mathllap{2}B_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
$\ket{{\mathrlap{0}\phantom{\psi}}}$ $-L$ $-L$
$\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}}$ $-L+2B$ $-L$
$\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi}\phantom{\psi}}}$ $-L+2B-1$ $-L$
$\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}}\phantom{\psi}}}$ $-L$ $-L+2B$
$\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}}\phantom{\psi}}}$ $-L$ $-L+2B-1$
${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ $-1$ $\phantom{+}0$
${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ $+1$ $\phantom{+}0$
${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ $\phantom{+}0$ $-1$
${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ $\phantom{+}0$ $+1$
: Charges under the automorphisms ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ of the ground state, the single excitation states in the left- and right-moving multiplets as well as of the supercharges. All the spin-chain states have length $L$. To make the table less cluttered, the charges have been rescaled. []{data-label="tab:charges-B1-B2"}
Conservation of the charges ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ as well as the fermion number restricts the possible extensions. As an example, we note that a non-trivial state obtained by acting with ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ on $\ket{\phi}$ should be fermionic and have the charges $$B_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} = -\frac{L-1}{2} + B - \frac{1}{2}, \qquad
B_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} = -\frac{L+1}{2}.$$ To construct a state with these charges we would need to change the length in different ways in the left- and right-moving sectors. While such a construction might be possible, it leads to a picture where the charges do not act locally on a single spin-chain. Moreover, we would need to allow for additional 1/4-BPS states with different numbers of left- and right-movers. However, this does not seem to be compatible with the string-theory spectrum, where there is a unique BMN-type ground state [@Babichenko:2009dk; @Gomis:2002qi]. For a further discussion of the resulting construction see appendix \[sec:central-extension-II\].
If we instead try to make the action of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ on $\ket{\phi}$ non-trivial we need to find a state with charges $$B_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} = -\frac{L-1}{2} + B - \frac{1}{2}, \qquad
B_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} = -\frac{L-1}{2} .$$ Such a state is given by $\ket{\psi Z^-}$, [*i.e.*]{}, a single excitation $\psi$ in a spin-chain whose length is one less than that of the original state. If we allow the length to change we should therefore allow this action. The ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra then requires the action of ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ on $\ket{\psi_p}$ to be non-trivial, giving the state $\ket{\phi_p Z^+}$. We also introduce a bosonic generator ${{\mathfrak{P}}}= {\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}}$. Comparing the charges we see that ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ should take $\ket{\phi}$ to $\ket{\phi Z^+}$. In the same way we introduce ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}= {\{{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}}$. Hence we are lead to consider the algebra $$\begin{aligned}
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \qquad &
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{P}}}, \qquad &
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 , \\
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , &
{\{{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}, &
{\{{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 .
\end{aligned}$$ The non-trivial commutation relations involving the automorphisms ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} &= -\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \; &
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} &= +\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \; &
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{P}}}]} &= -\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{P}}}, \; &
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}]} &= +\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}, \\
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} &= -\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , &
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} &= +\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , &
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{P}}}]} &= -\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{P}}}, &
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}]} &= +\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}.
\end{aligned}$$
The centrally extended algebra also has a larger set of automorphisms generated by a triplet $\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}$, $\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_{\pm}$ satisfying $${[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_{\pm}]} = \pm \tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_{\pm} , \qquad
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_+,\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_-]} = -2 \tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}} ,$$ where $\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}} = {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} + {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ is the same charge we defined in the previous section. Under this ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2)$ algebra the supercharges form two doublets $({{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}})$ and $({{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} &= -\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \; &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} &= +\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \; &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_+,{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} &= +{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \; &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_-,{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} &= -{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \\
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} &= -\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} &= +\tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_+,{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}]} &= +{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_-,{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}]} &= -{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ while the central charges split into a singlet (${{\mathfrak{M}}}$) and a triplet (${{\mathfrak{P}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$). The non-trivial commutation relations take the form $$\begin{aligned}
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}]} &= +{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}, \quad &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_-,{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}]} &= -{{\mathfrak{H}}}, \quad &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_-,{{\mathfrak{H}}}]} &= -2{{\mathfrak{P}}}, \\
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}},{\mathrlap{{{\mathfrak{P}}}}\phantom{{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}}}]} &= -{{\mathfrak{P}}}, &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_+,{\mathrlap{{{\mathfrak{P}}}}\phantom{{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}}}]} &= +{{\mathfrak{H}}}, &
{[\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_+,{{\mathfrak{H}}}]} &= +2{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since the charges $\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}$ and $\tilde{{{\mathfrak{B}}}}_{\pm}$ act non-trivially on the ground state we will mainly consider the automorphism generated by ${{\mathfrak{B}}}= {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$.
Representations of the extended su(1|1) x su(1|1) algebra {#sec:centrally-extended-representations}
=========================================================
The left-moving representation {#sec:representations}
------------------------------
In this section we will consider the generalization of the left-moving representation considered from section \[sec:su112-alg\]. It now takes the form $$\label{eq:chiral-rep}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= a_p \ket{\psi_p} , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi_p} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= 0 , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi_p} &= b_p \ket{\phi_p} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= 0 , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi_p} &= c_p \ket{\phi_p\,Z^+} , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= d_p \ket{\psi_p\,Z^-} , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi_p} &= 0 ,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have parametrized the representation by $a_p$, $b_p$, $c_p$ and $d_p$. The subscript indicates that the values of these coefficients in general depends on the momentum of the excitation. Note that the symbols $Z^\pm$ indicating that a single field $Z$ to be inserted or removed always appear directly after the excitation. We can then calculate the value of the central charges $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= a_p b_p \ket{\phi_p} , \quad &
{\mathrlap{{{\mathfrak{P}}}}\phantom{{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= a_p c_p \ket{\phi_p Z^+} , \\
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi_p} &= c_p d_p \ket{\phi_p} , \quad &
{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}\ket{\phi_p} &= b_p d_p \ket{\phi_p Z^-} .
\end{aligned}$$ The automorphisms ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ still act by $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p}}} &= \left(-\tfrac{L}{2}+B\right) \ket{\phi_p} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p}}} &= -\tfrac{L}{2} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p}}} , \\
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi_p} &= \left(-\tfrac{L}{2}+B-\tfrac{1}{2}\right) \ket{\psi_p} , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi_p} &= -\tfrac{L}{2} \ket{\psi_p} .
\end{aligned}$$ For the generator ${{\mathfrak{B}}}$ this gives $${{\mathfrak{B}}}\ket{\phi_p} = B \ket{\phi_p} , \qquad
{{\mathfrak{B}}}\ket{\psi_p} = \left(B -\tfrac{1}{2}\right) \ket{\psi_p} .$$
#### Shortening condition.
The state $\ket{\phi_p}$ is a highest weight state and therefore satisfies the conditions $${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi_p} = {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi_p} = 0.$$ Without the central extension, $\ket{\phi_p}$ would satisfy the chirality constraint ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi_p} = 0$. Here this condition takes the form $$({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}) \ket{\phi_p} = (a_p c_p d_p - a_p c_p d_p) \ket{\psi_p} = 0.$$ Since this particular combination of the lowering operators ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ vanishes this representation is short.
When we turn off the central extensions ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$, the generator ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ vanishes. This seem to make the operator ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ identically zero. However, a careful treatment of the limit shows that ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ goes to zero faster than ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$. Hence we can recover the chirality constraint of the undeformed representation.
The state $\ket{\phi_p}$ must also be annihilated by the anti-commutator $${\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} \ket{\phi_p} = ({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}) \ket{\phi_p} .$$ This shortening condition will play an important role below. It is easy to directly check that $$\label{eq:shortening-condition}
({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}) \ket{\phi_p} = (a_p b_p c_p d_p - a_p b_p c_p d_p) \ket{\phi_p} = 0.$$ Note that the above charge is central and hence also annihilates the state $\ket{\psi_p}$.
#### Physical states.
The actual symmetry preserved by the spin-chain ground state is the undeformed ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$, in which ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$ vanish. Hence these charges must annihilate all physical states. For a single excitation this leads to the conditions $$a_p c_p = 0 , \qquad
b_p d_p = 0.$$ Solving this by setting $c_p = d_p = 0$ would give back the left-moving representation from section \[sec:su112-alg\]. This means that to get a non-trivial physical state we need to consider several excitations. Let us therefore start by considering a state with two excitations with momenta $p$ and $q$. We then need to know the action on the states $$\ket{\phi_p \phi_q} , \qquad
\ket{\phi_p \psi_q} , \qquad
\ket{\psi_p \phi_q} , \qquad
\ket{\psi_p \psi_q} ,$$ where the subscript labels the momentum of the excitations. We will also allow the two excitations to carry different charges under ${{\mathfrak{B}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$.
It will now be important that the various coefficients in the representation are momentum dependent, so that $${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi_p \phi_q} = a_p \ket{\psi_p \phi_q} + a_q \ket{\phi_p \psi_q} ,$$ with $a_p$ and $a_q$ functions of $p$ and $q$, respectively. When a vacuum site is inserted or removed we always do so to the immediate right of the excitation we act on. Hence we have $${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi_p \psi_q} = c_p \ket{\phi_p Z^+ \psi_q} - c_q \ket{\psi_p \phi_q Z^+} ,$$ where we in the second term picked up a minus sign when letting the supercharge ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ pass through the fermionic excitation $\psi_p$. As we noted in the last section, we can now move the $Z^+$ insertion in the first term to the right. In doing this we pick up an additional phase factor so that the above can be written as $${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi_p \psi_q} = e^{-iq} c_p \ket{\phi_p \psi_q Z^+} - c_q \ket{\psi_p \phi_q Z^+} .$$ In the same way we can calculate the action of ${{\mathfrak{P}}}= {\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}}$ on the state $\ket{\phi_p \phi_q}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} \ket{\phi_p \phi_q}
&= {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \left(
a_p \ket{\psi_p \phi_q} + a_q \ket{\phi_p \psi_q}
\right) \\
&= a_p c_p \ket{\phi_p Z^+ \phi_q} + a_q c_q \ket{\phi_p \phi_q Z^+} \\
&= \left( e^{-iq} a_p c_p + a_q c_q \right) \ket{\phi_p \phi_q Z^+} .\end{aligned}$$ The generator ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ should annihilate a physical state. If we let $$\label{eq:physical-state-ac}
a_p c_p = \frac{h}{2} e^{+i\gamma} ( e^{-ip} - 1 ) ,$$ where $h$ and $\gamma$ are two momentum independent real constants, we get $$e^{-iq} a_p c_p + a_q c_q = \frac{h}{2} e^{+i\gamma} ( e^{-i(p+q)} -1 ).$$ Hence the above choice makes the action of ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ vanish on the above two excitation state provided $e^{i(p+q)} = 1$.
Performing the same analysis for the central charge ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$, we find the same condition for a physical state, provided that[^5] $$\label{eq:physical-state-bd}
b_p d_p = \frac{h}{2} e^{-i\gamma} ( e^{+ip} - 1 ) .$$ It is straightforward to generalize these calculations to a state with $n$ excitations carrying momentum $p_1,\dotsc,p_n$. We then find that a physical state satisfies $$\exp \Big(i\sum_{k=1}^n p_k\Big) = 1.$$
Finally we want to calculate the action of the central charges ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$. In doing so we will require that the combination ${{\mathfrak{M}}}= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ takes the same value as in the non-deformed algebra,[^6] while ${{\mathfrak{H}}}= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} + {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ is allowed to receive corrections. We will denote the eigenvalue of ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$ by $s$. In terms of the coefficients of the representation it is given by $$\label{eq:no-spin-correction}
a_p b_p - c_p d_p = s .$$ As we already mentioned, we will assume that this charge does not depend on the value of the momentum $p$. We also note that we can use , to rewrite the shortening condition as $$({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} + {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}})^2 - 4{{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}= ({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}})^2 = s^2.$$ Using the condition together with the form of the representation coefficients found in and we can now write the dispersion relations, [*i.e.*]{}, the eigenvalue of ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ for a single excitation, as $$E(p) = a_p b_p + c_p d_p = \sqrt{s^2 + 4h^2\sin^2\frac{p}{2}} .$$
The above representation can be conveniently parametrized using the spectral parameters $x^\pm_p$ satisfying $$\frac{x_p^+}{x_p^-} = e^{ip} , \qquad
\left(x_p^+ + \frac{1}{x_p^+}\right) - \left(x_p^- + \frac{1}{x_p^-}\right) = \frac{2is}{h}.$$ We can then write the coefficients of the representation constructed above as $$\begin{aligned}
a &= \sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \eta_p \, e^{+i\frac{\gamma+\delta}{2}} , \qquad &
c &= -\sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \frac{i \eta_p}{x_p^+} \, e^{+i\frac{\gamma-\delta}{2}} , \\
b &= \sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \eta_p \, e^{-i\frac{\gamma+\delta}{2}} , \qquad &
d &= +\sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \frac{i \eta_p}{x_p^-} \, e^{-i\frac{\gamma-\delta}{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced an additional arbitrary phase $\delta$ and $$\label{eq:eta-p-def}
\eta_p = \sqrt{i(x_p^- - x_p^+)}.$$
The right-moving representation
-------------------------------
For the right-movers $\bar{\phi}_p$ and $\bar{\psi}_p$, the role of ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ is exchanged. Similar to we can then write the representation $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= \bar{a}_p \ket{\bar{\psi}_p}, \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= 0 , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} &= \bar{b}_p \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= 0 , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} &= \bar{c}_p \ket{\bar{\phi}_p Z^+} , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= \bar{d}_p \ket{\bar{\psi}_p Z^-} , \qquad &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= 0 ,
\end{aligned}$$ with the automorphisms acting as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p}}} &= -\tfrac{L}{2} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p}}} &= \left(-\tfrac{L}{2} + B\right) \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} , \\
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} &= -\tfrac{L}{2} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} &= \left(-\tfrac{L}{2} - \tfrac{1}{2} + B\right) \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} .
\end{aligned}$$ The action of the central charges is $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= \bar{c}_p \bar{d}_p \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} , \quad &
{{\mathfrak{P}}}\ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= \bar{a}_p \bar{c}_p \ket{\bar{\phi}_p Z^+} , \\
{{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= \bar{a}_p \bar{b}_p \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} , \quad &
{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}\ket{\bar{\phi}_p} &= \bar{b}_p \bar{d}_p \ket{\bar{\phi}_p Z^-} .
\end{aligned}$$ Note in particular that $${{\mathfrak{M}}}\ket{\bar{\phi}_p} = ({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}) \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} = -(\bar{a}_p \bar{b}_p - \bar{c}_p \bar{d}_p) \ket{\bar{\phi}_p} .$$ To match the notation for the left-movers, we will denote this eigenvalue by $-s$.
As in the left-moving case, a physical state should be annihilated by ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$. This leads us again to the condition that the total momentum should vanish (modulo $2\pi$). We then find that the coefficients of the representation take the same solution as previously, namely[^7]$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{a} &= \sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \eta_p \, e^{+i\frac{\gamma+\delta}{2}} , \qquad &
\bar{c} &= -\sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \frac{i \eta_p}{x_p^+} \, e^{+i\frac{\gamma-\delta}{2}} , \\
\bar{b} &= \sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \eta_p \, e^{-i\frac{\gamma+\delta}{2}} , \qquad &
\bar{d} &= +\sqrt{\frac{h}{2}} \, \frac{i \eta_p}{x_p^-} \, e^{-i\frac{\gamma-\delta}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we will from now on drop the bars on these coefficients.
#### Shortening condition.
The right-moving representation again satisfies the condition[^8]$$({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}) \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} = 0.$$ This is the same condition as for the left-moving representation. However, the small momentum limit is different. In the current case when we set the ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ to zero, we obtain the anti-chirality condition ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p} = 0$ from section \[sec:su112-alg\].
Two-particle states {#sec:2-part-states}
-------------------
Let us finally comment on the action of the central generators on states with one excitation in each sector. For the state $\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q}$, we find $${{\mathfrak{P}}}\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} = \frac{h}{2} e^{-i(p+q)} ( 1 - e^{i(p+q)} ) \ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q Z^+} .$$ Hence a physical state, for which the central extension vanishes, has zero total momentum, $$e^{i(P_L + P_R)} = 1,$$ where $P_L$ and $P_R$ are the momentum in the left- and right-moving sector, respectively. Note that even if this is an apparent contradiction with the momentum constraint used in [@Babichenko:2009dk], the difference is only due to different conventions for the Cartan generators in the two sectors [@Borsato:2012ss].
#### Bound states.
In general, two excitations together form a four-dimensional long multiplet of ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$. However, if the momenta $p$ and $q$ are related by $x_p^+ = x_q^-$, then the two-particle state $\ket{\phi_p \phi_q}$ satisfies $$({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} - {{\mathfrak{P}}}{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}) \ket{\phi_p \phi_q} = 0 , \qquad x_p^+ = x_q^-.$$ Hence the tensor product of the two representations becomes short at this point. This corresponds to the appearance of a bound state with energy $$E_{s_1}(p) + E_{s_2}(q) = \sqrt{(s_1+s_2)^2 + 4h^2\sin^2\frac{p+q}{2}},$$ where $s_1$ and $s_2$ are the masses of the two excitations. Note that the representation theory allows for bound states between two left-moving or two right-moving excitations with different masses. Whether such state are actually present in the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain hence depends on the pole structure of the S-matrix. Note that these bound state do not appear in the Bethe equations of [@Babichenko:2009dk; @OhlssonSax:2011ms].
#### Singlet states.
It is interesting to note that there are two-particle states that transform as singlets under the extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra. Such a state is constructed from one left- and one-right mover with the same mass. In particular we consider the states $$\ket{\mathsf{1}^{LR}_{p\bar{p}}} = \ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_{\bar{p}} Z^+} + \Xi_{p\bar{p}} \ket{\psi_p \bar{\psi}_{\bar{p}}} , \qquad
\ket{\mathsf{1}^{RL}_{p\bar{p}}} = \ket{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_{\bar{p}} Z^+} + \Xi_{p\bar{p}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_p \psi_{\bar{p}}} ,$$ where $$\Xi_{p\bar{p}} = i x_{\bar{p}}^+ \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_{\bar{p}}} .$$ It is straightforward to check that both $\ket{\mathsf{1}^{LR}_{p\bar{p}}}$ and $\ket{\mathsf{1}^{RL}_{p\bar{p}}}$ are annihilated by all the generators of the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra, provided we identify the Zhukovsky variables of the two excitations by $$x_{\bar{p}}^\pm = \frac{1}{x_p^\pm}.$$ In order to emphasize that the two momenta are related, we have denoted them by $p$ and $\bar{p}$. It is clear that this identifications means that the singlet states are non-physical, since one of the constituent excitations has a negative energy. Hence, we can view the singlet states as vacuum fluctuations. These states will be useful when we consider crossing symmetry in section \[sec:crossing-equations\].
The above states are closely related to the singlet ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ state observed in [@Beisert:2005tm]. In that case, the additional ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2) \times {{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ symmetry means that we have to combine that above state into a single singlet state $\ket{\mathsf{1}^{LR}_{pq}} - \ket{\mathsf{1}^{RL}_{pq}}$. For further comments on the relation between the symmetry considered here and the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$, see section \[sec:psu22-s-matrix\] and appendix \[sec:psu22-algebra\].
The S-matrix {#sec:S-matrix}
============
In the previous two sections we constructed the algebra and corresponding representations in which the excitations of the spin-chain transform. In this section we will consider scattering between two such excitations.
In discussing scattering processes it will be important whether the two excitations transform in a left- or right-moving representation, and whether they have the same or different eigenvalues under the charge ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$. We will therefore consider excitations transforming in four different representations, which we will label by L, $\text{L}'$, R and $\text{R}'$. The representations L and $\text{L} '$ are left-moving, while R and $\text{R}'$ are right-moving. The mass of the excitations, [*i.e.*]{}, the eigenvalues under the charge ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$, is $\pm s$ for the L and R representations, and $\pm s'$ for $\text{L}'$ and $\text{R}'$. In particular, in the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain we have $s=\alpha$ and $s'=1-\alpha$. Later we will also denote the four representations L, $\text{L}'$, R and $\text{R}'$ by $1$, $3$, $\bar{1}$ and $\bar{3}$, respectively.
#### Energy and momentum conservation.
Under a scattering process, the total energy and momentum of a two-particle state are preserved. Such a general process can be written as $$\ket{\mathcal{X}^{\text{(in)}}_{p_{\text{in}}}\, \mathcal{Y}^{\text{(in)}}_{q_{\text{in}}}} \to \ket{\mathcal{X}^{\text{(out)}}_{q_{\text{out}}}\,\mathcal{Y}^{\text{(out)}}_{p_{\text{out}}}} ,$$ where the fields $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}$ indicate generic excitations. We will always use a notation where the excitations in the in- and out-states are ordered such that $p_{\text{in}} > q_{\text{in}}$ and $p_{\text{out}} > q_{\text{out}}$. Energy and momentum conservation then take the form $$\label{eq:p-E-conservation}
p_{\text{in}} + q_{\text{in}} = p_{\text{out}} + q_{\text{out}} , \qquad
E_{s_{\text{in}}^{}}(p_{\text{in}}) + E_{s_{\text{in}}'}(q_{\text{in}}) = E_{s_{\text{out}}^{}}(q_{\text{out}}) + E_{s_{\text{out}}'}(p_{\text{out}}) ,$$ where we have explicitly indicated the mass of the excitation in the dispersion relation $$E_s(p) = \sqrt{s^2 + 4h^2\sin^2\frac{p}{2}} .$$ In all the scattering processes the individual masses are conserved. Hence we have $$\label{eq:mass-conservation}
s_{\text{out}}^{} = s_{\text{in}}', \ s_{\text{out}}' = s_{\text{in}}^{},
\qquad \text{or} \qquad
s_{\text{out}}^{} = s_{\text{in}}^{} ,\ s_{\text{out}}' = s_{\text{in}}'.$$ If the two incoming particles have the same mass, so that $s_{\text{in}}=s_{\text{in}}'=s_{\text{out}}=s_{\text{out}}'$, the momenta of the two particles are preserved, and the solution of is given by $p_{\text{out}} = p_{\text{in}}$ and $q_{\text{out}} = q_{\text{in}}$.[^9] Note that there still can be a non-trivial permutation in flavor space.
If, on the other hand, the masses of the two incoming particles are different, $s_{\text{in}} \neq s_{\text{in}}'$, there are two solutions to , depending on the relation of masses in . For $s^{}_{\text{in}}=s_{\text{out}}'$ and $s_{\text{in}}'=s_{\text{out}}$ the solution is again given by $p_{\text{out}} = p_{\text{in}}\equiv p$ and $q_{\text{out}} = q_{\text{in}}\equiv q$. We then have a process $$\ket{\mathcal{X}_p^{\text{(in)}} \, \mathcal{Y}_q^{\text{(in)}}} \to \ket{\mathcal{Y}_q^{\text{(out)}} \, \mathcal{X}_p^{\text{(out)}}} ,$$ where the excitations $\mathcal{X}^{\text{(in)}}$ and $\mathcal{X}^{\text{(out)}}$ have mass $s\equiv s_{\text{in}}^{}$ while $\mathcal{Y}^{\text{(in)}}$ and $\mathcal{Y}^{\text{(out)}}$ have mass $s'\equiv s'_{\text{in}}$. With respect to the mass of the excitations, this process acts as a *transmission*.
The second case in , with $s^{}_{\text{in}}=s_{\text{out}}$ and $s_{\text{in}}'=s_{\text{out}}'$ gives a solution to in which the momenta of the outgoing excitations are not a simple permutation of $p_{\text{in}}$ and $q_{\text{in}}$. The general solution in this case is quite complicated, and we will not write it down explicitly. The corresponding process takes the form of a *reflection* $$\ket{\mathcal{X}_{p_{\text{in}}}^{\text{(in)}} \, \mathcal{Y}_{q_{\text{in}}}^{\text{(in)}}} \to \ket{\mathcal{X}_{q_{\text{out}}}^{\text{(out)}} \, \mathcal{Y}_{p_{\text{out}}}^{\text{(out)}} },$$ where again we have used the same letter to indicate excitation of the same mass (but possibly different flavors). Notice that now $p_{\text{out}}(p_{\text{in}},q_{\text{in}})\neq p_{\text{in}}$, and similarly for $q$, as we are picking the non-trivial solution of .
The general S-matrix for the case of excitations of different masses includes processes of both a transmission and a reflection term. However, as we will see below, the S-matrix discussed in this paper will turn out to be reflectionless.
#### Invariance under the symmetry algebra.
The two-particle S-matrix ${\mathcal{S}}$ should be compatible with the symmetries of the theory, and should hence satisfy $$\label{eq:S-comm-alg}
{[{\mathfrak{J}}_1 + {\mathfrak{J}}_2,{\mathcal{S}}_{12}]} = 0 ,$$ where ${\mathfrak{J}}$ is any generator of the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra, and the subscript on ${\mathfrak{J}}$ indicates that the generator acts on the first or second component of a two-particle state.
Equation does not change if we multiply the S-matrix by a scalar factor, that is thus undetermined at this point. In the case of the ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ spin-chain there is one scalar factor that is constrained by unitarity, physical unitarity and crossing symmetry (see later). It is important to note that in our case, at least in principle, we get a different scalar factor for each one of the independent sectors. We will explain later how it is possible to relate them.
#### Unitarity and physical unitarity.
We will impose two additional constraints on the S-matrix, related to its analytical structure. The first constraint is that of *unitarity*, which means that acting twice with the S-matrix on a two-particle state gives back the original state, as illustrated in figure \[fig:unitarity\].
(i1) at (-0.45cm,0); (i2) at (+0.45cm,0);
(v1) at (0,0.75cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{12}$]{};
(m1) at (-0.5cm,1.5cm); (m2) at (+0.5cm,1.5cm);
(v2) at (0,2.25cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{12}$]{};
(o1) at (-0.45cm,3cm); (o2) at (+0.45cm,3cm);
(i1) to (v1); (i2) to (v1);
(v1) to (m1); (v1) to (m2);
(m1) to (v2); (m2) to (v2);
(v2) to (o1); (v2) to (o2);
at (0,1.5cm) [$=$]{};
(i1) at (-0.45cm,0); (i2) at (+0.45cm,0);
(o1) at (-0.45cm,3cm); (o2) at (+0.45cm,3cm);
(i1) to (o1); (i2) to (o2);
In terms of the operator ${\mathcal{S}}$, this constraint is expressed as $${\mathcal{S}}_{12} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{12}= 1.$$ The above relation takes a more familiar form when written in a matrix basis, which is discussed in more detail in appendix \[sec:string-frame\]. Here we just note that unitarity of the S-matrix ${\mathbb{S}}_{pq}$, where $p$ and $q$ are the momenta of the excitations in a two-particle state, is expressed as $${\mathbb{S}}_{qp} \, {\mathbb{S}}_{pq} = {\mathds{1}}.$$
The second constraint we impose is a reality constraint on the S-matrix, which we will refer to as *physical unitarity*. While this constraint can also be expressed in terms of the operator ${\mathcal{S}}$ by introducing its conjugate ${\mathcal{S}}^{\dag}$, it is more useful to again go to a matrix basis, where it takes the form $${\mathbb{S}}^{\dag}_{pq} \, {\mathbb{S}}_{pq} = {\mathds{1}}.$$ Hence, the condition of physical unitarity tells us that ${\mathbb{S}}$ is unitary as a matrix.
#### Discrete LR-symmetry.
The two copies of ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ that compose the symmetry algebra are on equal footing and it is arbitrary what we call left- and what we call right-moving. This allows us to require a discrete ${\mathbbm{Z}}_2$ symmetry at the level of the S-matrix: scattering processes that differ only by the exchange of the flavors left and right should give the same result. We will refer to this as LR-symmetry. This discrete symmetry will be very useful in constraining the solution for the S-matrix.
This symmetry is a special feature of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain, due to the direct product form of the symmetry group. In the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2|3)$ spin-chain of [@Beisert:2003ys; @Beisert:2005tm] the discrete LR-symmetry is replaced by a continuous ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2) \times {{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ symmetry. As we will see in section \[sec:psu22-s-matrix\], this difference in symmetry explains the difference between the S-matrices of the two models.
#### Yang-Baxter equation.
The final interesting property of our S-matrix is that is satisfies the Yang-Baxter (YB) equation $${\mathcal{S}}_{12} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{23} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{12} = {\mathcal{S}}_{23} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{12} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{23} .$$ This equation is illustrated in figure \[fig:Yang-Baxter\].
(i1) at (-0.9cm,0); (i2) at (-0, 0); (i3) at (+0.9cm,0);
(o1) at (-0.9cm,3cm); (o2) at (-0, 3cm); (o3) at (+0.9cm,3cm);
(v1) at (-0.45cm,0.75cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{12}$]{}; (v2) at ( 0.3cm, 1.5cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{23}$]{}; (v3) at (-0.45cm,2.25cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{12}$]{};
(i1) to (v1); (i2) to (v1); (i3) to (v2);
(v1) to (v2); (v1) to (v3); (v2) to (v3);
(v3) to (o1); (v3) to (o2); (v2) to (o3);
at (0,1.5cm) [$=$]{};
(i1) at (-0.9cm,0); (i2) at (-0, 0); (i3) at (+0.9cm,0);
(o1) at (-0.9cm,3cm); (o2) at (-0, 3cm); (o3) at (+0.9cm,3cm);
(v1) at (+0.45cm,0.75cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{23}$]{}; (v2) at (-0.3cm, 1.5cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{12}$]{}; (v3) at (+0.45cm,2.25cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{23}$]{};
(i1) to (v2); (i2) to (v1); (i3) to (v1);
(v1) to (v2); (v1) to (v3); (v2) to (v3);
(v2) to (o1); (v3) to (o2); (v3) to (o3);
We have written the YB equation as an operator equation, relating the two different orderings in which three two-particle S-matrices can act on a three-particle state. Since the spin-chain S-matrix involves length-changing processes, some care is needed when acting on a three particle state. The addition or removal of vacuum sites gives rise to extra phase factors in the YB equation. In section \[sec:Yang-Baxter\] we will discuss in more detail the exact form of the above equation in a matrix basis.
Excitations with the same mass {#sec:S-matrix-same-mass}
------------------------------
We start by discussing the case in which the excitations that scatter have the same mass. As explained before we will consider three different sectors separately, namely the left-left (LL), the right-right (RR) and the left-right (LR) sectors.
#### The LL sector.
As an ansatz for the S-matrix between two particles transforming in the left-moving multiplet we use $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \phi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q \phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \psi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q \phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} + C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q \psi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}}, \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p \psi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q \psi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p \phi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q \psi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} + E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q \phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}}, \\
\end{aligned}$$ This ansatz is constructed so that the bosonic charges ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{B}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$ are preserved. By requiring that ${\mathcal{S}}_{12}$ also commutes with the supercharges ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$, ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ we find that the coefficients take the form $$\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^+ - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \qquad &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^+ - x_p^+}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \qquad &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^+ - x_q^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} , \\
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= - S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} , \qquad &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^- - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \qquad &
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{x_p^+ - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} \frac{\eta_q}{\eta_p} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}$ is an arbitrary scalar factor. Unitarity and physical unitarity are satisfied if the scalar factor satisfies, respectively, $$S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{qp} = 1, \qquad
(S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq})^* S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{qp}=1.$$ This amounts to $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{12}$ being a phase that is anti-symmetric in the exchange of the two momenta.
In [@Beisert:2005wm] the two-particle S-matrix in a spin-chain where the excitations transform under a single copy of ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ was written down. In doing this, the Yang-Baxter equation was imposed. The S-matrix we have found here perfectly matches the result of that paper. However, here we have only required that the S-matrix commutes with the full, centrally extended, symmetry algebra.
#### The RR sector.
The calculation for the S-matrix in the RR sector goes exactly in the same way as in LL. The ansatz that preserves the bosonic charges takes the same form as before, except that now the excitations $\phi$ and $\psi$ are replaced by $\bar{\phi}, \bar{\psi}$. Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q \bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q \bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}
+ {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q \bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}, \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}} &=
{\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q \bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q \bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}
+ {\phantom{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q \bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p \bar{\psi}_q}}}, \\
\end{aligned}$$
Requiring that ${\mathcal{S}}$ also commutes with the supercharges it is not surprising to find $$\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^+ - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \qquad &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^+ - x_p^+}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \qquad &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^+ - x_q^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} , \\
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} &= - S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} , &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} \frac{x_q^- - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \qquad &
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} \frac{x_p^+ - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} \frac{\eta_q}{\eta_p} . \\
\end{aligned}$$ This is the same solution as the one for LL up to the fact that now $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}$ is in principle a different scalar factor. We can identify this factor with the previous one by requiring LR-symmetry. Imposing for example $A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}=A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}$, it follows that $$S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}=S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}.$$ We recall that we only required that the masses of the two excitations are equal, but we never imposed their actual value.
#### The LR and RL sectors.
In the LR and RL sectors the most general ansatz for the S-matrix that preserves the bosonic charges contains both a *transmission* part ${\mathcal{T}}$ and a *reflection* part ${\mathcal{R}}$, $${\mathcal{S}}= {\mathcal{T}}+ {\mathcal{R}},$$ where “transmission” and “reflection” refers to the chirality of the two excitations. Hence, the transmission ${\mathcal{T}}$ takes an in-state consisting of a left- and a right-mover, such as $\ket{\phi_p \bar{\psi}_q}$, into an out-state with a right- and a left-mover, $\ket{\bar{\psi}_q \phi_p}$. Taking into account the conservation of the bosonic charges, we can write an ansatz for such an operator as $$\label{eq:T-ansatz-LR}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} + {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_q \psi_p Z^-}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}, \\
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} + {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p Z^+}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the reflection takes a left- and a right-mover, $\ket{\phi_p \bar{\psi}_q}$, back into a left- and a right-mover, $\ket{\phi_q \bar{\psi}_p}$. The corresponding ansatz reads $$\label{eq:R-ansatz-LR}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p\bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q\bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}} + \tilde{B}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \ket{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p Z^-}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q\bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}}, \\
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{E}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}} + \tilde{F}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \ket{\phi_q\bar{\phi}_p Z^+}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{D}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q\bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Commuting ${\mathcal{T}}$ with the supercharges ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_i$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_i$, we find $$\label{eq:T-solution-LR}
\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= +\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \quad &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^- x_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \quad &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \\
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \quad &
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \quad &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we find that the coefficients of ${\mathcal{R}}$ are given by $$\label{eq:R-solution-LR}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} \frac{1-\frac{x_q^+}{x_p^+}\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}} , \quad &
\tilde{B}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{i}{x_p^- x_q^-} \frac{x_p^+ - x_q^+ }{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \quad &
\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \\
\tilde{E}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} \frac{1-\frac{x_q^-}{x_p^-}\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
\tilde{F}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{i}{x_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{x_p^- - x_q^- }{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
\tilde{D}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} .
\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$ and $\rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$ are two scalar factors that for now are left undetermined.
If we instead consider an in-state with the excitations in the opposite order, [*i.e.*]{}, with the first excitation right-moving and the second left-moving, the ansatz again takes a form similar to and , but with the $\phi$ and $\bar{\phi}$, and $\psi$ and $\bar{\psi}$ exchanged. We hence find $$\label{eq:T-ansatz-RL}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p\phi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q\bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}} + {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{\psi_q\bar{ \psi}_p Z^-}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p\psi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q\bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}}, \\
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}} + {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{\phi_q\bar{\phi}_p Z^+}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{T}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p\phi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q\bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{eq:R-ansatz-RL}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p\phi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} + \tilde{B}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \ket{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p Z^-}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p\psi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}, \\
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{E}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} + \tilde{F}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \ket{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p Z^+}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p\phi_q}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{D}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ In this case the coefficients are given by $$\label{eq:T-solution-RL}
\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= +\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^- x_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}, \\
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} ,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{eq:R-solution-RL}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} \frac{1-\frac{x_q^+}{x_p^+}\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}} , \quad &
\tilde{B}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{i}{x_p^- x_q^-} \frac{x_p^+ - x_q^+ }{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}} , \quad &
\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} , \\
\tilde{E}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} \frac{1-\frac{x_q^-}{x_p^-}\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
\tilde{F}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{i}{x_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{x_p^- - x_q^- }{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \quad &
\tilde{D}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} .
\end{aligned}$$ In order to further restrict the form of the S-matrix, we impose unitarity, physical unitarity and LR-symmetry. As shown in more detail in appendix \[sec:LR-S-matrix\], this leads to the S-matrix taking the form of either a pure transmission or a pure reflection. In other words, we have either $\rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = 0$ or $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = 0$. In order to match our result with the near-BMN limit analysis performed in [@Rughoonauth:2012qd], we choose the pure transmission S-matrix. In this case the LR-symmetry also imposes $$\label{eq:tau-LR-RL}
\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \zeta_{pq} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \qquad
\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = \frac{1}{\zeta_{pq}} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \qquad
\zeta_{pq} = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}} ,$$ where $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$ is a scalar factor that is common for the two sectors with one left-moving and one right-moving excitation. Note that this gives, $A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$, $B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$, *etc*.
The psu(2|2) S-matrix {#sec:psu22-s-matrix}
---------------------
In the calculation above we imposed invariance under the LR-symmetry. In other words, the obtained S-matrix is invariant under the simultaneous exchange of the excitations $\phi_p$, $\bar{\phi}_p$ and $\psi_p$, $\bar{\psi}_p$. Alternatively, we can require that the S-matrix takes a symmetric combination of a left- and a right-moving scalar to a state containing only scalars, and an anti-symmetric combination of a left- and a right-moving scalar into anti-symmetric combinations of scalars and fermions. Hence we require the structure of the S-matrix to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\left(\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} + \ket{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_q}\right) &= \# \left(\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} + \ket{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_q}\right) , \\
{\mathcal{S}}\left(\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} - \ket{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_q}\right)
&= \# \left(\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} - \ket{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_q}\right) + \# \left(\ket{\psi_p \bar{\psi}_q} - \ket{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_q}\right) .
\end{aligned}$$ This corresponds to introducing an additional ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2) \times {{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ symmetry, with the two scalars transforming as a doublet under one of the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ factors and the fermions as a double under the other ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ factor. The full symmetry is then enlarged to a centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ algebra studied in [@Beisert:2005tm; @Beisert:2006qh], and the S-matrix coincides with the one found in these references. The explicit embedding of the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra and its central extension into the extended ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ is given in appendix \[sec:psu22-algebra\].
Scattering of excitations with different mass {#sec:S-matrix-diff-mass}
---------------------------------------------
So far we have discussed the case in which we scatter two excitations with the same mass. As noted in the beginning of this section, when the two excitations have different masses there are two possibilities for the momenta of the outgoing excitations. The full S-matrix can then be written as a sum of a transmission part and a reflection part. However, by imposing unitarity, physical unitarity and LR-symmetry, we find again that the S-matrix is either a pure transmission or a pure reflection. For the reasons explained before, we will consider the case of pure transmission. Since the reflection part of the S-matrix is fairly complicated, we will only write down the part of the S-matrix involving transmission processes.
In the following, to distinguish the excitations with different $s$, we will use $\phi$, $\phi'$ to denote the bosons and $\psi$, $\psi'$ for the fermions. We also choose to use the variables $x^\pm$ for $(\phi, \psi)$ and $z^\pm$ for $(\phi',\psi')$, $$x^+ + \frac{1}{x^+} - x^- - \frac{1}{x^-} = \frac{2 i s}{h}, \qquad
z^+ + \frac{1}{z^+} - z^- - \frac{1}{z^-} = \frac{2 i s'}{h}.$$ As before, the corresponding right excitations will be denoted with a bar $(\bar{\phi}, \bar{\psi})$, $(\bar{\phi}', \bar{\psi}')$. The results in this section do not depend on the actual values of $s$ and $s'$. When we later discuss the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ spin-chain we will have $s=\alpha$ and $s'=1-\alpha$.
#### The LL’ and RR’ sectors.
In a scattering process the two excitations with different mass will always be exchanged, in order to have conservation for the bosonic charges, in particular the energy. From this it follows that we can really think of the momentum as a label attached to an excitation with a certain mass. If we also recall that the S-matrix in the LL sector for the case of same mass was found without imposing the quadratic constraint on $x^\pm$, it is easy to understand that the S-matrix in the sector that we are currently considering is just a generalization of the previous one, where we use the variables $z^\pm$ when the momentum considered is attached to excitations of the kind $(\phi', \psi')$ or $(\bar{\phi}', \bar{\psi}')$. For later convenience regarding the Bethe equations that appear in [@Borsato:2012ss], to write the S-matrix elements we choose nevertheless a different normalization as before: we want the S-matrix element corresponding to the boson-boson interaction to be equal to the unspecified scalar factor. Explicitly, in the $\text{LL}'$ sector we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi^{}_p\phi'_q}\phantom{\psi^{}_p\psi'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi'_q\psi^{}_p}\mathllap{\phi'_q\phi^{}_p}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi^{}_p\psi'_q}\phantom{\phi^{}_p\psi'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi'_q\phi^{}_p}\mathllap{\psi'_q\phi^{}_p}}}
+ {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi'_q\phi^{}_p}\mathllap{\phi'_q\psi^{}_p}}} , \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi^{}_p\psi'_q}\phantom{\psi^{}_p\psi'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi'_q\psi^{}_p}\mathllap{\psi'_q\psi^{}_p}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi^{}_p\phi'_q}\phantom{\phi^{}_p\psi'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi'_q\phi^{}_p}\mathllap{\phi'_q\psi^{}_p}}}
+ {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi'_q\phi^{}_p}\mathllap{\psi'_q\phi^{}_p}}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the S-matrix elements are given by $$\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= +S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} , \quad &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{z_q^+ - x_p^+}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} , \quad &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{z_q^+ - z_q^-}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} \frac{\eta_{p}}{\eta_{q}} , \\
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= - S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{z_q^- - x_p^+}{z_q^+ - x_p^-}, &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{z_q^- - x_p^-}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} , &
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{x_p^+ - x_p^-}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} \frac{\eta_{q}}{\eta_{p}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}$ is again a scalar factor. To obtain the S-matrix in the L${}'$L we simply exchange $x^\pm$ and $z^\pm$ in the above relations. We denote the corresponding scalar by $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L${}'$L}}}_{pq}$. Unitarity is satisfied if the two scalar factors satisfy $$S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L${}'$L}}}_{qp} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}=1,$$ which means that there is only one scalar factor in the $\text{LL}'$ and L${}'$L sectors.
The computations for the RR${}'$ sector are exactly the same and we choose the same normalization. In principle one gets two new factors $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR${}'$}}}_{pq}$ and $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$R}}}_{pq}$, which are again related by unitarity, but LR-symmetry imposes $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR${}'$}}}_{pq}=S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}$ and $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$R}}}_{pq} = S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L${}'$L}}}_{pq}$.
#### The LR’ and RL’ sectors.
The final sectors that we consider consist of one left- and one right-moving excitation with different masses. Let us write explicitly the result for the elements of the pure transmission S-matrix $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}'_q}\mathllap{\phi_p\bar{\phi}'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\bar{\psi}'_q\psi_p}\mathllap{\bar{\phi}'_q\phi_p}}}
+ {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\bar{\psi}'_q\psi_p Z^-}\mathllap{\bar{\psi}'_q\psi_p Z^-}}} , \quad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\phi_p\bar{\psi}'_q}\mathllap{\phi_p\bar{\psi}'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\bar{\phi}'_q\psi_p}\mathllap{\bar{\psi}'_q\phi_p}}} , \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}'_q}\mathllap{\psi_p\bar{\psi}'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\bar{\psi}'_q\psi_p}\mathllap{\bar{\psi}'_q\psi_p}}}
+ {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\bar{\psi}'_q\psi_p Z^-}\mathllap{\bar{\phi}'_q\phi_p Z^+}}} , \quad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\phi_p\bar{\psi}'_q}\mathllap{\psi_p\bar{\phi}'_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\bar{\phi}'_q\psi_p}\mathllap{\bar{\phi}'_q\psi_p}}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\bar{\psi}'_p\psi_q}\mathllap{\bar{\phi}'_p\phi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}'_p}\mathllap{\phi_q\bar{\phi}'_p}}}
+ {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}'_p Z^-}\mathllap{\psi_q\bar{\psi}'_p Z^-}}} , \quad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\bar{\phi}'_p\psi_q}\mathllap{\bar{\phi}'_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\phi_q\bar{\psi}'_p}\mathllap{\psi_q\bar{\phi}'_p}}} , \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\bar{\psi}'_p\psi_q}\mathllap{\bar{\psi}'_p\psi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}'_p}\mathllap{\psi_q\bar{\psi}'_p}}}
+ {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}'_p Z^-}\mathllap{\phi_q\bar{\phi}'_p Z^+}}} , \quad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\phantom{\bar{\phi}'_p\psi_q}\mathllap{\bar{\psi}'_p\phi_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\phantom{\phi_q\bar{\psi}'_p}\mathllap{\phi_q\bar{\psi}'_p}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients take the form $$\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= +\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ z_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}} , \ &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{x_p^- z_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}} , \ &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} , \\
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}}, \ &
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{x_p^+ z_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}} , \ &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ z_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= +\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{z_p^- x_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \\
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^- x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{z_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq},
\end{aligned}$$ Imposing unitarity and LR-symmetry we find that the scalar factors $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL${}'$}}}_{pq}$ and $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}$ are given by $$\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} = \zeta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} , \qquad
\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} = \frac{1}{\zeta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} ,$$ where $$\zeta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}=\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ z_q^+}}} , \qquad
\zeta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq}=\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}}} ,$$ and $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}$ is the common anti-symmetric phase factor of the sector. Also in this case the S-matrix elements are a generalization of the ones found in the case of same masses.
The S-matrix of the d(2,1;a) x d(2,1;a) spin-chain {#sec:d21a-S-matrix}
--------------------------------------------------
Now that we have derived all the S-matrix coefficients, we will slightly rewrite the S-matrix in a notation suitable for discussing the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}^2$ symmetric spin-chain discussed in section \[sec:d21a-spin-chain\], and the corresponding Bethe ansatz equations. As noted in that section, the excitations of the spin-chain transform in four multiplets of ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$. There are two left-moving representations, which we will denote by $1$ and $3$. The masses of the excitations in these representations are $\alpha$ and $1-\alpha$, respectively. Similarly we denote the two right-moving representations $\bar{1}$ and $\bar{3}$, with the excitations again carrying mass $\alpha$ and $1-\alpha$. The excitations in these representations will then be denoted $$(\phi^1_p,\psi^1_p) , \qquad
(\phi^3_p,\psi^3_p) , \qquad
(\bar{\phi}^{\bar{1}}_p,\bar{\psi}^{\bar{1}}_p) , \qquad
(\bar{\phi}^{\bar{3}}_p,\bar{\psi}^{\bar{3}}_p) .$$
The S-matrix elements for scattering between excitations in the various representations are all given in sections \[sec:S-matrix-same-mass\] and \[sec:S-matrix-diff-mass\]. We only need to specify the scalar factors appearing in these matrix elements. The scalar factors that appear in the Bethe ansatz construction [@Borsato:2012ss] are the inverse of the ones introduced at the level of the S-matrix. It will therefore be convenient to introduce, [*e.g.*]{}, $S^{1\bar{3}}_{pq} = (S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq})^{-1}$. In principle we then end up with 16 different phases $S^{ij}$, $i,j \in \{1,3,\bar{1},\bar{3}\}$. However, in the previous sections we have already imposed unitarity, which relates the phases $S^{ij}$ and $S^{ji}$, as well as LR-symmetry, which relates $S^{ij}$ and $S^{\bar{\imath}\bar{\jmath}}$ (where we identify $\bar{\bar{\imath}}=i$). We thus end up with six remaining independent phases $$S^{11}, \qquad S^{33}, \qquad S^{13}, \qquad S^{1\bar{1}}, \qquad S^{1\bar{3}}, \qquad S^{3\bar{3}},$$ which amounts to four different functions, as $S^{11}$, $S^{1\bar{1}}$ and $S^{33}$, $S^{3\bar{3}}$ respectively should have the same functional form up to specifing the value of the mass. In the next subsection we will further relate these phases by using crossing symmetry.
Crossing equations {#sec:crossing-equations}
------------------
In order to derive the crossing equations, we will follow an argument first given in [@Beisert:2005tm]. The idea is to scatter an excitation with the one of the singlet states constructed in section \[sec:2-part-states\]. By ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ symmetry, the singlet should scatter trivially with an excitation carrying charges under this algebra. This gives us an equation for the scalar factors involved. As explained, the singlet is composed of one left- and one right-moving excitation with the same mass, $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\textsf{1}^{1\bar{1}}_{q\bar{q}}} &= \ket{\phi^1_q \bar{\phi}^{\bar{1}}_{\bar{q}} Z^+} + \Xi_{q\bar{q}} \ket{\psi^1_q \bar{\psi}^{\bar{1}}_{\bar{q}}}, \qquad &
\ket{\textsf{1}^{3\bar{3}}_{q\bar{q}}} &= \ket{\phi^3_q \bar{\phi}^{\bar{3}}_{\bar{q}} Z^+} + \Xi_{q\bar{q}} \ket{\psi^3_q \bar{\psi}^{\bar{3}}_{\bar{q}}}, \\
\ket{\textsf{1}^{\bar{1}1}_{q\bar{q}}} &= \ket{\bar{\phi}^{\bar{1}}_q \phi^1_{\bar{q}} Z^+} + \Xi_{q\bar{q}} \ket{\bar{\psi}^{\bar{1}}_q \psi^1_{\bar{q}}}, \qquad &
\ket{\textsf{1}^{\bar{3}3}_{q\bar{q}}} &= \ket{\bar{\phi}^{\bar{3}}_q \phi^3_{\bar{q}} Z^+} + \Xi_{q\bar{q}} \ket{\bar{\psi}^{\bar{3}}_q \psi^3_{\bar{q}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Xi_{q\bar{q}}$ is given by $$\Xi_{q\bar{q}}= i x_{\bar{q}}^+ \frac{\eta_q}{\eta_{\bar{q}}} ,$$ and the Zhukovsky variables identified by $$x_{\bar{q}}^\pm= \frac{1}{x_q^\pm}.$$ The crossing equations can be found by scattering an arbitrary excitation $\mathcal{X}_r$ with one of the four singlets $$\label{eq:scatt-singl}
{\mathcal{S}}_{23} {\mathcal{S}}_{12} \ket{\mathcal{X}_p^{} \textsf{1}^{ij}_{q\bar{q}}} = X^{ij}_{p,q\bar{q}} \ket{\textsf{1}^{ij}_{q\bar{q}} \mathcal{X}_p^{} },$$ and requiring that $X^{ij}_{p,q\bar{q}} = 1$ after the identification $x_{\bar{q}}^\pm= 1/x_q^\pm$. This is illustrated in figure \[fig:singlet\].
(i1) at (-0.9cm,0);
(o1) at (-0.9cm,3cm); (o2) at (-0, 3cm); (o3) at (+0.9cm,3cm);
(v1) at (-0.375cm,1.125cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{12}$]{}; (v2) at (+0.375cm,1.875cm) \[S-mat\] [$\scriptstyle {\mathcal{S}}_{23}$]{};
(v3) at ($(0,1.5cm)+(0.75cm,-0.75cm)$) \[circle,draw=black,fill=black,minimum size=3pt,inner sep=0\] ;
(i1) to (v1); (v1) to (v2); (v2) to (o3);
(o1) to (v1); (v2) to (o2);
(v1) to (v3); (v3) to (v2);
at (v3) \[anchor=north\] [$\scriptstyle \mathsf{1}$]{};
at (0,1.5cm) [$=$]{};
(i1) at (-0.9cm,0);
(o1) at (-0.9cm,3cm); (o2) at (-0, 3cm); (o3) at (+0.9cm,3cm);
\(v) at (-0.45cm,1.95cm) \[circle,draw=black,fill=black,minimum size=3pt,inner sep=0\] ;
(i1) to (o3); (o1) to (v); (v) to (o2);
at (v) \[anchor=north\] [$\scriptstyle \mathsf{1}$]{};
If we scatter an excitation of type 1 with the singlets $\ket{\textsf{1}^{1\bar{1}}_{q\bar{q}}}$ and $\ket{\textsf{1}^{\bar{1}1}_{q\bar{q}}}$ we get the two equations[^10] $$\label{eq:cross-11}
S^{11}_{pq} \, S^{1\bar{1}}_{p\bar{q}} = \frac{x^-_p-x^+_q}{x^-_p-x^-_q}\sqrt{\frac{x^+_p}{x^-_p}\frac{x^-_p - x^-_q}{x^+_p - x^+_q}} , \qquad
S^{11}_{p\bar{q}} \, S^{1\bar{1}}_{pq} = \frac{1-\frac{1}{x^+_px^+_q}}{1-\frac{1}{x^+_px^-_q}}\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{x^-_p x^-_q}}{1-\frac{1}{x^+_p x^+_q}}} .$$ If we scatter an excitation of type $\bar{1}$ with the same singlets we get $$S^{\bar{1}\bar{1}}_{pq} \, S^{\bar{1}1}_{p\bar{q}} = \frac{x^-_p-x^+_q}{x^-_p-x^-_q}\sqrt{\frac{x^+_p}{x^-_p}\frac{x^-_p - x^-_q}{x^+_p - x^+_q}} , \qquad
S^{\bar{1}\bar{1}}_{p\bar{q}} \, S^{\bar{1}1}_{pq} = \frac{1-\frac{1}{x^+_px^+_q}}{1-\frac{1}{x^+_px^-_q}}\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{x^-_p x^-_q}}{1-\frac{1}{x^+_p x^+_q}}} .$$ We could also have found these equations from by imposing LR-symmetry. Similarly, we can scatter excitations of type 3 or $\bar{3}$ with the singlets made out of 3 and $\bar{3}$ and obtain equations taking the same form as the ones presented above. We can also study the case in which the excitation scatters with a singlet with a different mass. We get for example $$\label{eq:cross-31}
S^{31}_{pq} \, S^{3\bar{1}}_{p\bar{q}} = \frac{z^+_p-x^-_q}{z^-_p-x^-_q}\sqrt{\frac{z^+_p}{z^-_p}\frac{z^-_p - x^-_q}{z^+_p - x^+_q}} , \qquad
S^{31}_{p\bar{q}} \, S^{3\bar{1}}_{pq} =\frac{z^+_p}{z^-_p}\frac{1-\frac{1}{z^+_px^+_q}}{1-\frac{1}{z^-_px^+_q}}\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{z^-_px^-_q}}{1-\frac{1}{z^+_px^+_q}}} .$$ The apparent discrepancy between and is due to a different choice of normalization for the S-matrix in the sectors 11 and 13. Note that the crossing equations found here differ from those of [@David:2010yg].
The Yang-Baxter equation {#sec:Yang-Baxter}
------------------------
In an integrable model, any $N$-body scattering event can be broken down in a sequence of two body scattering events. In general, such a factorization can be performed in several different orderings. For consistency, the result should be independent of the ordering of the two-particle S-matrix. It is sufficient to check this for the case of three-particle scattering. This leads to the Yang-Baxter (YB) equation. In terms of the operator ${\mathcal{S}}$ acting on three spin-chain excitations, this equation takes the form $$\label{eq:YB-op}
{\mathcal{S}}_{12} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{23} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{12} = {\mathcal{S}}_{23} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{12} \, {\mathcal{S}}_{23} ,$$ as illustrated is figure \[fig:Yang-Baxter\]. Motivated by some information on the physics, namely the near-BMN limit studied in [@Rughoonauth:2012qd], we chose a reflectionless S-matrix. A check shows that this choice satisfies YB, while we note that YB would not be satisfied if we allowed for a reflection S-matrix in some sectors.
It is instructive to write equation in a matrix basis. This is straightforward in the case of three particles of the same chirality. For definiteness, let us consider three left-moving excitations with momenta $p$, $q$ and $r$. Equation can then be written as $$\label{eq:YB-mat-LL}
{\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{qr}\otimes {\mathds{1}}\, \cdot \, {\mathds{1}}\otimes{\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pr} \, \cdot \, {\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}\otimes{\mathds{1}}=
{\mathds{1}}\otimes{\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \, \cdot \, {\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pr}\otimes{\mathds{1}}\, \cdot \, {\mathds{1}}\otimes{\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{qr} .$$ However, when acting with on a three-particle state containing particles of differing chiralities, we have to account for the presence of length-changing effects. For instance, scattering magnons of momentum $p$ and $q$ may result in two magnon with momenta $q,p$ plus the addition (or removal) of one vacuum site, [*e.g.*]{}, $$\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} \mapsto \#\ket{\bar{\psi}_q \psi_p Z^-} ,
\qquad \text{or} \qquad
\ket{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q} \mapsto \#\ket{\bar{\phi}_q \phi_p Z^+} .$$ We can take care of the extra (missing) vacuum sites by moving them to the far right of the chain, but since this requires commuting them past the third magnon, this results in an additional factor of $e^{-ir}$ ($e^{+ir}$). As a result, we must modify YB equation (\[eq:YB-mat-LL\]) to account for such phases: $$\label{eq:YB-mat-twist}
{\mathds{1}}\otimes{\mathbb{S}}_{pq} \, \cdot \,
\left({\mathbb{F}}_q^{\phantom{1}}{\mathbb{S}}_{pr}{\mathbb{F}}_q^{-1}\right) \otimes {\mathds{1}}\, \cdot \,
{\mathds{1}}\otimes{\mathbb{S}}_{qr}
=
\left({\mathbb{F}}_p^{\phantom{1}}{\mathbb{S}}_{qr}{\mathbb{F}}_p^{{-1}}\right) \otimes {\mathds{1}}\, \cdot \,
{\mathds{1}}\otimes{\mathbb{S}}_{pr} \, \cdot \,
\left({\mathbb{F}}_r^{\phantom{1}} {\mathbb{S}}_{pq}{\mathbb{F}}_r^{{-1}}\right) \otimes {\mathds{1}},$$ where the transformation ${\mathbb{F}}$ implements a twist depending on the momentum of the third magnon.
The fact that the all-loop S-matrix for the dynamical spin-chain satisfies a modified (“twisted”) form of the Yang-Baxter equation, due to the length-changing effects is familiar from the case of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM spin-chain. As discussed in detail in [@Arutyunov:2006yd], the modifications to YB equation can be seen as coming from a twist in the Zamolodchikov-Faddeev (ZF) algebra that encodes the factorization of scattering. By redefining the ZF creation and annihilation operators one finds a twisted ZF algebra, with a two-body S-matrix ${\mathbb{S}}$ that satisfies a twisted YB equation[^11]. If ${\mathbb{U}}(p)$ is a non-local unitary operator that implements the twist on the one-particle basis, we have that the twisted YB equation (\[eq:YB-mat-twist\]) can be rewritten as the ordinary YB equation for a different S-matrix $\widehat{{\mathbb{S}}}$ using $$\label{eq:twistZF}
\widehat{{\mathbb{S}}}_{pq} = {\mathbb{U}}^\dagger(p) \otimes {\mathds{1}}\, \cdot \, {\mathbb{S}}_{pq} \, \cdot \, {\mathbb{U}}(q) \otimes {\mathds{1}}.$$ The factor ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ in is then related to ${\mathbb{U}}(p)$ by $${\mathbb{F}}_p = {\mathbb{U}}(p) \otimes {\mathbb{U}}(p) .$$ The twisted and untwisted ZF algebras are isomorphic, and their S-matrices must be physically, but not unitarily, equivalent. In particular, since $\widehat{{\mathbb{S}}}$ satisfies the canonical YB equation, in certain cases it may be more convenient to work directly with it. Such a choice of basis is sometimes referred to as “string theory basis”, as opposed to the “spin-chain basis” that we have used here. Its explicit form can be found from the one given in section \[sec:S-matrix\] by using and specifying ${\mathbb{U}}(p)$ to act in the basis $\big(\phi,\psi,\bar{\phi},\bar{\psi}\big)$ by $${\mathbb{U}}(p)=\operatorname{diag}\bigl(e^{-\frac{ip}{2}},1,e^{-\frac{ip}{2}},1\bigr) .$$ The explicit form of the matrix elements can be found in appendix \[sec:string-frame\].
Discussion and outlook
======================
We have derived the all-loop S-matrix of an alternating spin-chain having extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ symmetry and a discrete ${\mathbbm{Z}}_2$ left-right symmetry. The S-matrix is essentially unique and satisfies Yang-Baxter equation, which points to the quantum integrability of the resulting theory.
To completely fix the S-matrix one would have to fix the scalar factors $S^{ij}$ by means of the crossing equations of section \[sec:crossing-equations\], which boil down to four functional equations for $S^{ii}$, $S^{i\bar{\imath}}$, $S^{ij}$ and $S^{i\bar{\jmath}}$. Postponing a more careful analysis of the such equations to a separate work [@Borsato:2012ss], let us mention that they take a form that is quite different from the one of their ${\textup{AdS}}_5/{\textup{CFT}}_4$ and ${\textup{AdS}}_4/{\textup{CFT}}_3$ counterparts. In particular, it appears that an ansatz involving simple functions and the BES dressing phase does not solve our equations. Furthermore, in light of the possible presence of bound states of particles of different masses described in section \[sec:2-part-states\], one might have to pick a non-minimal solution. Finally it is worth pointing out that such phases should also appear when scattering modes of different masses, which is a novel feature that was not accounted for in the Bethe ansatz equations conjectured earlier.
The S-matrix we derived should describe the massive modes of strings on ${\textup{AdS}}_3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^3\times {\textup{S}}^1$ through its Bethe equations [@Borsato:2012ss], which give the asymptotic spectrum once the abelian phases are determined. It remains to see how the two missing massless modes can be incorporated back in this picture. Following the strategy of [@Sax:2012jv], it would be interesting to analyse the representations of the centrally extended algebra and the S-matrix in the $\alpha \to 0$ limit, and in that way trace the origin of the massless modes that appear in this limit. Understanding the massless modes would open the door to a plethora of possible developments, including the computation of the exact ([*i.e.*]{}, non-asymptotic) spectrum by means of the thermodynamical Bethe ansatz and a better grasp of the dual CFT. An important step in that direction would be the construction of the bound state S-matrix. As noted in the end of section \[sec:2-part-states\], bound states transform in a two-dimensional short multiplet similar to that of the fundamental excitations. Hence, the form of the S-matrix of these states should be the same that of the S-matrix discussed here, up to the scalar factors.
Finally, given the existence of a family of classically integrable backgrounds interpolating between the pure RR and pure NSNS one [@Cagnazzo:2012se], understanding the integrable structure of these theories might provide insights on the relation between integrability and representation theory techniques.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank G. Arutyunov, B. Stefański, S. van Tongeren, A. Torrielli and K. Zarembo for valuable discussions, and G. Arutyunov for his useful comments on the manuscript. The authors acknowledge support by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under the VICI grant 680-47-602. The work by the authors is also part of the ERC Advanced grant research programme No. 246974, “Supersymmetry: a window to non-perturbative physics”.
The d(2,1;a) algebra {#sec:d21a-algebra}
====================
The generators of ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ satisfy the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
{[{\mathfrak{J}}_0,{\mathfrak{J}}_\pm]} &= \pm {\mathfrak{J}}_\pm , &
{[{\mathfrak{J}}_+,{\mathfrak{J}}_-]} &= 2 {\mathfrak{J}}_0 , &
{[{\mathfrak{J}}_0,{\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm\beta\dot{\beta}}]} &= \pm\frac{1}{2} {\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm\beta\dot{\beta}} , &
{[{\mathfrak{J}}_\pm,{\mathfrak{Q}}_{\mp\beta\dot{\beta}}]} &= {\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm\beta\dot{\beta}} , \\
{[{\mathfrak{L}}_5,{\mathfrak{L}}_\pm]} &= \pm {\mathfrak{L}}_\pm , &
{[{\mathfrak{L}}_+,{\mathfrak{L}}_-]} &= 2 {\mathfrak{L}}_5 , &
{[{\mathfrak{L}}_5,{\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\pm\dot{\beta}}]} &= \pm\frac{1}{2} {\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\pm\dot{\beta}} , &
{[{\mathfrak{L}}_\pm,{\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\mp\dot{\beta}}]} &= {\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\pm\dot{\beta}} , \\
{[{\mathfrak{R}}_8,{\mathfrak{R}}_\pm]} &= \pm {\mathfrak{R}}_\pm , &
{[{\mathfrak{R}}_+,{\mathfrak{R}}_-]} &= 2 {\mathfrak{R}}_8 , &
{[{\mathfrak{R}}_8,{\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\beta\pm}]} &= \pm\frac{1}{2} {\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\beta\pm} , &
{[{\mathfrak{R}}_\pm,{\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\beta\mp}]} &= {\mathfrak{Q}}_{a\beta\pm} ,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm++},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm--}\}} &= \pm {\mathfrak{J}}_{\pm} , &
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm+-},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{\pm-+}\}} &= \mp {\mathfrak{J}}_{\pm} , \\
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\pm+},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\pm-}\}} &= \mp \alpha {\mathfrak{L}}_{\pm} , &
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\pm-},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\pm+}\}} &= \pm \alpha {\mathfrak{L}}_{\pm} , \\
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{++\pm},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{--\pm}\}} &= \mp (1-\alpha) {\mathfrak{R}}_{\pm} , &
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+-\pm},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-+\pm}\}} &= \pm (1-\alpha) {\mathfrak{R}}_{\pm} , \\
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\pm\pm},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\mp\mp}\}} &= - {\mathfrak{J}}_0 \pm \alpha{\mathfrak{L}}_5 \pm (1-\alpha){\mathfrak{R}}_8 , \\
{\{{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\pm\mp},{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\mp\pm}\}} &= + {\mathfrak{J}}_0 \mp \alpha{\mathfrak{L}}_5 \pm (1-\alpha){\mathfrak{R}}_8 .
\end{aligned}$$ The non-vanishing action of the ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ generators on these states of the $(-\tfrac{\alpha}{2};\tfrac{1}{2};0)$ representation is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{L}}_5 \ket{\phi_{\pm}^{(n)}} &= \pm \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi_{\pm}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{L}}_+ \ket{\phi_{-}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\phi_{+}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{L}}_- \ket{\phi_{+}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\phi_-^{(n)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{R}}_8 \ket{\psi_{\pm}^{(n)}} &= \pm \frac{1}{2} \ket{\psi_{\pm}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{R}}_+ \ket{\psi_{-}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\psi_+^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{R}}_- \ket{\psi_{+}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\psi_-^{(n)}} ,
\end{aligned} \\
\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{J}}_0 \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n)}} &= - \left( \tfrac{\alpha}{2} + n \right) \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{J}}_0 \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n)}} &= - \left( \tfrac{\alpha}{2} + \tfrac{1}{2} + n \right) \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{J}}_+ \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n)}} &= +\sqrt{(n - 1 + \alpha)n} \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n-1)}} , &
{\mathfrak{J}}_+ \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n)}} &= +\sqrt{(n + \alpha)n} \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n-1)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{J}}_- \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n-1)}} &= -\sqrt{(n - 1 + \alpha) n} \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{J}}_- \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n-1)}} &= -\sqrt{(n + \alpha) n} \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n)}} ,
\end{aligned} \\
\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\pm\dot\beta} \ket{\phi_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \pm \sqrt{n+\alpha} \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\pm\dot\beta} \ket{\phi_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \pm \sqrt{n} \ket{\psi_{\dot\beta}^{(n-1)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\beta\pm} \ket{\psi_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \mp \sqrt{n+1} \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n+1)}} , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\beta\pm} \ket{\psi_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \mp \sqrt{n+\alpha} \ket{\phi_{\beta}^{(n)}} .
\end{aligned}
\end{gathered}$$ On the $(-\tfrac{1-\alpha}{2};0;\tfrac{1}{2})$ representation the generators act as $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{L}}_5 \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(n)}} &= \pm \frac{1}{2} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{L}}_+ \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\tilde{\psi}_+^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{L}}_- \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\tilde{\psi}_-^{(n)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{R}}_8 \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\pm}^{(n)}} &= \pm \frac{1}{2} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\pm}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{R}}_+ \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{-}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\tilde{\phi}_+^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{R}}_- \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{+}^{(n)}} &= \ket{\tilde{\phi}_-^{(n)}} ,
\end{aligned} \\
\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{J}}_0 \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n)}} &= - \left( \tfrac{1-\alpha}{2} + n \right) \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{J}}_0 \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n)}} &= - \left( \tfrac{1 - \alpha}{2} + \tfrac{1}{2} + n \right) \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{J}}_+ \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n)}} &= +\sqrt{(n - \alpha) n} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n-1)}} , &
{\mathfrak{J}}_+ \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n)}} &= +\sqrt{(n + 1 - \alpha) n} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n-1)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{J}}_- \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n-1)}} &= -\sqrt{(n - \alpha) n} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{J}}_- \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n-1)}} &= -\sqrt{(n + 1 - \alpha) n} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n)}} ,
\end{aligned} \\
\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\gamma\pm} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \pm \sqrt{n+1-\alpha} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n)}} , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\gamma\pm} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \pm \sqrt{n} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\gamma}^{(n-1)}} , \\
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{-\pm\dot\gamma} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \mp \sqrt{n+1} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n+1)}} , &
{\mathfrak{Q}}_{+\pm\dot\gamma} \ket{\tilde{\psi}_{\mp}^{(n)}} &= \mp \sqrt{n+1-\alpha} \ket{\tilde{\phi}_{\dot\gamma}^{(n)}} .
\end{aligned}
\end{gathered}$$
Embedding into psu(2|2) {#sec:psu22-algebra}
=======================
The centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra can be embedded into the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ algebra discussed in [@Beisert:2005tm; @Beisert:2006qh]. There are several equivalent ways to do this. We can for example consider only the diagonal generators, which can be identified as $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}}^1{}_1 = {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \qquad
\hat{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}}^2{}_2 = {{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \qquad
\hat{{{\mathfrak{S}}}}^1{}_1 = {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , \qquad
\hat{{{\mathfrak{S}}}}^2{}_2 = {{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \\
\hat{{\mathfrak{L}}}^1{}_1 = -\hat{{\mathfrak{L}}}^2{}_2 = \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{M}}}- {{\mathfrak{B}}}, \qquad
\hat{{\mathfrak{R}}}^1{}_1 = -\hat{{\mathfrak{R}}}^2{}_2 = \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{M}}}+ {{\mathfrak{B}}}, \\
\hat{{\mathfrak{C}}} = \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{H}}}, \qquad
\hat{{{\mathfrak{P}}}} = -{{\mathfrak{P}}}, \qquad
\hat{{\mathfrak{K}}} = -{{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}.
\end{gathered}$$ Here the generators of ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ have been indicated by a hat. For the fundamental representations we can identify $\phi^1$ and $\psi^1$ as left-moving excitations, while $\phi^2$ and $\psi^2$ are right moving. For the charges $B=1/4$, $s=1/2$, this reproduces the fundamental $({\mathbf{2}}|{\mathbf{2}})$ representation of the centrally extended ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ algebra.
The S-matrix in the LR sector {#sec:LR-S-matrix}
=============================
As noted in section \[sec:S-matrix-same-mass\], the ansatz in , , and , for the S-matrix for two particles of the same mass but of different chirality involves both a transmission and a reflection part. Requiring that the S-matrix commutes with the supercharges we are left with the solution for the coefficients of the S-matrix given in equations , , and . This solution depends on four functions $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$, $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$, $\rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$ and $\rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$, which we can further constrain by requiring that unitarity and physical unitarity are satisfied. For definiteness we parameterize each function as a product of a positive real function of the two momenta and two phases, respectively symmetric and anti-symmetric in the exchange of $p$ and $q$. We then have $$\begin{aligned}
\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \exp\bigl[ i\bigl(\theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} + \vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \bigr) \bigr] , \qquad &
\rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \tilde{r}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \exp\bigl[ i\bigl (i \tilde{\theta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} + \tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \bigr) \bigr] , \\
\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \exp\bigl[ i\bigl (i \theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} + \vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \bigr) \bigr] , \qquad &
\rho^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \tilde{r}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \exp\bigl[ i\bigl (i \tilde{\theta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} + \tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \bigr) \bigr] ,
\end{aligned}$$ where, for example, $${{\left| \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \right|}} = r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \qquad
\theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{qp} = -\theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{qp} , \qquad
\vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{qp} = +\vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{qp} .$$ We first solve the linear constraint $${\mathbb{S}}^{\dag}_{pq} = {\mathbb{S}}_{qp} ,$$ which gives[^12] $$\label{eq:LR-S-sol-linear-constr}
\begin{gathered}
\bigl(e^{i\tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\bigr)^2 = 1, \qquad
e^{i\tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}} = \pm e^{i\tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} , \qquad
r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \equiv r_{pq} , \\
e^{i\theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}} = e^{i\theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} , \qquad
e^{i\vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}} = e^{-i\vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} ,
\end{gathered}$$ At this point it is possible to impose either unitarity or physical unitarity and solve the corresponding quadratic equations: $${\mathbb{S}}_{qp} {\mathbb{S}}_{pq} = {\mathds{1}}, \qquad
{\mathbb{S}}^{\dag}_{pq} {\mathbb{S}}_{pq} = {\mathds{1}}.$$ There are three different solutions of these equations,
1. a pure transmission ($\tilde{r}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \tilde{r}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = 0$),
2. a pure reflection ($r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = r^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = 0$),
3. a family of solutions that interpolates between transmission and reflection:
$$\tilde{r}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \tilde{r}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \equiv \tilde{r}_{pq}, \qquad
(r_{pq})^2 + (\tilde{r}_{pq})^2 =1, \qquad
\tilde{\theta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} + \tilde{\theta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = \theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} + \theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} ,$$
where the last relation is possible only if one chooses $e^{i\tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} = -e^{i\tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}$ in . This is the reason why we wrote the solutions 1 and 2 above as separate from 3: solution 2 is different from what one gets by imposing $r_{pq} = 0$ in solution 3.[^13] As noted in section \[sec:psu22-s-matrix\], we can recover the ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ found in [@Beisert:2005tm] from the S-matrix considered here. In the above notation it corresponds to $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{r}_{pq} & = \sqrt{\frac{(x_p^- - x_p^+)(x_q^- - x_q^+)}{(x_q^- -x_p^+)(x_p^- - x_q^+)}}, \qquad &
e^{i\tilde{\theta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} & = S^{\text{B}}_{pq} \sqrt{\frac{x_p^- - x_q^+}{x_q^- -x_p^+}}, \\
e^{i\vartheta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} & = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}}, &
e^{i\theta^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}} & = S^{\text{B}}_{pq} \sqrt{\frac{x_p^- - x_q^+}{x_p^+ -x_q^-}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $S^{\text{B}}_{pq}$ is the dressing factor for the ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$ S-matrix.
Here we want also the discrete LR-symmetry to be satisfied. To do this we consider for example the processes $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{\phi_p\bar{\psi}_q}
&= {\phantom{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}
+ {\phantom{\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q\bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}}, \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{\bar{\phi}_p\psi_q}
&= {\phantom{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}
+ {\phantom{\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}\mathllap{\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q\bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_q\bar{\psi}_p}}},
\end{aligned}$$ and impose $C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$ and $\tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \tilde{C}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$. This leaves only two possible solutions, a pure transmission and a pure reflection. The same result can be found by first imposing the LR-symmetry and then requiring that unitarity is satisfied.
In order to choose between the two cases of pure transmission and pure reflection we compare our results with the perturbative calculation in [@Rughoonauth:2012qd], where the tree-level ${\textup{AdS}}_3$ string theory S-matrix for the scalars was found to be reflectionless. We also check the Yang-Baxter (YB) equation $${\mathcal{S}}_{12} {\mathcal{S}}_{23} {\mathcal{S}}_{12} ={\mathcal{S}}_{23} {\mathcal{S}}_{12} {\mathcal{S}}_{23}$$ and we find that an S-matrix with a pure transmission in the LR sector does satisfy the YB equation, while one with a pure reflection does not.
A second central extension {#sec:central-extension-II}
==========================
In this section we will consider an alternative central extension of the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra, and give its representation and the resulting S-matrix. In this second central extension it is more difficult to think of only one spin-chain, but it is rather natural to think of one spin-chain for the left movers and another one for the right movers. The reason is that scattering processes with length-changing effects will now add one site in a spin-chain and subtract one site in the other. Nevertheless it is still possible to uniformize the notation by interpreting ${Z^+_-}$ (${Z^-_+}$) as the addition (removal) of one site in the chain for the left movers and the removal (addition) of one site in the chain for the right movers. We will thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{{Z^+_-}\phi_p} &= e^{- ip}\ket{\phi_p {Z^+_-}} , & \qquad
\ket{{Z^-_+}\phi_p} &= e^{+ ip}\ket{\phi_p {Z^-_+}} , \\
\ket{{Z^+_-}\bar{\phi}_p} &= e^{+ ip}\ket{\bar{\phi}_p {Z^+_-}} , &
\ket{{Z^-_+}\bar{\phi}_p} &= e^{- ip}\ket{\bar{\phi}_p {Z^-_+}} . \\
\end{aligned}$$
Algebra
-------
In the second central extension of ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ we allow for different anti-commutators to be non-vanishing, namely $$\begin{aligned}
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} , &
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{H}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} , \\
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 , &
{\{{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= 0 , \\
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{P}}}, &
{\{{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}\}} &= {{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}.
\end{aligned}$$ To find representations of this algebra we use a similar ansatz as before. For the case of two $\phi$ representations we write $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi} &= a \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\phi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\psi} &= b \ket{\phi} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi} &= c \ket{\psi {Z^-_+}} , &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\phi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\psi} &= d \ket{\phi {Z^+_-}} ,\end{aligned}$$ This leads to a representation very similar to that of the first central extension. Indeed we only need to exchange the role of $c$ and $d$ and the coefficients now read $$\begin{aligned}
a_p &= e^{+i\gamma_L} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} , &
c_p &= \frac{i e^{-i\delta_L}}{x^-_p} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} , \\
b_p &= e^{-i\gamma_L} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} , &
d_p &= -\frac{i e^{+i\delta_L}}{x^+_p} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} \end{aligned}$$ On the state $\ket{\phi_p \phi_q}$ we then get $${{\mathfrak{P}}}\ket{\phi_p \phi_q} = \left( e^{-iq} a_p d_p + a_q d_q \right) \ket{\phi_p \phi_q}.$$ As before this vanishes provided $e^{i(p+q)} = 1$.
For the right-movers we use the ansätze $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}} &= \bar{a} \ket{\bar{\psi}}, &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= \bar{b} \ket{\bar{\phi}} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}} &= \bar{c} \ket{\bar{\psi} {Z^+_-}}, &
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= 0 , \\
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}} &= \bar{d} \ket{\bar{\phi} {Z^-_+}}.\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{a}_p &= e^{+i\gamma_R} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} , &
\bar{c}_p &= \frac{i e^{-i\delta_R}}{x^-_p} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} , \\
\bar{b}_p &= e^{-i\gamma_R} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)}, &
\bar{d}_p &= -\frac{i e^{+i\delta_R}}{x^+_p} \sqrt{\frac{ih}{2}(x^-_p - x^+_p)} ,\end{aligned}$$ We now consider one left-moving and one right-moving excitation. We get $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{P}}}\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q}
&=
a_p d_p \ket{\phi_p {Z^+_-}\bar{\phi}_q}
+
\bar{b}_q \bar{c}_q \ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q {Z^+_-}} \\
&= (e^{iq} a_p d_p + \bar{b}_q \bar{c}_q) \ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q {Z^+_-}}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the expressions for the coefficients we then get $$e^{iq} a_p d_p + \bar{b}_q \bar{c}_q = \frac{h}{2} e^{i(\gamma_L + \delta_L)} (e^{-i(p-q)} - e^{+iq}) + \frac{h}{2} e^{i(\gamma_R + \delta_R)} ( e^{+iq} - 1 ) .$$ In order for this to vanish we need $$\gamma_L + \delta_L = \gamma_R + \delta_R,$$ but now the condition on the momenta reads $$e^{i(p-q)} = 1.$$ Hence the left-movers and right-movers in these representations contribute to the total momentum with different signs.
The S-matrix {#the-s-matrix}
------------
As in the first central extension, also in this case we can identify independent sectors for the S-matrix. It is easy to understand that the results for the S-matrix in the LL and RR sectors will be the same as in the first central extension. Hence, we refer to section \[sec:S-matrix-same-mass\] for these S-matrix elements.
The results will be different in the LR sector. In particular, after imposing that it commutes with the supercharges, we find a *unique* S-matrix. It is interesting to note that when we require that the S-matrix commutes with the bosonic charges, the ansatz in the LR sector is different from the one used in the first central extension: boson-boson interactions will not produce anymore fermion-fermion excitations (similarly for fermion-fermion interactions) and we have length-changing effects when scattering a boson and a fermion of different chiralities, in particular when the fermionic number is not transmitted in the scattering process. The cases of different or same mass are formally the same. We thus present the result for the more general case of two excitations with different mass; the S-matrix in the LR sector is $$\label{eq:second-ce-S-mat-LR}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q \phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p \phi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q \bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} , \\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q \phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} + C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q \psi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}} {Z^-_+}}, &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_p \psi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q \bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} + C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q \bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}} {Z^+_-}},\\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q \psi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} + E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q \phi_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}} {Z^+_-}}, &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p \phi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_q \bar{\psi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} + E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_q \bar{\phi}_p}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}} {Z^-_+}},\\
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p \bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p \bar{\psi}_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_q \psi_p}, &
{\mathcal{S}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_p \psi_q}\phantom{\psi_p \psi_q}}} &= {\phantom{D_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}}} \ket{\psi_q \bar{\psi}_p}. \\
\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients take the form $$\begin{aligned}
A^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= +S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \qquad &
B^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1+\frac{1}{x^+_p z^+_q}}{1+\frac{1}{ x^-_p z^+_q}} , &
C^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_{xp} \eta_{zq}}{x^-_p z^+_q} \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{ x^-_p z^+_q}},\\
F^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1+\frac{1}{x^+_p z^-_q}}{1+\frac{1}{ x^-_p z^+_q}},&
D^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1+\frac{1}{x^-_p z^-_q}}{1+\frac{1}{ x^-_p z^+_q}},&
E^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= +S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\eta_{xp} \eta_{zq}}{x^+_p z^-_q} \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{ x^-_p z^+_q}} . \\
\end{aligned}$$ The S-matrix elements with superscript $RL$ assume the same form as the ones with $LR$ after exchanging $x$ and $z$. In principle, there are two different phases $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$ and $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$ that are then fixed to be equal by imposing unitarity and physical unitarity. Note that LR-symmetry is automatically satisfied in this case. We checked that also this S-matrix satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation.
The S-matrix in string and spin-chain frames {#sec:string-frame}
============================================
Here we will give the explicit matrix form of the S-matrix acting on a two-magnon state. To keep our expression manageable, we will consider two excitations having the same mass. Let us pick a basis for Hilbert space of a single magnon with momentum $p$ as $$\mathcal{V}_p = \operatorname{span} \bigl(\phi_p,\psi_p,\bar{\phi}_p,\bar{\psi}_p\bigr) .$$ The S-matrix then takes a state in $\mathcal{V}_p\otimes\mathcal{V}_q$ to a state in $\mathcal{V}_q\otimes\mathcal{V}_p$. The corresponding matrix ${\mathbb{S}}$ then takes the block form $${\mathbb{S}}_{pq} = \!\left(\!
\begin{array}{c|c}
{\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & {\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \rule[-1.3ex]{0pt}{0pt} \\
\hline
{\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & {\mathbb{S}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}
\end{array}\!
\right) .$$ We parametrize the full matrix form of ${\mathcal{S}}$ as $$\newcommand{\0}{\color{black!40}0}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
{\mathbb{S}}_{pq}=\!\left(\!
\mbox{\footnotesize$
\begin{array}{cccccccc|cccccccc}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & {\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 &{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & {\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 &{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 \rule[-1.4ex]{0pt}{0pt} \\
\hline
\0 & \0 & {\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 &{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & {\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} & \0 & \0 &{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq} & \0 \\
\0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & \0 & {\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq}
\end{array}$}\!
\right).$$ Let us list the matrix elements in either the spin-chain or string frame. For this purpose, recalling that the two are related by , we introduce $$\nu_p = \begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{x_p^+}{x_p^-}} & \text{in the string frame}\,,\\
1 & \text{in the spin-chain frame}\,.
\end{cases}$$ We then have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= +S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}\frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q} \frac{x_q^+ - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \quad &
{\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}\frac{1}{\nu_q}\frac{x_q^+ - x_p^+}{x_q^- - x_p^+} , \quad &
{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q} \frac{x_q^+ - x_q^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} \frac{\eta_p}{\eta_q} ,\\
{\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= - S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} ,\quad &
{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq}\, \nu_p\frac{x_q^- - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} ,\quad &
{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq} \frac{x_p^+ - x_p^-}{x_q^- - x_p^+} \frac{\eta_q}{\eta_p},
\end{aligned}$$ and a similar list of expression in the RR sector, as discussed in section \[sec:S-matrix-same-mass\]. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \ &
{\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q} \frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^- x_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \ &
{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q} , \\
{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \ &
{\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}, \ &
{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q} \frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^- x_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q}\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}, \\
{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{\eta_p \eta_q}{x_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is given by and the coefficients $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}$ and $\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}$ by , $$\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \zeta_{pq} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \qquad
\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq} = \frac{1}{\zeta_{pq}} S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} , \qquad
\zeta_{pq} = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ x_q^+}}} .$$ Recall that $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL}}}_{pq},S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RR}}}_{pq},S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq}$ and $S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$ are undetermined antisymmetric scalar factors.
As discussed in section \[sec:S-matrix-diff-mass\], the S-matrix for different masses takes the same form as above when one allows for an appropriate scalar factor and introduces suitable Zhukovski variables $z^\pm$. In view of our different choice of normalization and for the reader’s convenience let us nonetheless explicitly list the elements of ${\mathcal{S}}$ below for particles of different masses in either frame: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}\frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q} , \ &
{\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq}\frac{1}{\nu_q} \frac{z_q^+ - x_p^+}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} , \ &
{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q}\frac{z_q^+ - z_q^-}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} \frac{\eta_{p}}{\eta_{q}} , \\
{\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= - S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{z_q^- - x_p^+}{z_q^+ - x_p^-}, \ &
{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{z_q^- - x_p^-}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} ,\ &
{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} &= S^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LL${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{x_p^+ - x_p^-}{z_q^+ - x_p^-} \frac{\eta_{q}}{\eta_{p}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq}\frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q}\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ z_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}} , \ &
{\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q}\frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{x_p^- z_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}} , \ &
{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q}, \\
{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}}, \ &
{\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{x_p^+ z_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}} , \ &
{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR${}'$}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{1-\frac{1}{x_p^+ z_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{x_p^- z_q^-}},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{A}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{\nu_p}{\nu_q}\frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{B}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q} \frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{z_p^- x_q^-} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{C}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{1}{\nu_q}\frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^- x_q^-}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \\
{\mathsf{E}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \frac{1-\frac{1}{z_p^- x_q^+}}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}},\ &
{\mathsf{F}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= -\tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p\frac{\eta_{p} \eta_{q}}{z_p^+ x_q^+} \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{z_p^+ x_q^+}} , \ &
{\mathsf{D}}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} &= \tau^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R${}'$L}}}_{pq} \,\nu_p .
\end{aligned}$$
Comparison with Beisert’s ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ S-matrix {#sec:beisert-su11-S-matrix}
===========================================================
In this section we will compare the S-matrix in the main text with the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ symmetric S-matrix discussed in [@Beisert:2005wm]. Let us consider excitations transforming under an ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ algebra of the form discussed in section \[sec:u11-algebra\]. The commutation relations of this algebra read $$\label{eq:u11-algebra}
{\{{{\mathfrak{Q}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}\}} = {{\mathfrak{H}}}, \qquad
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}},{{\mathfrak{Q}}}]} = - \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{Q}}}, \qquad
{[{{\mathfrak{B}}},{{\mathfrak{S}}}]} = + \tfrac{1}{2} {{\mathfrak{S}}}.$$ This algebra has a two-dimensional representation denoted $({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H,B}$, with the charges acting as $$\label{eq:u11-representation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= v \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= H \ket{\phi} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}\ket{{\mathrlap{\phi}\phantom{\psi}}} &= (B - \tfrac{1}{2}) \ket{\phi} , \\
{{\mathfrak{Q}}}\ket{\psi} &= 0 , &
{{\mathfrak{S}}}\ket{\psi} &= H/v \ket{\phi} , &
{{\mathfrak{H}}}\ket{\psi} &= H \ket{\psi} , &
{{\mathfrak{B}}}\ket{\psi} &= (B - 1) \ket{\psi} .
\end{aligned}$$ The two-particle S-matrix acting on excitations transforming in such representations can be written in terms of projectors onto the representations appearing in the decomposition $$({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H,B} \otimes ({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H',B'} = ({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})_{H+H',B+B'-1/2} \oplus ({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})^*_{H+H',B+B'-1} ,$$ where $({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})^*_{H,B}$ denotes a representation of the form , but with the roles of the boson $\phi$ and the fermion $\psi$ interchanged. Imposing that the S-matrix satisfies unitarity and the Yang-Baxter equation, the action of the R-matrix is found to be[^14]$$\label{eq:beisert-su11-Rmat}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{\phi_p \phi_q} &= \frac{a_q - a_p + \frac{i}{2}(H_p + H_q)}{a_q - a_p - \frac{i}{2}(H_p + H_q)} \ket{\phi_p \phi_q} , \\
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{\phi_p \psi_q} &=
\frac{a_q - a_p - \frac{i}{2}(H_p - H_q)}{a_q - a_p - \frac{i}{2}(H_p + H_q)} \ket{\phi_p \psi_q} +
\frac{iH_q}{a_q - a_p - \frac{i}{2}(H_p + H_q)} \frac{v_p}{v_q} \ket{\psi_p \phi_q} , \\
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{\psi_p \phi_q} &=
\frac{a_q - a_p + \frac{i}{2}(H_p - H_q)}{a_q - a_p - \frac{i}{2}(H_p + H_q)} \ket{\psi_p \phi_q} +
\frac{iH_p}{a_q - a_p - \frac{i}{2}(H_p + H_q)} \frac{v_q}{v_p} \ket{\phi_p \psi_q} , \\
{\mathcal{R}}\ket{\psi_p \psi_q} &= \ket{\psi_p \psi_q} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $a_p$ and $a_q$ are spectral parameters corresponding to the two excitations. The exact form of these parameters will depend on the model under consideration.
In order to compare this result with the S-matrix in section \[sec:S-matrix\], we consider the left-moving ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ algebra generated by the charges ${\mathfrak{Q}}_L$, ${\mathfrak{S}}_L$, ${\mathfrak{H}}_L$ and ${\mathfrak{B}}_L$. Under this algebra the left-moving excitations $(\phi_p|\psi_p)$ transform in a representation of the form with the parameters $H_p$ and $v_p$ given by $$H_p = +i(x^- - x^+) , \qquad
v_p = \eta_p .$$ We furthermore express the spectral parameter $a_p$ in terms of $x^\pm$ as $$a_p = \frac{1}{2}(x^- + x^+)$$ Inserting these expressions into the R-matrix , we recover the LL sector S-matrix of section \[sec:S-matrix-same-mass\].
The right-moving excitations are slightly more complicated. Firstly, the charge ${\mathfrak{Q}}_L$ acts non-trivially on the fermion $\bar{\psi}_p$ and trivially on the boson $\bar{\phi}_p$. Hence the grading of the right moving ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ representation is reversed, corresponding to a representation of the type $({\mathbf{1}}|{\mathbf{1}})^*_{H,B}$. Secondly, the left-moving supercharges act on the right-moving excitations by adding or subtracting vacuum sites. In order to have a representation of the form we therefore consider the doublet $(\bar{\psi}_p|\bar{\phi}_p Z^+)$ and identify the parameters $$\bar{H}_p = -i\left(\frac{1}{\bar{x}^-} - \frac{1}{\bar{x}^+}\right) , \qquad
\bar{v}_p = - \frac{i \eta_p}{\bar{x}^+}.$$ Writing spectral parameter $\bar{a}_p$ as $$\bar{a}_p = \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{\bar{x}^-} + \frac{1}{\bar{x}^+}\right).$$ the expressions in reproduce RR sectors of the S-matrix in section \[sec:S-matrix\].[^15]By using a combination of the two representations above we also find the S-matrix in the LR and RL sectors.
In [@Ahn:2012hw] Ahn and Bombardelli (AB) proposed another S-matrix for ${\textup{AdS}}_3 \times {\textup{S}}^3 \times {\textup{S}}^3 \times {\textup{S}}^1$. Like above, this S-matrix can be constructed from Beisert’s ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ S-matrix. The difference between the two constructions is that the left- and right-movers in [@Ahn:2012hw] transform in identical ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ representations $(\phi|\psi)$ and $(\bar{\phi}|\bar{\psi})$, while, as discussed above, the right-movers in this paper transform in a representations where the roles of the bosons and fermions are reversed. This difference is only important when we consider the mixed LR and RL sectors. In particular, in the LR sector the S-matrix of this paper schematically acts as[^16]$$\label{eq:S-LR-BOSS}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} + {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}} \ket{\bar{\psi}_q \psi_p}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}, \\
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} + {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}} \ket{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p}, \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{BOSS}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}},
\end{aligned}$$ while the S-matrix of [@Ahn:2012hw] gives $$\label{eq:S-LR-AB}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}\mathllap{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\phi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}\mathllap{B^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} +
{\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}\mathllap{C^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} , \\
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}\mathllap{F^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} , \qquad &
{\mathcal{S}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\psi_p\bar{\phi}_q}\phantom{\psi_p\bar{\psi}_q}}}
&= {\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}\mathllap{D^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\phi}_q\psi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}} +
{\phantom{A^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}\mathllap{E^{\scriptscriptstyle\text{AB}}_{pq}}} \ket{{\mathrlap{\bar{\psi}_q\phi_p}\phantom{\bar{\psi}_q\psi_p}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Comparing with the S-matrix in , we see that the Ahn and Bombardelli corresponds to the second central extension of the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1) \times {{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)$ algebra discussed in appendix \[sec:central-extension-II\]. As noted there, this algebra does not seem to have a straight forward spin-chain interpretation, since the supercharges change the lengths of the left- and right-moving parts of the spin-chain in opposite ways.
We also note that it is possible to distinguish equations and perturbatively by determining which of the two processes $$\ket{\phi_p \bar{\phi}_q} \to \ket{\bar{\psi}_q \psi_p} ,
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
\ket{\phi_p \bar{\psi}_q} \to \ket{\bar{\phi}_q \psi_p}$$ has a non-zero amplitude.
[^1]: The ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2)$ generators of ${{\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)}$ are often denoted ${\mathfrak{S}}_\mu$. However, ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ will be a supercharge of ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1|1)$ in the next section, so here we denote the ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}(2)$ generators by ${\mathfrak{J}}_\mu$.
[^2]: For a similar discussion of composite excitations of the ABJM spin-chain see [@Klose:2010ki].
[^3]: When the ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(1|1)^2$ algebra is embedded into ${{\mathfrak{psu}}}(2|2)$, ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$ is a particular combination of the Cartan generators of the two bosonic ${{\mathfrak{su}}}(2)$ subalgebra, and is hence quantized. In the ${\textup{AdS}}_3$ case, ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$ can in principle receive quantum corrections.
[^4]: Notice that we chose the same representation in the left and right sectors consistently with the embedding in ${\mathfrak{d}}(2,1;\alpha)^2$.
[^5]: Here we have also imposed unitarity which means that $({{\mathfrak{P}}})^\dag = {{\mathfrak{P}}^\dag}$.
[^6]: In particular, the eigenvalue of ${{\mathfrak{M}}}$ does not depend on the momentum $p$ of the excitation. In principle it could depend on the coupling constant $h$.
[^7]: In principle some phases may be chosen differently in the two representations. For convenience we choose them to be identical in the two cases.
[^8]: Note that we consider the generators ${{\mathfrak{Q}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny L}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny R}}}$ to be the positive simple roots. Hence the state $\ket{\bar{\psi}_p}$, and not $\ket{\bar{\phi}_p}$, is of highest weight.
[^9]: Clearly $p_{\text{out}} = q_{\text{in}}$ and $q_{\text{out}} = p_{\text{in}}$ also solves . However, this solution has the excitations in the out-state in the wrong order, since $p_{\text{out}} < q_{\text{out}}$.
[^10]: With respects to the first versions of this paper, we have rewritten the crossing equations in such a way that $p,q$ are on the real line and $\bar{q}$ is shifted upward by half of the imaginary period of the rapidity torus, following a standard convention.
[^11]: Our notations differ slightly from the ones of [@Arutyunov:2006yd] as our S-matrix permutes the momenta of the magnons.
[^12]: After imposing the other quadratic equations, it turns out that for all of the functions $r^{ij}_{qp}=r^{ij}_{pq}$. Here we already use this fact to write the solutions.
[^13]: This distinction is important when imposing the discrete LR-symmetry. Requiring this symmetry in solution 3 would leave only transmission, while one can find a non trivial reflection S-matrix from solution 2 that satisfies LR-symmetry by choosing $\tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny LR}}}_{pq} = \tilde{\vartheta}^{{\mbox{\itshape\tiny RL}}}_{pq}$.
[^14]: The R-matrix ${\mathcal{R}}$ is closely related to the S-matrix ${\mathcal{S}}$, but does not exchange the scattering particles. We therefore have the relation ${\mathcal{S}}= \mathcal{P} {\mathcal{R}}$, where $\mathcal{P}$ is a permutation acting on a two-particle state.
[^15]: The inverted grading of the right-moving representation gives rise to some additional minus signs that are needed to reproduce the results of section \[sec:S-matrix\].
[^16]: In order to simplify the notation we have suppressed the effects of length-changing in the spin-chain in the out states, corresponding to the string frame discussed in appendix \[sec:string-frame\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In quantum mechanics, asymptotic degeneracy is often considered in the context of a particle in a symmetric double–well potential, and is the phenomenon whereby pairs of energy levels come together to form doubly degenerate levels in response to an increase in the separation, or depth of the two wells. Here we highlight a new kind of asymptotic degeneracy that can arise when a particle is bound to a surface formed by the intersection of two planes, when the intersection angle is $>\pi$. To demonstrate this effect we consider the bound states of a charged particle subject its own ‘image’ potential in a highly polarizable wedge, as a function of the wedge opening angle, $\alpha$.'
author:
- 'S. A. R. Horsley'
- 'S. Martin–Haugh'
- 'M. Babiker'
- 'M. Al–Amri'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Asymptotic quantum degeneracy at a 2D corner
---
Quantum mechanical degeneracy is commonly associated with the invariance of the Hamiltonian under some symmetry group. *Accidental* degeneracies also exist, that apparently do not arise from any underlying symmetry group (although in such cases the group could just be difficult to find [@leyvraz1997]). Further to this, there are situations when two energies come so close as to be practically indistinguishable—*asymptotic* degeneracy. This kind of degeneracy can arise in situations when the probability density is sharply peaked in two (or more) locations in space, but where the probability of tunneling between these locations is negligible. Asymptotic degeneracy attracted interest in the context of 1D double–well potentials, where such systems were taken as a model for vacuum–vacuum tunneling in gauge theories [@coleman1977; @harrell1980; @simon1983; @shifman1994]. More recently, there has been renewed interest in the double–well, as a system where aspects of the physics of Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs) may be observed [@tiecke2003]; for BEC interferometry [@shin2004]; to generate mesoscopic entanglement between binary BECs [@teichmann2007]; and as a model system for a bosonic Josephson junction [@albiez2005].
Here we consider a particle confined within a two–dimensional potential formed by the sharp intersection of two planar surfaces; explicitly the system to be investigated consists of a charged particle that is bound—via its own ‘image’ potential, or Coulomb self–energy—to the surface of a highly polarizable material wedge, of opening angle, $\alpha$ (see figure \[figure\_1\]). We show that in such cases it is possible—through changing $\alpha$ continuously across its range, $0$ to $2\pi$—to separate the wavefunction of the particle into two nearly independent parts, as in the case of a double–well, which display an associated degeneracy between pairs of energy levels. This is different from the usual process of splitting the wave–function, where the splitting is achieved through increasing the strength of the confining potential, or the spatial separation between the wells. These results may also be relevant in the context of recent work investigating the properties of electronic states bound to liquid helium surfaces (e.g. [@rousseau2009; @rees2010]).
Suppose that a particle is subject to a 1D potential, $V(x)$, that is symmetric around a point, $x_{0}$, and has two minima, one either side of $x_{0}$ (a double–well). It has previously been observed that the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian for such a system come in pairs that correspond to eigenfunctions that are either symmetric or anti–symmetric around $x_{0}$. As the separation between the two potential minima is increased then these pairs of eigenvalues tend to coalesce at a rate that is exponential as a function of distance. Consequently, for large separations, the system exhibits a degeneracy of symmetric and antisymmetric states [@harrell1980; @simon1983]. The aforementioned splitting between pairs of energy levels is known to be given by, $\Delta E=(2\hbar^2/m)\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}(x_{0})(d\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}/dx)|_{x_{0}}$, where $\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$ is an eigenstate of just one well, in the absence of the other [@volume3].
We consider a generalization of this system to 2D polar co–ordinates ($r,\theta$), where $\theta\in[-\pi,\pi]$, and the potential is symmetric around the line $\theta=0$. The wave–function satisfies the additional boundary condition that it vanishes within the region $|\theta|\geq\alpha/2$. If there is no other symmetry than $V(r,\theta)=V(r,-\theta)$, then there will be two types of states: symmetric, $\psi^{(+)}(r,\theta)=\psi^{(+)}(r,-\theta)$, and antisymmetric, $\psi^{(-)}(r,\theta)=-\psi^{(-)}(r,-\theta)$. Suppose that the wavefunction is confined by the potential so as to be sharply peaked along two channels, $\theta\sim\pm\alpha/2$, that terminate where they meet, at $r=0$. An approximation to the states of this system can be given in terms of single well states, $\psi^{(\pm)}(r,\theta)\simeq\left[\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}(r,\theta)\pm\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}(r,-\theta)\right]/\sqrt{2}$ (i.e. where $\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$ corresponds to a particle confined by the potential along the line $\theta=+\alpha/2$). The difference in energy between the $\psi^{(\pm)}$ states and the associated single well state, $\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$, can then be estimated from the current operator, $$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\bm{\nabla}\cdot\left[\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}\bm{\nabla}\psi^{(\pm)}-\psi^{(\pm)}\bm{\nabla}\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}\right]=\left(E^{(\pm)}-E_{\text{\tiny{L}}}\right)\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}\psi^{(\pm)}.\label{eq_1}$$ Integrating (\[eq\_1\]) over the potential well associated with $\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$, (i.e. the region, $\theta>0$), and applying the divergence theorem we obtain an expression for the energy difference, $E^{(\pm)}-E_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$, $$\frac{\hbar^2}{\sqrt{2}m}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}\nabla_{\theta}\psi^{(\pm)}-\psi^{(\pm)}\nabla_{\theta}\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}\right]_{\theta=0}dr=E^{(\pm)}-E_{\text{\tiny{L}}},$$ where, $\nabla_{\theta}=(1/r)\partial/\partial\theta$. Along $\theta=0$; $\psi^{(+)}(r,0)=\sqrt{2}\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}(r,0)$; $\psi^{(-)}(r,0)=0$; $\nabla_{\theta}\psi^{(+)}(r,0)=0$; and $\nabla_{\theta}\psi^{(-)}(r,0)=\sqrt{2}\nabla_{\theta}\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}(r,0)$. Therefore the difference between the symmetric and antisymmetric energy levels, $\Delta E=E^{(-)}-E^{(+)}$, is related to the value of $\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$ in the following way (c.f. [@harrell1980; @simon1983]), $$\Delta E=\left(\frac{2\hbar^2}{m}\right)\int_{0}^{\infty}\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}(r,0)(\nabla_{\theta}\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}})(r,0)\,dr.\label{eq_2}$$ From (\[eq\_2\]) observe that as $\psi_{\text{\tiny{L}}}$, or its gradient vanish along the line of symmetry—in this case the region around the corner where the two potential wells meet—the splitting between symmetric and anti–symmetric energy levels goes to zero, and the $E^{(+)}$ and $E^{(-)}$ levels become degenerate.
![(Color online) Contour plots for the electrostatic ‘image’ potential given in (\[pot\_eq\]), the dark red lines indicate the highest value of the potential (smallest absolute value), and the yellow, green, and blue lines indicate the potential’s lowest values (largest absolute values). Figure (a) shows a wedge of opening angle, $\alpha=3\pi/10$, and in (b), $\alpha=3\pi/2$.\[figure\_1\]](fig-1.png){width="48.00000%"}
As an explicit demonstration of this effect we consider a charge bound within the ‘image’ potential of a highly polarizable material that forms a wedge of opening angle, $\alpha$, when the particle is restricted from entering the interior of the material (e.g. due to an electronic band–gap within the material that overlaps with the vacuum [@echenique1978; @cole1969]—see figure \[figure\_1\]).
For a wedge composed of a material with permittivity $\epsilon_2$, and an opening of angle $\alpha$, containing a charged particle, and a second material of permittivity, $\epsilon_{1}$, the electrostatic potential of the combined wedge+charge system has previously been given in [@scharstein2004]. This result is a generalization of the case where $\epsilon_{2}\to\infty$ and $\epsilon_{1}\to 1$, which was derived some time ago [@macdonald1895; @volume8]. We have obtained the image potential for arbitrary $\alpha$ through subtracting an integral expression for the potential of a point charge from the expressions given both in [@scharstein2004] and [@volume8], remembering to divide the result by a factor of two (details will be given in a subsequent publication). In general the resulting expressions are rather complicated, and for simplicity we consider the case when $\epsilon_{1}\sim 1$, and $\Gamma=(\epsilon_{2}-\epsilon_{1})/(\epsilon_{2}+\epsilon_{1})\to 1$, where the potential takes the comparatively compact form, $$\varphi(r,\theta)=\frac{e}{16\pi\epsilon_{0}r}\left[k(\alpha)-f(\theta,\alpha)\right] \label{pot_eq}$$ with,
$$\begin{aligned}
k(\alpha)&=\left(\frac{2}{\alpha\pi}\right)\int_{0}^{1}\frac{d\eta}{\sqrt{\eta}(1-\eta)^{2}}\left[\frac{(\pi-\alpha)(1-\eta^{(\pi/\alpha+1)})-(\pi+\alpha)(\eta-\eta^{\pi/\alpha})}{1-\eta^{\pi/\alpha}}\right]\\
f(\theta,\alpha)&=\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)\int_{0}^{1}\frac{d\eta}{\sqrt{\eta}(1-\eta)}\left[\frac{1-\eta^{2\pi/\alpha}}{1+\eta^{2\pi/\alpha}+2\eta^{\pi/\alpha}\cos(2\pi\theta/\alpha)}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
This above result is valid for a three dimensional wedge that is infinitely extended along the $z$ axis, with the assumed symmetry along $z$ allowing us to neglect this co–ordinate throughout. The case of arbitrary $\Gamma$ will be treated elsewhere. Figure \[figure\_1\] illustrates two contour plots of (\[pot\_eq\]), showing the form of the potential when $\alpha<\pi$ and $\alpha>\pi$. From the figure it can be observed that (\[pot\_eq\]) is an instance of the aforementioned case, where two potential wells extend along the lines $\theta=\pm\alpha/2$, and meet at $r=0$. Note that expression (\[pot\_eq\]) has the correct limit in terms of localized images at the angles, $\alpha=\pi/n$ ($n$ integer): for example, at $\alpha=\pi$, $k(\alpha)$ vanishes identically, and $f(\theta,\alpha)=1/\cos(\theta)$ (3.261(2) [@gradshteyn2000]), so that the potential reduces to the known single image result of $\varphi=-e/(16\pi\epsilon_{0}y)$, where $y$ is the position on the vertical axis in figure \[figure\_1\].
![(Color online) The variation of the upper bounds on the energies obtained from (\[hamiltonian\_eq\]), and (\[trial\_wavefunctions\]), as a function of $\alpha$. The circles show the known analytic values of the first two surface states for a particle bound to a planar material with $\Gamma\to1$.\[figure\_2\]](fig-2.png){width="48.00000%"}
Neglecting spin and relativistic effects, the Hamiltonian for a particle of charge $e$ interacting with the electrostatic potential given in (\[pot\_eq\]) is, $$\hat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\right)+\frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\theta^{2}}\right]+e\varphi(r,\theta)\label{hamiltonian_eq}$$ where $\varphi(r,\theta)$ is given by (\[pot\_eq\]). It is assumed that the eigenstates of (\[hamiltonian\_eq\]) vanish along the surface, and inside the wedge ($|\theta|\geq\alpha/2$). We find upper bounds for the values of the energies of the first three states using the variational method, with trial wavefunctions that are constructed using the known hydrogenic limit at $\alpha=\pi$ (e.g. $\psi_{0}\to N_{0} y e^{-y/4}$) as a guide, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{0}(r,\theta)&=N_{0} r^{m_{0}}\cos\left(\frac{\pi\theta}{\alpha}\right)e^{-\gamma_{0}(\theta)r}\nonumber\\
\psi_{1}(r,\theta)&=N_{1} r^{m_{1}}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi\theta}{\alpha}\right)e^{-\gamma_{1}(\theta)r}\nonumber\\
\psi_{2}(r,\theta)&=N_{2} r^{m_{2}}\left[a-r\cos\left(\frac{\pi\theta}{\alpha}\right)\right]\cos\left(\frac{\pi\theta}{\alpha}\right)e^{-\gamma_{2}(\theta)r}\label{trial_wavefunctions},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{i}(\theta)=n_{i}\cos(p_{i}\pi\theta/\alpha)+q_{i}$, and the $N_{i}$ ($i=0,1,2$) are the normalization constants. The variational parameters are given by, $\{m_{i},n_{i},p_{i},q_{i}\}$, and are restricted so that they can take only positive values (it is also required that $p_{i}<1$), and the constant, $a$, is chosen so that the orthogonality between $\psi_{0}$ and $\psi_{2}$ is guaranteed, $$a=(m_{0}+m_{2}+2)\frac{I_{2}(\{m_{i},n_{i},p_{i},q_{i}\})}{I_{3}(\{m_{i},n_{i},p_{i},q_{i}\})},$$ where, $$I_{n}=\int_{0}^{\pi/2}\frac{\cos^{n}(x)dx}{\left[\gamma_{0}(\alpha x/\pi)+\gamma_{2}(\alpha x/\pi)\right]^{m_{0}+m_{2}+n}}.$$ At $\alpha=\pi$, we expect $\psi_{2}$ to approach the first, rather than the second excited state. At this angle, the potential possesses translational symmetry, $V(x+\delta x)=V(x)$, rather than simply the reflection symmetry assumed for the other angles. Therefore the eigenstates should satisfy, $\psi(x+\delta x)\to\psi(x)e^{ik_{x}\delta x}$, which is not possible in the antisymmetric ($\psi_{1}$) case. The completeness of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian guarantees the existence of the antisymmetric state for all other $\alpha$.
![(Color online) The probability distributions obtained from minimizing $\langle\psi_{i}|\hat{H}|\psi_{i}\rangle$. Figures (a)-(c) show $|\psi_{i}|^{2}$ for $i=1,2,3$ with $\alpha= 1.657\;\text{rad}$, while figures (d)-(f) show the corresponding distributions when $\alpha= 5.011\;\text{rad}$. Note that the scale of figures (c) and (f) is 3:1 compared to the remaining plots.\[figure\_3\]](fig-3.png){width="48.00000%"}
To carry out the variation of the energy we must calculate the integrals of $\psi_{i}\hat{H}\psi_{i}$ and $|\psi_{i}|^{2}$ over the interior of the wedge. It is possible to perform the integration with respect to the radial co–ordinate analytically and write the results in terms of gamma functions (not to be confused with the material contrast parameter, $\Gamma$, which is here set to $1$) multiplying functions of $\theta$. For example, the normalization of the state, $\psi_{0}$, is given by, $$N_{0}=\sqrt{\frac{2^{2m_{0}+1}\pi/\alpha}{\Gamma(2m_{0}+2)I_{2}(m_{2}=m_{0},n_{2}=p_{2}=q_{2}=0)}},$$ and the associated variational ground state energy is, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{0}=\langle\psi_{0}|\hat{H}|\psi_{0}\rangle=-\frac{\hbar^{2}\alpha N_{0}^{2}\Gamma(2m_{0}+2)}{2^{2m_{0}+2}\pi m}\int_{0}^{\pi/2}\frac{\cos^{2}(x)}{\gamma_{0}^{2m_{0}+2}}\\
\times\bigg\{\frac{A \gamma_{0}^{2}}{m_{0}(m_{0}+1/2)}-\frac{B \gamma_{0}}{(m_{0}+1/2)}+C\bigg\}\,dx,
\end{aligned}$$ where; $A=m_{0}^{2}-\left(\frac{\pi}{\alpha}\right)^{2}$; $B=(2m_{0}+1)\gamma_{0}+\left(\frac{\pi}{\alpha}\right)^{2}\left[2\tan{(x)}\gamma_{0}^{\prime}+\gamma_{0}^{\prime\prime}\right]+(me^{2}/8\pi\epsilon_{0}\hbar^{2})g$; $C=\gamma_{0}^2+\left(\frac{\pi}{\alpha}\right)^{2}{\gamma_{0}^{\prime}}^{2}$; $g=k(\alpha)-f(\alpha x/\pi,\alpha)$; and $\gamma_{0}$ and its derivatives are evaluated at $\alpha x/\pi$. Similar expressions hold for the quantities relating to the first and second excited states. The values of these integrals were minimized with respect to the parameters, $\{m_{i},n_{i},p_{i},q_{i}\}$, using a simplex routine [@scipy]. The same results were also obtained from a second program based on a different numerical library [@gsl]. Figure \[figure\_2\] illustrates the resulting upper bounds on the energies, $E_{0}$, $E_{1}$, and $E_{2}$, as a function of the opening angle of the wedge, $\alpha$. When $\alpha<\pi$, the three energies take distinct values that increase at differing rates, as $\alpha$ increases. However, as $\alpha$ approaches $\pi$, and beyond, $E_{0}$ and $E_{1}$ tend to the same value of $-0.85\;\text{eV}$, remaining degenerate until the wedge becomes a half plane ($\alpha=2\pi$). We interpret this as an asymptotic degeneracy, as outlined above, and expect higher energy levels to pair up in a similar way.
In conclusion we have shown that a corner can isolate two parts of the wave–function so that the system behaves as two separate wells, with effectively degenerate symmetric–antisymmetric pairs of states. This is in contrast to the typical double–well system, where the analogous splitting of the states is directly related to the physical separation, or strength of the potential wells.\
To explain the origin of the degeneracy we use the distributions associated with the energies of figure \[figure\_2\] as a guide. Figure \[figure\_3\] (a)-(c) shows these states in the cases when $\alpha<\pi$, and (d)-(f) when $\alpha>\pi$. Although there is no guarantee that these distributions will approach the exact probability distribution as the energy is minimized, it is clear that the minimization of the energy beyond $\pi$ is achieved through a reduction in the probability density close to the line $\theta=0$, so that the system behaves as though the problem involved two independent half planes. Physically this can be understood as a reduction in the average kinetic energy coming from the $-\psi(\hbar^{2}/2mr^{2})(\partial^{2}\psi/\partial\theta^{2})$ term in the energy density.
Acknowledgments
===============
One of us (S.A.R.H) wishes to acknowledge financial support from the EPSRC and the National Centre for Mathematics & Physics at KACST, Saudi Arabia. S. M–H wishes to thank Gabriel Barton for useful discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using notions from the geometry of Banach spaces we introduce square functions $\gamma(\Omega,X)$ for functions with values in an arbitrary Banach space $X$. We show that they have very convenient function space properties comparable to the Bochner norm of $L_2(\Omega,H)$ for a Hilbert space $H$. In particular all bounded operators $T$ on $H$ can be extended to $\gamma(\Omega,X)$ for all Banach spaces $X$. Our main applications are characterizations of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus that extend known results for $L_p$–spaces from [@CDMY]. With these square function estimates we show, e. g., that a $C_0$–group of operators $T_s$ on a Banach space with finite cotype has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on a strip if and only if $e^{-a|s|}T_s$ is $R$–bounded for some $a > 0$. Similarly, a sectorial operator $A$ has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on a sector if and only if $A$ has $R$–bounded imaginary powers. We also consider vector valued Paley–Littlewood $g$–functions on $UMD$–spaces.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Missouri\
Columbia, MO 65201\
U.S.A.
- |
Mathematisches Institut I\
Universität Karlsruhe\
Englersta[ß]{}e 2\
76128 Karlsruhe\
Gemany
author:
- 'Nigel J. Kalton'
- Lutz Weis
title: 'The $H^{\infty}$–Functional Calculus and Square Function Estimates'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, the $H^{\infty}$–holomorphic functional calculus for a sectorial operator on a Banach space has played an important role in the spectral theory of differential operators and its application to evolution equations. For example, it is an important tool: in the theory of maximal regularity for parabolic evolution equations (see [@BK1; @DDHPV; @KKW; @KW1; @LLL; @LeM]) and, very recently, the solution of Kato’s problem ([@AHLMT]). By now it is known that many systems of elliptic partial differential operators and Schrödinger operators do have an $H^{\infty}$–calculus ([@BK2; @DHP; @KuWe]).
It is natural to construct a holomorphic functional calculus for a sectorial operator $A$ and analytic functions $f$ bounded on a sector $\Sigma$ containing the spectrum of $A$ via the Dunford formula $$f(A) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \displaystyle \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma} f(\lambda)
R(\lambda, A)d\lambda.$$ However, since the resolvent of a sectorial operator grows like $|\lambda|^{-1}$ on $\partial \Sigma$ this integral will be a singular integral in general. Therefore M. Cowling, J. Doust, A. McIntosh and A. Yagi used ideas from harmonic analysis to characterize the $H^{\infty}$–calculus for sectorial operators $A$ on $L_p(\Omega)$–spaces by square function estimates of the form $$\biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} |tA(t+A)^{-2} x|^2 \frac{dt}{t}
\biggr)^{1/2} \biggr| \biggr|_{L_p(\Omega)} \simeq \|x\|_{L_p(\Omega)},$$ or, if $A$ is injective and generates an analytic semigroup $T_t$ and $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} |t^nA^nT_t x
|^2 \frac{dt}{t} \biggr)^{1/2} \biggr| \biggr|_{L_p(\Omega)} \simeq \|x\|_{L_p(\Omega)}$$ (for the Hilbert space case see [@M], for $L_p$–spaces [@CDMY]). If $A = (- \Delta)^{1/2}$ on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, then (2) reduces to the classical Paley–Littlewood $g$–functions estimates. It is therefore not surprising that square function estimates proved to be very useful in the theory of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus and its applications, most recently in the solution of Kato’s problem ([@AHLMT]).
In [*Section 4*]{} and [*5*]{} of this paper we introduce a notion of generalized square functions that will allow us to formulate expressions such as in (1) and (2) on general Banach spaces. Since in (1) and (2) the function space structure of $L_p$ is exploited this cannot be done in a straightforward manner; thus, we use Gaussian random series and the $\gamma$–norm of Banach space theory in place of the lattice structure. We show that these generalized square functions have the same formal properties as their classical counterparts with respect to duality, integral transforms such as the Fourier–transform or the Hilbert–transform, multiplication and convolution operators. An important role plays here is the notion of $R$–boundedness (or rather $\gamma$–boundedness), which is also a central notion in some recent work on operator–valued multiplier theorems, maximal regularity and the $H^{\infty}$–calculus [@CPSW; @G1; @G2; @KW1; @LeM1; @W1]. There are other versions of square functions on Banach spaces in the literature (see e. g. [@FM; @HM; @KW1]), which lack some of these properties and therefore do not seem to be suitable to derive the results of this paper.
In many cases square function estimates can be used to extend Hilbert space results to the Banach space setting. As an illustration we extend in [*Section 5*]{} a characterization of group generators on Hilbert space due to Boyadzhiev and DeLaubenfels ([@BD]) to Banach spaces $X$ with finite cotype: A closed operator $A$ has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on a vertical strip around the imaginary axes if and only if $A$ generates a $C_0$–group of operators $T_t$ so that $\{e^{- a|t|}T_t: t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $R$–bounded for some $a > 0$ (Theorem 6.8). Furthermore, the group $T_t$ itself is $R$–bounded if and only if its generator $A$ is a spectral operator in the sense of Dunford and Schwartz (Corollary 6.9). The underlying square function estimates also allow for the construction of an operator–valued functional calculus and joint functional calculus. As a consequence, we obtain that the set of operators $f(A)$ generated by a uniformly bounded set of analytic functions on a strip is $R$–bounded if $X$ has Pisier’s property $(\alpha)$ (see Corollary 6.6).
In [*Section 7*]{} we present characterizations of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus for sectorial operators in terms of square functions. They give some insight into the gap between the $H^{\infty}$–calculus and the existence of bounded imaginary powers (BIP): Again for a Banach space of finite cotype we show that BIP implies the $H^{\infty}$–calculus for $A$, if in addition the set of imaginary powers $A^{it}$, $t \in [-1,1]$ is $R$–bounded.
In [@CDMY] it was asked whether for a sectorial operator with an $H^{\infty}$–calculus one always has $\omega_{H^{\infty}}(A) = \omega(A)$, i. e. whether the best angle for the $H^{\infty}$–calculus is determined by the angle of sectoriality (see below for definitions). This is true in Hilbert space [@CDMY], but not in a general Banach space. As a partial positive result we point out that $\omega_{H^{\infty}}(H)$ equals the angle of almost $R$–sectoriality. Almost $R$–sectorial operators are introduced here since they provide a more natural framework for the study of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus than the stronger notion of $R$–sectoriality.
The reader will discover a certain analogy between the results in Section 6 and 7. This is explained in [*Section 8*]{}, where we use the logarithm of a sectorial operator to relate the spectral properties of sectorial operators and group generators. We compare e. g. $R$–boundedness conditions for the resolvents of $A$ and $\log A$ and relate the square functions for $A$ and $\log A$.
In [*Section 9*]{} we come back to the classical Littlewood Paley $g$–functions (2) with $A=\Delta$, $A= (- \Delta)^{1/2}$ or, more generally generators of diffusion semigroups. Using our $H^{\infty}$–results we extend them to Bochner spaces $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$, $1 < p < \infty$, and show that (2) holds if and only if $X$ has the UMD property. One can view this result as a continuous version of the well known vector–valued Paley–Littlewood theorem of J. Bourgain ([@Bo]). These results were obtained independently by T. Hytönen ([@Hyt1]) by a different method. They extend work of Xu [@Xu], who assumed that $X$ is a Banach lattice and used a different approach.
Before we consider these Banach space results we recall in [*Section 2*]{} the known Hilbert space results and give, in some cases, simplified proofs. We do this for two reasons: We need proofs reduced to the essentials and as free as possible of unnecessary Hilbert space luxury to be able to extend them to the Banach space case. Also these proofs show the workings and essential properties of square functions that will motivate our general definition in Section 4. [*Section 3*]{} serves the same purpose: we show how square functions in $L_p$ lead to a general approach in the Banach space setting.
These results are part of the larger project [@KW2], which will contain alternative definitions of square functions in terms of Euclidean structures and, among others, relate results under weaker assumptions on the Banach spaces.
A first version of this article was circulating among experts since 2002. The second named author would like to apologize for the long delay until providing a final version. Because of this unfortunate circumstance, we would like to mention some papers which built in the meantime on the results of our article in the three areas: Spectral theory and its applications to evolution equations [@BHM; @FW; @HaHa; @HHK; @HaKu; @HaLM; @Haa; @Haa2; @KKW; @Kr; @Kr2; @KU; @KuWe; @LeM1; @LeM2; @LeM3; @LeM4; @Ne2; @VeWeis; @W], harmonic analysis of Banach space valued functions [@BCFR; @H2; @Hy; @Hyt1; @HNP; @HyWe2; @HW; @KaWe; @Kr2] and stochastic evolution equations [@AHN; @CN; @CoNe; @DNW; @HaNV; @KNVW; @Kun; @KuNe1; @MN; @MN2; @NV; @NVW1; @NVW2; @NVW3; @NVW4; @NVW5; @NVW6; @NVW7; @NW; @NW2; @PrV; @SV; @Ver; @Ver3; @Veraar; @VeWe; @VeZ].
[**Notations.**]{} We recall now some basic notations and definitions. For a closed operator $A$ on a Banach space $X$ we denote by $A'$ the dual operator on the dual space $X'$. $X^{0}$ denotes the closure of $\cal{D}(A')$ in $X'$, which is known to norm $X$. If $X$ is a Hilbert space we denote by $(\cdot|\cdot)$ the scalar product on $H$ and by $A^{\ast}$ the Hilbert space adjoint of an operator $A$.
In this paper a [*sectorial operator*]{} $A$ is closed, injective, has dense domain ${\cal D}(A)$ and range ${\cal R}(A)$. Furthermore, for some $\sigma \in (0, \pi)$ we have that $\sigma (A) \subset \Sigma(\sigma) \cup \{0\}$, where $\Sigma(\sigma) =
\{ \lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}: | \arg \lambda | < \sigma \}$ and $\| \lambda R (\lambda,
A) \| \leq C$ for $\lambda \not\in \Sigma(\sigma)$. $\omega(A)$ is the infimum over all such $\sigma$. To define an $H^{\infty}$–calculus we first consider $H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ which contains all bounded analytic functions $f$ on $\Sigma(\sigma)$ such that $| \lambda|^{- \varepsilon}|f(\lambda)|$ is bounded near $0$ and $| \lambda |^{\varepsilon} |f(\lambda)|$ is bounded for large $|\lambda|$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$. For $f \in H_0^{\infty}
(\Sigma(\sigma))$ and a sectorial operator $A$ with $\omega(A) < \sigma$ the [*Dunford integral*]{} $$f(A) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)} f(\lambda)
R(\lambda, A) d \lambda$$ exists (where $\omega(A) < \gamma < \sigma)$ and is linear and multiplicative. We orientate the curve $\partial
\Sigma(\gamma)$ always in such a way, that the curve surrounds the interior of $\Sigma(\sigma)$ in a counter clockwise fashion. This functional calculus can also be extended to $$H_1^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma)) = \bigl \{f \in H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma)) :
\sup_{|\varphi| < \sigma} \int\limits_0^{\infty}|f(e^{i \varphi}t)|
\frac{dt}{t} < \infty \bigr\}.$$ We say that $A$ admits an [*$H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–functional*]{} calculus if there is a constant $C$, such that $$\| f(A) \| \leq C \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))} \quad \mbox{ for all }
f \in H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma)).$$ By $\omega_{H^{\infty}}(A)$ we denote the infimum over such $\sigma$. The following convergence lemma from [@CDMY] is used often: If $A$ has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus and $f_n,f \in H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ are uniformly bounded and $f_n(\lambda) \to f(\lambda)$ for $\lambda \in
\Sigma(\sigma)$ then $f_n(A)x \to f(A)x$ for all $x \in X$.
For a sectorial operator we can define $A^{i s}, s \in {\mathbb{R}}$, as closed operators in the sense of fractional powers, see e. g. [@Ko]. We say that $A$ has [*bounded imaginary powers*]{} (BIP) if these operators $A^{is}$ extend to bounded operators on $X$. $\omega(A^{is})$ is the growth bound of the group $A^{is}$.
In connection with group generators we also need operators of [*strip–type*]{}. They are again closed injective with dense domain and range but their spectrum is contained in a strip $S(a) = \{ \lambda : | \mbox{Re} \lambda |
< a \}$ and $R(\lambda, A)$ is bounded outside $S(a)$. Denote by $w(A)$ the infimum over such $a$.
Let $H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ be the space of all bounded analytic functions on $S(a)$, so that $| \lambda|^{1+ \varepsilon} |f(\lambda)|$ is bounded for large $| \lambda |$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$. Then, for an operator $A$ of strip–type, we can define an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–calculus for $a > w(A)$ in the same way we defined an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on $\Sigma(\sigma)$ above (see e. g. [@Ha1; @Ha2] for details). Again $w_{H^{\infty}}(A)$ is the infimum over such $a$. We will also need the space $$H_1^{\infty}(S(a)) = \bigl \{ f \in H^{\infty}(S(a)) :
\sup_{|b| < a} \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty}|f(b+it)|dt < \infty
\bigr \}.$$
A set $\tau \subset B(X,Y)$ of operators is called [*$R$–bounded*]{} if there is a constant $C$ so that for all $T_1, \dots , T_m \in \tau$ and $x_1, \dots , x_m \in X$ $$\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{n=1}^m r_n T_n x_n \biggr| \biggr|_Y^2
\biggr)^{1/2} \leq C
\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl( \biggl| \biggl| \sum_{n=1}^m r_n x_n \biggr| \biggr|_X
\biggr)^2 \biggr)^{1/2}$$ where $(r_n)$ is the sequence of Rademacher functions. If we replace the Rademacher functions in inequality (3) by a sequence $(g_n)$ of independent, $N(0,1)$–distributed Gaussian variables, then the resulting property of $\tau$ is called [*$\gamma$–boundedness*]{}. The smallest constant $C$ for which (3) holds is called the $R$–bound ($\gamma$–bound) of $\tau$. If $T_t$ is a group we consider the growth bound $$\omega_R (T_t) = \inf \{ w: e^{-w|t|}T_t \mbox{ is } R \mbox{--bounded} \}$$ and similarly we define $\omega_\gamma(T_t)$. If $X$ has finite cotype, then the notions of $R$–boundedness and $\gamma$–boundedness are equivalent since in this case there is a constant $C$ such that for $x_1 , \dots , x_n \in X$ (cf. [@DJT] 12.11, 12.27) $$\frac{1}{C} \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k x_k \biggr| \biggr|^2
\biggr)^{1/2} \!\! \leq \!\!
\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum r_k x_k \biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}
\!\! \leq \! C
\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum g_k x_k \biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}.$$ A Banach space has [*type*]{} $p$, $p \in [1,2]$, if there is a constant $C$ such that for all $x_1, \dots , x_m \in X, m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have $$\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{n=1}^m r_n x_n \biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}
\leq C \biggl( \sum_{n=1}^m \| x_n \|^p \biggr)^{1/p}.$$ The [*cotype*]{} $q$, $q \in [2, \infty)$, of a Banach space is defined similarly by the reverse inequality $$\biggl( \sum_{n=1}^m \|x_n \|^q \biggr)^{1/q} \leq C \biggl( \displaystyle {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{n=1}^m r_n x_n \biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}.$$ Finally we say that $X$ has property $(\alpha)$ (see [@Pi2]), if for two independent sequences $(r_n)$, $(r_n')$ of Rademacher sequences there is a constant $C$ so that for all $x_{ij} \in X$ and $| a_{ij} | \leq 1$ $$\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{ij} r_i r_j' a_{ij} x_{ij}
\biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2} \leq
C \biggl({\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{ij} r_i r_j' x_{ij}
\biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}.$$ A Banach lattice with finite cotype has always property $(\alpha)$. A uniformly convex space has always finite cotype and a type larger than $1$ (cf. [@DJT]). Hence a space $L_r(\Omega)$ with $1 < r < \infty$ has cotype $q=\min\lbrace r,r' \rbrace <\infty$, type $p=\max\lbrace r,r'\rbrace > 1$ and property $(\alpha)$.
A Banach space $X$ is called a UMD–space, if all $X$–valued martingale difference sequences converge unconditionally. An equivalent property which is more relevant for the present paper is that the Hilbert transform $H$ on $L_2({\mathbb{R}})$ has a bounded tensor extension $H \otimes I$ to $L_2({\mathbb{R}},X)$. For unexplained Banach space notation we refer to [@Pi5] and [@DJT].
The Hilbert space case
======================
In this section we recall the characterization of $H^{\infty}$–calculus of a sectorial operator $A$ on a Hilbert space $H$ in terms of square functions such as $$\|x\|_A = \biggl ( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \|A^{1/2} R(-t, A)x\|^2 dt
\biggr)^{1/2} = \|A^{1/2}R(\cdot,A)x\|_{L_2({\mathbb{R}}_{-},H)}.$$ The point is to motivate our study of more general square functions on Banach spaces in the following sections and to construct proofs that are simple enough so that they generalize to the Banach space setting. For that purpose we would like to emphasize that we use only the following elementary properties of $L_2(I,H)$:
- If $f,g \in L_2(I,H)$ then $|(f|g)| \leq \|f\|_{L_2(I,H)}
\cdot \|g\|_{L_2(I,H)}.$
- If $t \in I \to N(t) \in B(H)$ is strongly measurable and bounded (with respect to the operator norm) then $$\|N(\cdot)f(\cdot)\|_{L_2(I,H)} \leq \sup_{t \in I} \|N(t)\| \cdot
\|f(\cdot)\|_{L_2(I,H)}.$$
- For $S \in B(L_2(I))$ put ${\mathscr{S}}\biggl( \displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^n f_j \otimes x_j \biggr) = \sum_{j=1}^n S(f_j) \otimes x_j$ for $f_j \in L_2(I)$ and $x_i \in H$. Then ${\mathscr{S}}$ extends to a bounded operator from $L_2(I,H)$ to $L_2(I,H)$ and $\| {\mathscr{S}}\| \leq \|S\|$.
(For a proof of (S3) see e. g. [@KuWe] Lemma 11.11.) In particular, for $$Sf(t) = {\cal F}f(t) = \textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
\int e^{-ist} f(s)ds$$ we obtain the vector–valued Plancherel–identity: $$\| {\cal F} f\|_{L_2({\mathbb{R}},H)} = \| f\|_{L_2({\mathbb{R}},H)}.$$ The following theorem is due to A. McIntosh [@CDMY; @M], but we give a different proof:
For a sectorial operator $A$ on a Hilbert space $H$ the following are equivalent:
a\) $A$ has bounded imaginary powers (BIP) and for one (all) $\sigma \in
(\omega(A),\pi]$ there is a constant $C_1$ with $$\|A^{is}\| \leq C_1 e^{\sigma |s|}.$$
b\) For one (all) $\omega$ with $| \omega | \in (\omega(A), \pi]$ there is a constant $C_2$ such that for all $x \in H$ $$\biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \| A^{1/2} R(t e^{i \omega}, A)x \|^2 dt
\biggr)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\|,$$ and $$\biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \| (A^{\ast})^{1/2} R(t e^{i \omega},A)^{\ast}
x\|^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\|.$$
c\) For one (all) $\omega$ with $| \omega | \in (\omega(A), \pi]$ there is a $C_3$ such that for all $x \in H$ $$\frac{1}{C_3} \|x\| \leq \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \| A^{1/2} R
(e^{i \omega} t,A)x\|^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2} \leq C_3 \|x\|.$$
d\) $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus for one (all) $\sigma \in
(\omega(A), \pi]$.
First we fix $\sigma$ and $\omega$ with $\omega(A) < \sigma < \omega \leq \pi$ and show that a) $\Longrightarrow$ b) $\Longrightarrow$ c). For fixed $\omega(A) < \omega < \sigma \leq \pi$ we have that c) $\Longrightarrow$ d) $\Longrightarrow$ a). In the last part of the proof we show that b) holds for all $\omega > \omega(A)$ if it holds for one such $\omega$. Together with the implications proved before this will complete the proof.
a\) $\Longrightarrow$ b) For $y \in \cal{R}(A)$ we use a well known representation of fractional powers of $A$ (cf. [@Ko]) $$A^{is- \frac{1}{2}} y = \frac{\sin (\pi (is - \frac{1}{2}))}{\pi}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} t^{is - \frac{1}{2}} (t+A)^{-1} y dt.$$ For $x \in \cal{R}(A^{1/2}) \cap {\cal D}(A^{1/2})$ and $y = A^{1/2}x$, it follows that $$A^{is}x = \frac{\cosh (\pi s)}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{\infty} t^{is}
[t^{1/2} (t+A)^{-1} A^{1/2} x ] \frac{dt}{t}$$ and if we replace $A$ by the sectorial operator $e^{-i \theta}A$ with $\theta < \pi - \sigma$ $$\frac{\pi}{\cosh (\pi s)} e^{\theta s} A^{is}x = \int\limits_0^{\infty}
t^{is} [e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}} t^{1/2} A^{1/2} (e^{i \theta} t+A)^{-1}x]
\frac{dt}{t}.$$ With the substitution $t = e^u$ we get $$\frac{\pi e^{\theta s}}{\cosh (\pi s)} A^{is} x = \int\limits_0^{\infty}
e^{ius} [e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}} e^{u/2} (e^{i \theta}e^u +A)^{-1}
A^{1/2} x] du.$$ Since $\cosh (\pi s) \sim e^{\pi|s|}$ the left hand side is in $L_2({\mathbb{R}},H)$ and the Plancherel identity for $H$–valued functions cf. (S3) gives $$\begin{split}
\biggl(\int\limits_0^{\infty}\|A^{1/2}(e^{i \theta}t+A)^{-1} x \|^2 &dt
\biggr)^{1/2} = \biggl( \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} \| e^{u/2}
(e^{i \theta}e^u +A)^{-1}A^{1/2} x\|^2 du \biggr)^{1/2} \\
& \leq \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \biggl( \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty}
\biggl| \biggl| \frac{e^{\theta s}}{\cosh (\pi s)} A^{is} x
\biggr| \biggr|^2 ds \biggr)^{1/2} \leq C_2 \|x\|
\end{split}$$ by the assumption on $A^{is}$. For $\omega = \pi - \theta$ we have $(e^{i \theta} t+A)^{-1} =
-R(e^{- i \omega}t,A)$ and the claim follows.
b\) $\Longrightarrow$ c) For $x \in \cal{R}(A) \cap {\cal D}(A)$ we have $$e^{i \omega} \int\limits_0^{\infty} AR(e^{i \omega}t,A)^2 x dt =
\lim_{r \to \infty} [- AR(e^{i \omega}t,A)x]_{\frac{1}{r}}^r = x.$$ Hence for any $y \in H$ with $\Vert y \Vert \leq 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
(x|y) & = & e^{i \omega} \int\limits_0^{\infty} (AR(e^{i \omega}t|A)^2x,y)dt \\
& = & e^{i \omega} \int\limits_0^{\infty} (A^{1/2} R(e^{i \omega}t,A)x|
(A^{\ast})^{1/2}R(e^{-i \omega}t,A^{\ast})y)dt\end{aligned}$$ and using (S1) $$\begin{aligned}
|(x|y)| & \leq & \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \| A^{1/2} R(e^{i \omega}
t,A)x \|^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \| (A^{\ast})^{1/2}
R(e^{- i \omega}t,A^{\ast})y\|^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2} \\
& \leq & \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} \|A^{1/2} R(e^{i \omega} t,A)x\|^2
dt \biggr)^{1/2} C_2 \|y\|.\end{aligned}$$ Together with b) we obtain $$\frac{1}{C_2} \|x\| \leq \biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty}
\|A^{1/2} R(e^{i \omega} t,A)x \|^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2} \biggr| \biggr|
\leq C_2 \|x\|.$$
c\) $\Longrightarrow$ d) Choose $\sigma$ and $\omega$ with $\omega(A) < \omega < \sigma$. For $f \in H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ and $| \arg \mu| = \omega$ we calculate using the resolvent equation $$\begin{split}
A^{1/2} R(\mu,A)f(A) & = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial
\Sigma(\omega)} f(\lambda)A^{1/2}R(\mu, A)R(\lambda,A) d \lambda \\
& = \biggl( \frac{1}{2 \pi i} PV \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)}
\frac{f(\lambda)}{\lambda - \mu} d \lambda \biggr) A^{1/2} R(\mu, A) \\
&\quad - \frac{1}{2 \pi i}PV \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)} \frac{f(\lambda)A^{1/2}R(\lambda,A)}
{\lambda - \mu} d \lambda \\
& = f(\mu) A^{1/2} R(\mu, A) - K[f(\cdot) A^{1/2}R(\cdot,A)](\mu)
\end{split}$$ by Cauchy’s theorem and using the notation $$KG(\mu) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} PV \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)}
\frac{G(\lambda)}{\lambda - \mu} d \lambda, \quad \mu \in \partial
\Sigma(\omega).$$ $K$ is a variant of the Hilbert transform and a bounded operator on $L_2(\partial \Sigma(\omega))$. By (S3) we have for $g \in L_2(\partial \Sigma(\omega),H)$ $$\int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)}\|Kg(\mu)\|^2 d|\mu| \leq
M^2 \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)} \|g(\lambda) \|^2 d|\lambda|.$$ From this and c), it follows for $x \in \cal{D}(A)$ that $$\begin{split}
\| f(A)x\|_H &\leq C_3 \|A^{1/2} R(\cdot,A) [f(A)x] \|_{L_2(\partial
\Sigma(\omega),H)} \\
& \leq C_3 \| f(\cdot) A^{1/2} R(\cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(\partial \Sigma(\omega),H)} \\
&\quad + C_3 M \| f(\cdot) A^{1/2} R(\cdot, A) x \|_{L_2(\partial \Sigma(\omega),H)} \\
& \leq C_3 (1+M) \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(\partial \Sigma(\omega))} \|A^{1/2} R
(\cdot, A)x\|_{L_2(\partial \Sigma(\omega),H)} \\
& \leq C_4 \|x\| \|f\|_{\infty}.
\end{split}$$
d\) $\Longrightarrow$ a) is clear since $\sup \{ |\lambda^{it} | : \lambda \in \Sigma(\sigma) \} \leq
e^{\sigma |t|}$.
Finally we show that we can choose $\omega > \omega(A)$ freely. Consider $\nu$ and $\omega$ with $|\nu|, |\omega| > \omega(A)$. The resolvent equation implies that $$A^{1/2} R(te^{i \omega},A) = [I + (e^{i \nu} - e^{i \omega})tR(t e^{i \omega},
A)] A^{1/2} R(t e^{i \nu},A).$$ Since the factor in square brackets is bounded on ${\mathbb{R}}_{+}$, we obtain $$\int\limits_0^{\infty} \|A^{1/2} R(t e^{i \omega},A)x\|^2dt \leq C
\int\limits_0^{\infty}\| A^{1/2} R(t e^{i \nu},A)x \|^2 dt.$$ The same argument applies to $A^{\ast}$.
Boyadzhiev and deLaubenfels have shown in [@BD] that a group generator on a Hilbert space has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on a strip. We give a proof using square functions which is a variant of the proof of Haase [@Ha2]. (Condition c) may be new.)
For an operator $A$ of strip–type on a Hilbert space, the following conditions are equivalent:
a\) $A$ generates a strongly continuous group $T_t$ on $H$.
b\) There is a constant $C < \infty$ so that for one (all) $b > \omega(A)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \biggl( \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} \|R(\pm b + it,A)x\|^2 dt
\biggr)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\|, \\
& & \hspace*{8cm} \mbox{ for } x \in H \\
& & \biggl( \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} \|R(\pm b+it,A)^{\ast}x\|^2 dt
\biggr)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\| .\end{aligned}$$
c\) There is a constant $C < \infty$ so that for one (all) $b > \omega(A)$ $$\frac{1}{C} \|x\| \leq \biggl( \int\limits_{\partial S(b)} \|R(\lambda,A)
x\|^2d |\lambda| \biggr)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\|, \quad x \in H.$$
d\) $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–functional calculus for one (all) $a >
w(A)$.
Furthermore, we have $w_{H^{\infty}}(A) = w(A) = \omega(T_t)$.
a\) $\Longrightarrow$ b) Since e. g. $R(b +it,A)x = \int\limits_0^{\infty} e^{-(b+it)s} T_s x ds$ for $b > \omega(T_t)$ the claim follows from the vector–valued Plancherel identity. If we have condition b) for one $b > \omega(A)$ we obtain it for every other $\beta > w(A)$ using the resolvent equation. Since $$R(\beta + it,A) = [ I + (b - \beta)R(\beta + it,A)]R(b + it,A)$$ we get $$\begin{gathered}
\|R(\beta + i \cdot ,A)x\|_{L_2(H)} \leq [1+|b- \beta| \sup_t \|R(\beta
+ it,A)\|] \|R(b+i \cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(H)}.\end{gathered}$$
b\) $\Longrightarrow$ c) Let $\varrho_n \in H_0^{\infty}(S(\alpha))$ with $\| \varrho_n \| \leq 1,
\varrho_n (\lambda) \to 1$ and $\varrho \in H_0^{\infty}(S(\alpha))$ with $\cal{R}(\varrho(A))$ dense. Then for $x \in \cal{R}(\varrho(A))$ the convergence lemma implies $\displaystyle \lim_n \varrho_n(A)x = x$ and from $$\varrho_n (A)x = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial S(\alpha)}
\varrho_n(\lambda) R(\lambda,A)x d \lambda$$ we obtain for $n \to \infty$ $$\begin{split}
x & = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial S(\alpha)} R(\lambda,A)x d
\lambda
= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} [R(\alpha +it,A)x -
R(- \alpha +it,A)x]dt \\
& = -\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} R(\alpha +it,A)
R(- \alpha +it,A)x dt.
\end{split}$$ Hence for $y \in H$ using (S2) $$\begin{split}
|(y|x)| & \leq \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty (R(\alpha +it,A)^{\ast}y| R(-\alpha
+it,A)x) dt \\
& \leq \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \|R(\alpha + i \cdot,A)^{\ast}y\|_{L_2(H)}
\cdot \|R(- \alpha + i \cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(H)} \\
& \leq \frac{\alpha}{\pi} C \|R(- \alpha + i \cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(H)} \|y\|.
\end{split}$$ Since $y \in H$ was arbitrary the lower estimate of c) follows.
We can get from one $b > w(A)$ using the same trick as in a) $\Longrightarrow$ b).
c\) $\Longrightarrow$ d) Let $a > b$, where $b$ is as in c). For $f \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ we observe that for $\mu \in \partial S(b)$ $$\begin{split}
R(\mu,A)f(A) & = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} PV\int\limits_{\partial S(b)}
f(\lambda)R(\mu,A)R(\lambda,A)d \lambda \\
& = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} PV\int\limits_{\partial S(b)} \frac{f(\lambda)}
{\lambda - \mu} d\lambda R(\mu, A) + \frac{1}{2 \pi i}
PV\int\limits_{\partial S(b)} \frac{f(\lambda)R(\lambda,A)}{\lambda - \mu}
d \lambda \\
& = f(\mu) R(\mu,A) + \frac{1}{2i} H_0[f(\cdot) R(\cdot,A)](\mu)
\end{split}$$ where $H_0$ is the Hilbert transform on $L_2(\partial S(b))$. If ${\cal H}$ is the extension of $H_0$ to $L_2(\partial S(b),H)$, we obtain with c), (S2) and (S3) $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{C} \|f(A)x\| & \leq C\|R(\cdot,A)f(A)x\|_{L_2(\partial S(b),H)} \\
& \leq \|f(\cdot)R(\cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(\partial S(b),H)} +
\frac{1}{2} \| {\cal H} \| \|f(\cdot)R(\cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(\partial S(b),H)} \\
& \leq \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(a))} \left(1+\frac{1}{2}\|H_0\|\right) \|R(\cdot,A)x\|_{L_2(\partial
S(b),H)} \\
& \leq C \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(a))}\|x\|.
\end{split}$$
d\) $\Longrightarrow$ a) Since $\sup \{ |e^{t \lambda}|: \lambda \in S(a) \} \leq e^{a|t|}$ the $H^{\infty}$–calculus implies that $A$ generates a group. The strong continuity follows from the convergence lemma.
Following the argument $b) \Rightarrow c) \Rightarrow d)$, we obtain the estimate $$\| f(A) \| \leq \frac{2C^2}{3\pi}a \cdot \| f \|_{H^\infty(S(a))},$$
where $C$ is the constant in condition b).
Square functions in $L_q$–spaces
================================
Next we consider the classical square functions known from harmonic analysis.
Let $(\Omega, \mu)$ be a $\sigma$–finite measure space and $I \subset {\mathbb{R}}$ an interval. A function $f:I \to L_q(\Omega, \mu), 1 < q < \infty$, may be viewed as a measurable function $\tilde{f}$ on $I \times \Omega$ with $\tilde{f}(t, \omega) = f(t)(\omega)$ a. e. (by Fubini’s theorem, cf. [@DS], Sect. III.1.1.). For this function $\tilde{f}$ we may ask whether it is finite with respect to the norm $L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))$ which we will call the [*square function norm*]{} of $f$ and denote by $$\|f\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} = \biggl|\biggl| \biggl( \int\limits_I |f(t)(\cdot)|^2dt
\biggr)^{1/2}
\biggr|\biggr|_{L_q(\Omega)} \in [0, \infty].$$ By Fubini’s theorem we have of course that $L_2(\Omega,L_2(I)) = L_2
(I,L_2(\Omega))$. Hence this norm extends the square functions considered in Section 2.
We will be interested in functions of the form $f(t) =
A^{1/2} R(-t,A)x$ or $f(t) = t^{n - \frac{1}{2}}A^nT_tx$ on ${\mathbb{R}}_{+}$. If $A = - \Delta$ or $A = (- \Delta)^{1/2}$ on $L_q({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ one obtains the classical Paley–Littlewood $g$–functions (see e. g. [@St]). In [@CDMY] such square functions were used for the first time for a general approach to the $H^{\infty}$–calculus in $L_q(\Omega)$ spaces.\
To make sure that such expressions make sense, at least for $x$ in a dense subspace of $X$, one may use the following observation:
Assume that $f:[0,b] \to L_q(\Omega)$ is continuously differentiable. Then $$\|f\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} \leq \int\limits_0^b s^{1/2} \| f'(s)\|_{L_q(\Omega)} ds +
b^{1/2} \|f(b)\|_{L_q(\Omega)}.$$ Indeed, we write
$$f(t,\cdot) = f(b,\cdot)-\int_0^b \chi_{[0,s]}(t)f'(s,\cdot) ds$$
so that by taking the $L_q(L_2)$ norm with respect to the variable $t\in(0,b)$, we obtain the above inequality.
a\) Let $A$ generate an exponentially stable semigroup $T_t$ on $X$ with $\omega(T_t) < 0$. Then we have for $x \in \cal{D}(A)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\|T_tx\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} & \leq & C \|Ax\| \\
\|R(i \cdot, A)x\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} & \leq & C \|Ax\|.\end{aligned}$$
b\) For a sectorial operator $A$ on $X$ we have for $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ $$\| A^{1/2} R(-t,A)x\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} \leq C (\| Ax\| + \|A^{-1}x\| +
\|x\|).$$ If $\omega(A) < \textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}$ then $A$ generates an analytic semigroup $T_t$ and for $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ $$\|t^{- 1/2} (tA)^nT_tx\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} \leq C (\|Ax\| + \|A^{-1}x\| +
\|x\|).$$
Hence such square functions are finite at least for $x$ in a dense subset $D$ such as ${\cal D}(A)$ or ${\cal D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$. If one can now establish for $x\in D$ better estimates of the form $\|A^{1/2}R(-t,A)x\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} \leq C\| x\|$, then one can extend the continuous embedding $x\in D \to Jx=AR(-t,A)x \in L_q(\Omega,L_2[0,b])$ to all of $L_q(\Omega)$.
a\) Indeed in the first formula $t^{1/2} \| \textstyle \frac{d}{dt} T_tx\| = t^{1/2} \| T_t
(Ax)\|$ is integrable on ${\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ and $t^{1/2}T_tx \to 0$ for $ t \to \infty$. So we can apply 3.1 The second estimate follows from the first, since $R(i \cdot, Ax) = {\cal F}(T_{(\cdot)}x)$ by (S3) below.
b\) For a sectorial operator $A$ it is well known that $\displaystyle
\sup_t \| t^{1/2}f(t)\| < \infty$ for $f(t) = A^{1/2}R(-t,A)x$. Also $$\begin{aligned}
\|t^{1/2}f'(t) \| & = & \| t^{1/2}R(-t,A)^2(A^{1/2}x)\| \lesssim t^{- 3/2}
\|A^{1/2}x\| \\
\|t^{1/2}f'(t)\| & = & \|t^{1/2}[tR(-t,A)^2(A^{- 1/2}x) - R(-t,A)
(A^{- 1/2} x)] \| \\
&\lesssim & t^{- 1/2} \|A^{- 1/2} x \|.\end{aligned}$$ If we use the first estimate for large $t$ and the second for small $t$ we see that $\|t^{1/2}f'(t)\|$ is integrable and 3.1 applies.
If $\omega(A) < \textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}$ then $\displaystyle
\sup_{t > 0} \|t^nA^nT_t\| < \infty$ and we can apply 3.1 in a similar way.
These square functions still share the basic properties (S1), (S2) and (S3) of Section 2, but with one important difference: In (S2) we have to replace the boundedness of $N(t)$ by $R$–boundedness. More precisely
- If $f \in L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))$ and $g \in L_{q'} (\Omega, L_2(I))$ with $\textstyle \frac{1}{q} + \textstyle \frac{1}{q'} = 1$, then $$| < f,g>| \leq \|f\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} \|g\|_{L_{q'}(\Omega, L_2(I))}.$$
- If $t \in I \to N(t) \in B(L_q)$ is strongly continuous and $R$–bounded, then $$\|N(t)f(\cdot)\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))} \leq R(N(t):t \in I) \|f(\cdot)
\|_{L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))}.$$
- For a bounded operator $S:L_2(I) \to L_2(I)$ put ${\mathscr{S}}\biggl(
\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^n
f_j \otimes x_j \biggr):= \displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^n S(f_j) \otimes x_j$ for $f_j
\in L_2(I)$ and $x_j \in L_q(\Omega)$. Then ${\mathscr{S}}$ extends to a bounded operator ${\mathscr{S}}: L_q(\Omega, L_2(I)) \to L_q(\Omega, L_2(I))$ with $\|{\mathscr{S}}\| \leq
\|S\|_{L_2(I)}$.
(S1) is clear, (S2) is checked in [@W2], and (S3) follows by direct calculation from the definition. Recall that a sequence $T_j$ of operators on $L_q(\Omega)$ is [*$R$–bounded*]{} if and only if there is a constant $C
< \infty$ such that for all $(x_j) \subset L_q(\Omega)$ $$\biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \sum_j | T_j x_j (\cdot) |^2 \biggr)^{1/2}
\biggr| \biggr|_{L_q(\Omega)} \leq C \biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \sum_j |x_j (\cdot)|^2
\biggr)^{1/2} \biggr| \biggr|_{L_q(\Omega)}.$$
Having these properties in mind we could easily extend the proofs of Section 2 to the $L_p$–case and recover the characterization of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus in terms of square functions from [@CDMY] or prove the following new results:
A sectorial operator $A$ on $L_q(\Omega)$, $1 < q < \infty$, has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus if and only if $A$ has BIP and $\{ e^{-a|t|} A^{it}:
t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $R$–bounded for some $a \in [0, \pi)$. Furthermore, $\omega_{H^{\infty}}(A) = \omega_R(A^{it})$.
An operator $A$ of strip–type on $L_q(\Omega), 1 < q < \infty$, has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on a strip if and only if $A$ generates a $C_0$–group such that $\{ e^{- b|t|}T_t:t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $R$–bounded for some $b > 0$. Furthermore, $w_{H^{\infty}}(A) = \omega_R(T_t)$.
Instead of proving these results now we will first introduce generalized square functions on Banach spaces and then present our proofs in this more general setting. A reader premarily interested in the $L_p$–case, can easily interpret these arguments in terms of the square functions defined above. Since $L_p$–spaces with $1 < p < \infty$ have non–trivial type and cotype and property $(\alpha)$, no additional assumptions are necessary in this case.
To motivate our general definition of square function in the next section, we reformulate (1):
To a function $f \in L_q(\Omega, L_2(I)), \Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$, we can associate an operator $u_f : L_2(I) \to L_q(\Omega)$ by $$u_f(h) = \int\limits_I f(t) h(t) dt, \quad h \in L_2(I).$$ If $(e_n)$ is an orthonormal basis of $L_2(I)$, then so is $(\overline{e}_n)$ and for a continuous $f$ on $I \times \Omega$, we calculate for a fixed $w$ $$\begin{split}
& \biggl( \int\limits_I |f(t)(\omega)|^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2} =
\biggl( \sum_n |<f(\cdot)(\omega), \overline{e}_n > |^2 \biggr)^{1/2} \\
& = \biggl( \sum_n |[u_f(e_n)](\omega)|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}
= \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \sum_n g_n [u_f(e_n)](\omega) \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2} \\
& = C_q \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \sum_n g_n [u_f (e_n)](\omega) \biggr|^q \biggr)^{1/q}
\end{split}$$ where $(g_n)$ is a Gaussian sequence. Taking norms in $L_q(\Omega)$ and using Fubini’s theorem we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \int_I | f(t) |^2 dt \biggr)^{1/2}
\biggr| \biggr|_{L_q(\Omega)}
&= C_q \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_n g_n u_f (e_n)
\biggr| \biggr|_{L_q(\Omega)}^q \biggr)^{1/q} \\
&\simeq C_q' \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_n g_n u_f (e_n)
\biggr| \biggr|_{L_q(\Omega)}^2 \biggr)^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ where we used Kahane’s inequality for the last estimate. Note that the last expression makes sense in every Banach space.
Let $X$ be a Banach function space on $(\Omega,\mu)$ which is $q$–concave for some $q < \infty$ in the sense of [@LT], Def. 1.d.3. Then we can replace Fubini’s theorem in the above calculation by a result of Maurey (see [@LT], 1.d.6) and still obtain that $$\biggl| \biggl| \biggl( \int_I |f(t)(\cdot)|^2dt \biggr)^{1/2} \biggr|
\biggr|_X \simeq {\mathbb{E}}\biggl( \biggl| \biggl| \sum_n g_n u_f (e_n)
\biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}.$$ Hence in $q$–concave function spaces the classical square functions (they were used e. g. in [@LLL]) are also equivalent to the generalized square functions to be introduced in the next section.
Generalized square functions
============================
In this section $H$ is always a Hilbert space and denote by $(\cdot | \cdot)$ its scalar product. If $X$ is a Banach space, we will need on occasion the Banach space dual $u: X'\to H'$ of operators $u\in B(H,X)$. To avoid notational complications we fix a bilinear map $< \cdot , \cdot >_H$ on $H \times H$ so that $\|x\|_H = \sup\{ < x,y >_H: \|y\|_H \leq 1 \}$ and $\|y\| = \sup
\{ < x,y >_H :\|x\|_H \leq 1 \}$, so that we can identify the Banach space dual $H'$ with $H$ via this duality. If $(e_j)$ is an orthonormal basis of $H$ we can e.g. choose $$<x,y> = \displaystyle \sum_j <x, e_j> <y, e_j>.$$
Of course, $<\cdot , \cdot>$ is only determined up to unitary maps of $H$, but if $H = L_2(\Omega, \mu)$ we always choose $<f,g> = \int f(\omega)
g(\omega) d\mu (\omega)$. For $S \in B(H,X)$ we denote by $S'$ the Banach space dual $S' \in B(X', H)$ with respect to the duality $<\cdot , \cdot>_H$. For $S\in B(H)$, we also define $S' \in B(H)$ by $<Sh,g>=<h,S'g>$ and distinguish this adjoint from the Hilbert space adjoint $S^*$ which is determined by the scalar product $(\cdot\vert\cdot)$. If $X=L_2(\Omega,\mu)$, then $S'h=\overline{S^{*}(\overline{h})}$. $u= \sum x_i \otimes h_i$ with $x_i \in X$ and $h_i \in H$ stands for the operator $u(h)= \sum_i <h, h_i>_H x_i$.
For our treatment of generalized square functions we need some notions from Banach space theory. Recall that $(g_n)$ is an independent sequence of standard Gaussian variables. $(g_n)$ is supposed to be complex if $H$ is a complex Hilbert space.
Let $H$ be a Hilbert space and $X$ a Banach space. We denote by $\gamma_{+}(H,X)$ the space of all linear operators $u: H \to X$ such that $$\|u\|_\gamma = \sup_{N\in \mathbb{N}} \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{n=1}^N g_n u(e_n)
\biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2} < \infty.$$ Here the $\sup$ is taken over all finite orthonormal system $(e_n)$ in $H$.
By $\gamma(H,X)$ we denote the closure of the finite dimensional operators in $\gamma_{+}(H,X)$. The space $\gamma(H,X)$ and its norm play an important role in the geometry of Banach spaces (cf [@Pi5], p.35ff) and in the theory of cylindrical Gaussian measures on Banach spaces (see e.g. [@LPie]). However, in this literature the notation $l(H,X)$ instead of $\gamma(H,X)$ is used.
a\) If $X$ does not contain $c_0$, then $\gamma_{+}(H,X) = \gamma(H,X)$ by a result of Kwapien [@Kw].
b\) Let $H$ be separable and $(e_j)$ an orthonormal basis of $H$. If $u \in \gamma(H,X)$ then $$\|u\|_\gamma = \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{N}}} g_j u(e_j)
\biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}.$$
c\) By Kahane’s inequality ([@LeTa]), one can define on $\gamma_{+}(H,X)$ equivalent norms $$\|u\|_{\gamma,p} = \sup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{j=1}^N g_j u(e_j)
\biggr| \biggr|^p \biggr)^{1/p}$$
for $1<p<\infty$.
This expression is independent of the choice of $(e_j)$ thanks to the following ideal property of $\gamma(H,X)$ applied to unitary operators on $H$:
For $T \in B(X,Y), u \in \gamma(H_2,X)$ and $v \in B(H_1,H_2)$ the composition $T
uv \in \gamma(H_1,Y)$ and $$\| Tuv\|_\gamma \leq \|T\| \cdot \|u\|_\gamma \cdot \|v\|.$$
For a finite orthonormal system $(e_n)_{n=1}^m$ in $H_1$ choose a finite orthonormal system $(f_n)_{n=1}^m$ in $H_2$, so that $v(e_i) \in \mbox{ span
}(f_1,\dots,f_m)$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. Then there are $(a_{ij})_{i,j=1,\dots,m}$ so that $Pv^{\ast}f_i=\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^m
a_{ij}e_j$, where $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto span $(e_1,\dots,e_m)$. Then $$uv(e_n) =u \biggl(\sum_{i=1}^m (f_i|ve_n)f_i \biggr) = \sum_{i=1}^m
a_{in}u(f_i).$$ Hence by Corollary 12.17 in [@DJT] (or by the complex version) we obtain $$\begin{split}
& {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_n g_n Tuv(e_n) \biggr| \biggr|^2 \leq \| T\|^2 {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_n g_n \biggl( \sum_{i=1}^n a_{in} uf_i \biggr) \biggr|
\biggr|^2 \\
& \leq \|T\|^2 \cdot \| Pv^{\ast}\|^2 {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_n g_n
u(f_n) \biggr| \biggr|^2 \leq \|T\|^2 \|v\|^2 \|u\|_\gamma^2.
\end{split}$$
We would like to extend an operator $S \in {\cal B}(H_1,H_2)$ to an operator ${{\bf S}^\otimes}:\gamma(H_1,X) \to \gamma(H_2,X)$, so that for a finite dimensional operator $u = \sum x_i \otimes h_i$ with $x_i \in X, h_i \in H_1$ we have $${\bf S}^{\otimes}(u) = \sum x_i \otimes Sh_i$$ and hence for $g \in H_2$ $${{\bf S}^\otimes}(u)(g) = \sum x_i <S'g,h_i>=(u \circ S')(g)$$ This is possible by 4.3.
Let $S \in {\cal B}(H_1,H_2)$. Then the operator $${\bf S}^{\otimes} : \gamma(H_1,X) \to \gamma(H_2,X), \quad
{\bf S}^{\otimes}(u) = u \circ S'$$ defines a bounded operator with $\|{\bf S}^{\otimes}\| \leq \|S\|$. Moreover, for all $x' \in X'$ and $u \in \gamma(H_1,X)$ $$<{\bf S}^{\otimes}u,x'>_X = S (<u,x'>_X)$$ as functionals on $H_2$.
The norm estimate follows from the ideal property 4.3. We have for $u \in \gamma(H_1,X)$ $x' \in X'$ and $h \in H_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
[<{\bf S}^{\otimes}&u,x'>_X](h) = < {{{\bf S}^\otimes}}u(h),x'>_X = <u(S'h),x'>_X \\
& = < S'h,u'(x')>_H = <h, S(u'(x'))>_H = [S (<u,x'>_X)](h).\end{aligned}$$
Let $(\Omega, \Sigma, \mu)$ be a $\sigma$–finite measure space and $X$ a Banach space. By $\mathcal{P}_2(\Omega,\mu,X)$ we denote all Bochner–measurable functions $f:\Omega \to X$, so that $<f,x'>_X \in
L_2(\Omega, \mu)$ for all $x' \in X'$. For $f \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega, \mu,
X)$ we can define an operator $u_f \in B(L_2(\Omega, \mu),X)$ so that for $h \in
L_2(\Omega, \mu)$ and $x' \in X'$ $$<u_fh,x' >_X = \int\limits_{\Omega} <f(\omega),x'>_X h(\omega) d\mu(\omega).$$ (By the uniform boundedness principle this formula defines a bounded operator $u_f
: H \to X^{''}$. If $f$ is bounded on $\operatorname{supp}h$ and $\mu(\operatorname{supp}h)<\infty$, then the Bochner integral $u_fh = \int f(\omega)h(\omega)d\mu(\omega)$ belongs to $X$. Since such $h$ are dense in $L_2(\Omega, \mu)$ we conclude that the range of $u_f$ is contained in $X$.) Now we can introduce our square function norm.
Let $f \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega,X)$ and $u_f$ as above. Then if $u_f \in$ $\gamma_{+}(L_2(\Omega),X)$ we define $$\|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} := \|u_f\|_{\gamma(L_2(\Omega),X)}.$$ The space of all $f$ for which $u_f \in \gamma_{+}(L_2(\Omega),X)$ (or $u_f \in
\gamma(L_2(\Omega),X))$ we denote by $\gamma_{+}(\Omega,\mu,X)$ (or $\gamma(\Omega,\mu,X)$).
If $\Omega = {\mathbb{Z}}$ with the counting measure then for $x_i = f(i), i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we also use the notation $$\|(x_i)_i\|_\gamma = \|u_f\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{Z}},X)} = \sup_{N\in \mathbb{N}}\biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{n=1}^N
g_nx_n \biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2}.$$
a\) If $f= \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \chi_{A_i}$ is a step function with $x_i
\in
X$ and $\mu(A_i) < \infty$ and $A_i$ pairwise disjoint, then $$\|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} = \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\left|\left| \sum_{i=1}^n g_i \mu(A_i)^{1/2} x_i\right|\right| ^2
\biggr)^{1/2} = \|(\mu(A_i)^{1/2}x_i)_i\|_\gamma.$$ Indeed, if we choose the basis $h_i = \mu(A_i)^{- 1/2} \chi_{A_i}$ in span $(\chi_{A_i})$ and complete it by an orthonormal basis of $\{ \chi_{A_i}
\}^{\perp}$ then $u_f(h_i) = \mu (A_i)^{1/2} x_i$.
b\) Suppose that $f:[0,b] \to X$ is continuously differentiable. Then $f \in
\gamma([0,b],X)$ and $$\|f\|_{\gamma([0,b],X)} \leq \int\limits_0^b s^{1/2} \|f'(s)\|_X ds +
b^{1/2}\|f(b)\|_X.$$ (The proof is the same as in 4.2 Just note that $\| -
\chi_{[0,s]} f'(s)\|_\gamma = s^{1/2}\|f'(s)\|$.)
a\) The set $u_f,f \in \gamma(\Omega,X)$, is a dense and in general proper subspace of $\gamma(L_2(\Omega),X)$. Therefore, one may consider the space of operators $\gamma(L_2(\Omega),X)$ as the completion of the function space $\gamma(\Omega,X)$.
b\) If $X$ has type 2, then $L_2(\Omega,X) \subset \gamma(\Omega,X)$. If $X$ has cotype 2, then $\gamma(\Omega,X) \subset L_2(\Omega,X)$. (Use the definition of type and cotype and Lemma 4.10 below.)
c\) The rapidly decreasing functions ${\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$ belong to $\gamma({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$. (For $N=1$ this follows from 4.6b) for $b \to 0$ and $\|f\|_\gamma \leq \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} |t|^{1/2} \|f'(t)\| dt$. This argument can be extended to the multidimensional case. For general $N$ see [@KW2].)
We identify the dual of $H_j=L_2(\Omega_j,\mu)$, $j = 1,2$, with $L_2(\Omega_j,\mu)$ via the duality map $<f,g> = \int
f(\omega)g(\omega)d\mu(\omega)$. Since for $g \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega_1), h \in H_2$ and $x' \in X'$ $$<u_g(h), x'>_X = \int <f(\omega), x'>_X h(\omega) d \mu(\omega)$$ the extension principle 4.4 gives in the case of functions
For $S \in B(L_2(\Omega_1),L_2(\Omega_2))$ let ${{\bf S}^\otimes}$ be the extension of $S$ from $\gamma(L_2(\Omega_1),X)$ to $\gamma(L_2(\Omega_2),X)$. If $f \in \gamma(\Omega_1,X)$ and there is $g \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega_2,X)$ with ${{\bf S}^\otimes}(u_f)=u_g$, then $\|g\|_{\gamma(\Omega_2,X)} \leq \|S\| \cdot
\|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega_1,X)}$ and $<g,x'>_X = S(<f,x'>_X)$ for $x' \in X'$.
[*Warning:*]{} It may happen that ${{\bf S}^\otimes}(u_f)$ for $f \in \gamma(\Omega_1,X)$ does not belong to $\gamma(\Omega_2,X)$, but only to its completion $\gamma(L_2(\Omega_2),X)$.
The following examples show that 4.8 will play the role of (S3) in our work with square functions. It provides a natural extension of “kernel” operators on $L_2(\Omega)$ to the function space $\gamma(\Omega,X)$.
a\) (Multiplication with scalar functions) Let $m \in L_{\infty}(\Omega)$. The multiplication operator $Mf(t) =
m(t)f(t)$ is bounded on $L_2(\Omega)$. For $f\in\mathcal{P}_2(\Omega,X)$, we have $Mf \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega,X)$ and ${{\bf M}^\otimes}u_f = u_{Mf}$ by 4.8. Hence the definition of $M$ extends to $\gamma(\Omega,X)$ and $\| Mf \|_{\gamma} \leq \| m \|_{L_\infty} \| f \|_\gamma$.
b\) (Fourier transform) The Fourier transform on $L_2({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is defined by $${\cal F}f(t)=(2 \pi)^{- N/2} \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{-its}f(s)ds$$ for $f\in L_2({\mathbb{R}}^N) \cap L_1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$. For $f\in \mathcal{P}_2({\mathbb{R}}^N,X) \cap L_1({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$, the same formula gives ${\cal F}f \in \mathcal{P}_2({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$. By 4.8 we have ${\bf \mathcal{F}}^{\otimes}u_f = u_{\mathcal{F}f}$. Hence, the definition extends to (a dense set of functions in) $\gamma ({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$ and $$\| \mathcal{F}f \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)} = \| f \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)}$$ by 4.8. Of course this extension can also be applied to other integral transforms bounded on $L_2$ such as the Mellin transform or the Hilbert transform.
c\) (Integral operators) Let $k$ be a measurable kernel on $\Omega_2 \times \Omega_1$, so that $k(t,\cdot)f(\cdot)$ is integrable on $\Omega_1$ for $f \in L_2(\Omega_1)$ and almost all $t \in \Omega_2$ and $$Kf(t) = \int\limits_{\Omega_1} k(t,s) f(s)ds, \quad t \in \Omega_2$$ defines a bounded operator $K:L_2(\Omega_1) \to L_2(\Omega_2)$. For $f\in L_2(\Omega_1,X)$, the same formula defines a function $Kf \in L_2(\Omega_2,X)$. By 4.8, ${{\bf K}^\otimes}u_f = u_{Kf}$ and $\|Kf\|_{\gamma(\Omega_2,X)} \leq \|K\| \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega_1,X)}$.
d\) (Averaging projections) Let $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a $\sigma$–finite measure space and $(E_k)_k$ a (finite or infinite) partition of $\Omega$ with $0 < \mu(E_k)
< \infty$. Then $$Ph = \sum_k \mu(E_k)^{-1} \int\limits_{E_k} h d\mu \; \chi_{E_k}$$ defines a contraction on $L_2(\Omega)$. Again, the same formula defines an operator on $L_2(\Omega,X)$, which extends to a contraction ${{\bf P}^\otimes}$ on $\gamma(L_2(\Omega),X)$. For $f \in L_2(\Omega,X) \cap \gamma(L_2(\Omega),X)$, we have ${{\bf P}^\otimes}u_f = u_{Pf}$.
The following convergence results are useful:
a\) Suppose $u_{\nu}$ is a uniformly bounded net in ${\cal B}(X)$ such that $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu} u_{\nu} = u$ in the strong operator topology. Then $\|u\|_\gamma \leq \displaystyle \liminf_{\nu} \|u_{\nu}\|_\gamma$.
b\) Suppose that $f_n,f \in {\cal P}_2(\Omega,X)$ and $f_n \to
f$ as $n\to\infty$ $\mu$–a.e. Then $\|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)}$ $\leq
\liminf_n \|f_n\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)}$.
c\) Suppose $f \in \gamma(\Omega,X)$. Let $h_n \in L_{\infty}(\Omega)$ with $\displaystyle \sup_{n} \|h_n\|_{\infty} < \infty$ and $h_n \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ a.e. Then $\|h_nf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
a\) For every orthonormal system $e_1, \dots, e_m$ we have by Fatou’s lemma $$\|(u(e_j))_{j=1,\dots,m}\|_\gamma \leq \displaystyle
\liminf_{\nu} \|(u_{\nu}(e_j))_{j=1,\dots,m}\|_\gamma$$.
b\) For every $m$ there is by Egoroff’s theorem an $\Omega_m \subset \Omega$ with $\mu(\Omega \setminus \Omega_m) \leq \textstyle \frac{1}{m}$ so that $f$ is bounded on $\Omega_m$ and $f_n \to f$ uniformly on $\Omega_m$ as $n\to\infty$. Now define the net $u_{n,m}$ by the functions $f_n \chi_{\Omega_m}$ and apply a).
c\) is clear if the range of $f$ is finite–dimensional. Since $f \in
\gamma(\Omega,X)$ we can use now an approximation argument.
For the sake of simplicity we formulate the next proposition for a locally compact metric space $\Omega$ with no isolated points and a positive Borel measure $\mu$, i. e. $\mu(U) > 0$ for every open $U \subset \Omega$. This result will play the role of (S2).
Let $N:\Omega \to B(X)$ be a strongly continuous map. Then $\tau = \{ N(t):t
\in \Omega \}$ is $\gamma$–bounded with constant $K$ if and only if $$\| N(\cdot)[f(\cdot)]\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \leq K \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)}$$ for all $f \in \gamma(\Omega, X)$.
Suppose first that $\tau$ is $\gamma$–bounded with constant $K$. Choose a partition $(E_k)_k$ of $\Omega$, so that $N$ and $f$ are bounded on each $E_k$ and $\mu(E_k) < \infty$. Then there are $x_k \in X$ and $S_k \in B(X)$ so that for the averaging projection $P$ from 4.9d) $$P(f) = \sum_k x_k \chi_{E_k}, \quad P(N) = \sum_k S_k \chi_{E_k}, \quad P(N)[P(f)] =
\sum_k S_k x_k \chi_{E_k}.$$ Note that $S_kx=\mu(E_k)^{-1} \int\limits_{E_k} N(\omega) x d\mu (\omega)$ belongs to the closure of $\mbox{absco}(\tau)$ in the strong operator topology, so that $\{ S_k\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded with the same constant $K$. Hence by 4.6 and 4.9. $$\begin{aligned}
\| PN [Pf]\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} &= \|(\mu(E_k)^{1/2} S_k x_k )_k\|_\gamma \leq K \|(\mu(E_k)^{1/2}x_k)_k \|_\gamma \\
&= K \|Pf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \leq K \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)}.\end{aligned}$$ If we choose a sequence $P_n$ of averaging projections, so that $P_nf \to f$, $P_n(N) \to N$ a. e. for $n \to \infty$, then the claim follows from 4.10.
For the converse we pick $N_k = N(\omega_k)$, $k = 1,\dots,n$, with distinct $\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_n \in \Omega$ and $x_1,\dots,x_n \in X$. For a given $\varepsilon > 0$ choose disjoint open sets $U_1,\dots,U_n$ with $\omega_k \in U_k$ and such that $\|N(\omega)x_k - N(\omega_k)x_k \| \leq \varepsilon/n$ for $\omega \in U_k$. Choose $f= \sum_k x_k \mu(U_k)^{- 1/2} \chi_{U_k}$ so that $\| f \|_\gamma = \| (x_k)_k \|_\gamma$ by example 4.6. If we put $$Ph = \sum_{k=1}^n \left( \mu(U_k)^{-1} \int\limits_{U_k} h d\mu \right) \chi_{U_k}$$ then $P(Nf) = \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(U_k)^{-1/2} y_k \chi_{U_k}$ with $y_k = \mu(U_k)^{-1} \int_{U_k} N(\omega)x_k d\mu$ and $$\|(N_kx_k)_k - (y_k)_k \|_\gamma \leq \sum_{k=1}^n \|N_kx_k-y_k\|_X \mathbb{E}\vert g_k \vert \leq \varepsilon$$ By 4.9 and our assumption $$\begin{aligned}
\|(N_kx_k)_k\|_\gamma &\leq \|P(Nf)\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} + \|(y_k)_k - (N_kx_k)_k\|_\gamma \\
& \leq \|Nf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} + \varepsilon \leq K \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} +
\varepsilon = K \|(x_k)\|_\gamma + \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\varepsilon > 0$ was arbitrary we obtain the claim for distinct $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n$. For general $\omega_k$ we employ a limiting argument where we approximate the given $\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_n$ by $n$ different points $\omega'_1,\ldots,\omega'_n$.
Finally we derive a multiplier theorem from 4.11. Let $t \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus
\{0\} \to N(t) \in B(X,Y)$ be strongly continuous and bounded. For every $f \in
{\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$, we have that $N(\cdot)[ \hat{f}(\cdot)]$ is in $L_1
({\mathbb{R}}^N,X) \cap L_2({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)$. Hence we have a map $${\cal K}_N : {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^N,X) \to L_{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^N,Y), \quad {\cal K}_N f =
(N(\cdot)[f(\cdot)]\spcheck)\sphat.$$
${\cal K}_N$ extends to a bounded operator ${\cal K}_N : \gamma(L_2({\mathbb{R}}^N),X) \to
\gamma(L_2({\mathbb{R}}^N),Y)$ if and only if $\{ N(t) : t \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus \{0\} \}$ is $R$–bounded.
Combine 4.11 with the identity $$\|\hat{f}\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)} = \|f\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}^N,X)} \quad \mbox{ cf.~4.10a)}.$$
One can give these multiplier theorems a more general form by considering strongly measurable functions $N(\cdot)$ and its Lebesgue points.
Duality of square functions
===========================
We continue with the notation from Section 4. To obtain a general form of the square function property (S1) we first identify the dual of $\gamma(H,X)$. We denote by $\gamma_{+}'(H,X)$ the space of all bounded operators $v:H \to X$ such that $$\|v\|_{\gamma'} = \sup \lbrace \hspace*{-0.3em}\text{ trace } \hspace*{-0.3em}(v' \circ u): u\hspace*{-0.2em}:\hspace*{-0.2em} H \to X', \|u\|_\gamma \leq 1,
\mbox{ dim } u(H) < \infty \rbrace \hspace*{-0.2em} < \hspace*{-0.2em} \infty.$$ By $\gamma'(H,X)$ we denote the closure of the finite dimensional operators in $\gamma_{+}'(H,X)$.
If $X=Y'$, then in (1) one should take the supremum over all finite dimensional $u: H \to Y'' = X'$. However, by Goldstine’s theorem, such $u$ can be approximated by finite dimensional $v:H\to Y$ in the $\sigma(Y'',Y')$ topology and it is enough to consider such $v:H\to Y$ in (1).
The dual of $\gamma(H,X)$ with respect to trace duality is $\gamma_{+}'(H,X')$. If $u \in \gamma(H,X)$, $v \in \gamma_{+}'(H,X')$, then $v'u$ is in the trace class ${\mathscr{S}}_1(H)$ and for $<u,v>= \operatorname{trace} (v' \circ u)$ $$|<u,v>| \leq \|v'u\|_{{\mathscr{S}}_1(H)} \leq \|u\|_\gamma \cdot \|v\|_{\gamma'}.$$ Furthermore, if $H$ is separable with an orthonormal basis $(e_j)$ then $$<u,v> = \sum_j <u e_j, v e_j>_X.$$
If $\phi \in \gamma(H,X)'$, then $(h,x) \in H \times X \to \phi(x \otimes h)$ is a bounded bilinear form, which defines a bounded operator $v \in
B(H,X')$ with $\phi(x \otimes h)=$ $<vh,x>$. For $u = \displaystyle
\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \otimes e_i \in \gamma(H,X)$, where $(e_i)$ is an orthonormal sequence, we have $$\phi(u) = \sum_{i=1}^n <x_i,ve_i> = \operatorname{trace} \biggl(
\sum_{i=1}^n v' x_i \otimes e_i \biggr) = \operatorname{trace} (v'u).$$ By Remark 5.0., the first claim follows. Now we estimate the trace class norm of $v'u$ for the finite dimensional $u$ above. To this end we choose a second orthonormal sequence $f_j,
\varepsilon_j \in {\mathbb{C}}$ with $| \varepsilon_j| = 1$ and a unitary operator $J$ on $H$ such that $J e_j = \varepsilon_j f_j$ and for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ $$\begin{split}
\sum_{j=1}^n |< e_j, v'u(f_j)>| &= \sum_{j=1}^n <e_j,v'u(\varepsilon_jf_j)> = \sum_j < ve_j,(u \cdot J)e_j > \\
&= \operatorname{trace} (v'u \cdot J) \leq \|v\|_{\gamma'} \cdot \|u \cdot J\|_{\gamma} \leq \|J\| \cdot \|v\|_{\gamma'}\|u\|_\gamma
\end{split}$$ by 4.3 applied to $J$. Now [@DJT], Theorem 4.6, implies that $$|\operatorname{trace}(v'u)| \leq \|v'u\|_{{\mathscr{S}}_1(H)} \leq \|v\|_{\gamma'}
\|u\|_\gamma.$$ We have seen also that $$\operatorname{trace} (v'u) = \sum_{i=1}^n <x_i,v_ie_i> = \sum_{i=1}^n
<ue_i,v_ie_i>.$$ The general case follows now by an approximation argument, since finite dimensional operators of the form of $u$ are dense in $\gamma(H,X)$.
a\) For all Banach spaces $X$ and $v \in \gamma_{+}(H,X')$ we have $\|v\|_{\gamma'}
\leq \|v\|_\gamma$ and in particular for $u \in \gamma(H,X)$ $$| \operatorname{trace}(v'u)| \leq \|u\|_{\gamma(X)} \|v\|_{\gamma'(X')}.$$
b\) If $X$ has type larger than $1$ then $\gamma(H,X')$ and $\gamma'(H,X')$ are isomorphic.
a\) Let $e_j$ be an orthonormal system in $H$. Then with 5.1 and Hölder’s inequality $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{trace}(v'u) &= \sum_j <u(e_j),v(e_j)> \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}< \sum_i g_iu(e_i), \sum g_j v(e_j)> \leq \|u\|_\gamma \cdot \|v\|_\gamma.
\end{split}$$ Hence $\|v\|_{\gamma'} \leq \|v\|_\gamma$ by the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{\gamma'}$.
b\) is shown in [@Pi5].
Let $S \in B(H_1,H_2)$ and ${{\bf S}^\otimes}$ be its extension ${{\bf S}^\otimes}:
\gamma(H_1,X) \to \gamma(H_2,X)$ as in 4.8. Then the dual map $({{\bf S}^\otimes})' :
\gamma_{+}'(H_2,X') \to \gamma_{+}'(H_1,X')$ with respect to trace duality is given by $({{\bf S}^\otimes})'(v) = v \circ S$ for $v \in \gamma(H_2,X')$ and maps $\gamma(H_2,X')$ into $\gamma(H_1,X')$.
For all $u \in \gamma(H_1,X)$ we have with [@DJT], Lemma 6.1, $$\begin{split}
< ({{\bf S}^\otimes})'(v),u> & = <v, {{\bf S}^\otimes}u> = \operatorname{trace} (v'u \circ S') \\
& = \operatorname{trace} (S' \circ v' \circ u) = \operatorname{trace} ((vS)' \circ u) =
<vS,u>.
\end{split}$$ It is clear that $v \mapsto v \circ S$ maps finite dimensional operators into finite–dimensional operators.
Let $T \in B(H_1,H_2)$. If we apply this procedure to $S = T' \in
B(H_2,H_1)$, then we can extend $T: H_1 \to H_2$ to an operator ${{\bf T}^\otimes}:\gamma'(H_1,X') \to \gamma'(H_2,X')$ by ${{\bf T}^\otimes}u = u \circ T'$ such that
a\) For the extension ${{\bf S}^\otimes}: \gamma(H_2,X) \to \gamma(H_1,X)$ with $S=T'$, we have $({{\bf S}^\otimes})' = {{\bf T}^\otimes}$.
b\) $< x,{{\bf T}^\otimes}(u)>_X = T(<x,u>_X)$ for all $u \in \gamma'(H_1,X')$ and $x \in X$.
c\) If $f \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega_1,X')$ and $g \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega_2,X')$ are such that $u_f \in \gamma'(L_2(\Omega_1),X')$ and $u_g = {{\bf T}^\otimes}u_f$, then $$\|u_g\|_{\gamma'} \leq \|T\| \|u_f\|_{\gamma'}$$ and $$<x,g>_X = T(<x,f>_X) \quad \mbox{ for } x \in X.$$
For a function $f \in \mathcal{P}_2(\Omega,\mu,X)$ on a $\sigma$–finite measure space we use the notation $$\|f\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X)} = \|u_f\|_{\gamma'(L_2(\Omega),X)}$$ and $\gamma_{+}'(\Omega,X) (\gamma'(\Omega,X))$ denotes the space of functions for which $u_f \in \gamma_{+}'(\Omega,X)$ $(u_f \in \gamma'(\Omega,X))$ with this norm. Note that the convergence results in 4.10 also apply to the $\gamma'(H,X)$–norm (with the same justification).
In particular, Examples 4.9 can be adopted to the $\gamma'(H,X')$–norm. (All of this can be justified with the same calculation as in 4.4, 4.8, and 4.9.)
Now 5.1 and 5.2 take a form that corresponds to the square function property (S1).
If $f \in \gamma(\Omega,X)$ and $g \in \gamma_{+}'(\Omega,X')$ then $$\operatorname{trace}(u_f \circ u_g') = \int_{\Omega} < f(\omega), g(\omega)> d\mu
(\omega)$$ and $$\begin{split}
\int_{\Omega} |< f(\omega),g(\omega)>| d\mu(\omega) & \leq \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \cdot
\|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \\
& \leq \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \cdot \|g\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X')}.
\end{split}$$ If $X$ has type larger than $1$ then $\|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X')}$ and $\|f\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')}$ are equivalent.
Let $E_k$, $k = 1,\dots,n$, be a partition of $\Omega$ with $0 < \mu(E_k)
< \infty$ and consider the averaging projection $$Ph = \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(E_k)^{-1} \int\limits_{E_k} f(\omega)d\mu(\omega)
\chi_{E_k}.$$ We write $Pf = \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n x_k \chi_{E_k}, \; Pg = \sum_{k=1}^n x_k' \chi_{E_k}$ for some $x_k \in X, x_k' \in X'$ and $u_{Pf} = \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \mu (E_k)^{1/2} x_k
\otimes l_k,\; u_{Pg} = \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(E_k)^{1/2} x_k' \otimes l_k$ with $l_k = \mu(E_k)^{- 1/2} \chi_{E_k}$. Then $$\begin{split}
& \int_{\Omega} < Pf(\omega),g(\omega)>d\mu (\omega) = \int_{\Omega} < Pf(\omega),
Pg(\omega) >d\mu(\omega) \\
& = \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(E_k) < x_k,x_k'> = \sum_{k=1}^n <u_{Pf}l_k,u_{Pg}l_k> \\
& = \operatorname{trace}(u_{Pg}'u_{Pf}) = \operatorname{trace}((u_gP)'(u_fP)) \\
& = \operatorname{trace}(u_g'u_fPP') = \operatorname{trace}(u_g'u_{Pf}) \leq
\|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \|Pf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \\
& \leq \|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \cdot \|Pf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \leq \|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)}
\end{split}$$ where we used Lemma 6.1 of [@DJT], Proposition 5.2 and 4.3. Since $f \in \gamma(\Omega,X)$ we can find a sequence of projections $P_k$ with $\|f-P_kf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \to 0$ as $k\to\infty$. For a fixed $k$ and $l$ choose $m \in L_{\infty}(\Omega)$ with $|m(\omega)| = 1$ for almost all $\omega\in\Omega$ so that $$|<P_kf(\omega),g(\omega)> - <P_lf(\omega),g(\omega)>| = <(P_k-P_l)f(\omega),
m(\omega) g(\omega)>.$$ Then by (2) $$\begin{split}
& \int_{\Omega} |<P_kf(\omega),g(\omega)> - <P_lf(\omega),g(\omega)>|d\mu(\omega) \\
& \leq \|mg\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \|P_kf - P_lf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \leq \|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')}
\|P_kf-P_lf\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \to 0
\end{split}$$ for $k,l\to\infty$ and by Proposition 5.2a) $$| \operatorname{trace}(u_g' \cdot u_{P_nf}) - \operatorname{trace}(u_g' \cdot
u_f) | \leq \|u_g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \|u_{P_nf} - u_f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \to 0$$ for $k,l \to \infty$. Hence, $\omega \mapsto <f(\omega),g(\omega)>$ is integrable and with (2) $$\int_{\Omega} <f(\omega),g(\omega)>d\mu(\omega) = \lim_{n\to\infty} \operatorname{trace}(u_g' u_{P_nf}) =
\operatorname{trace}(u_g' u_f).$$ Hence the required inequality holds too.
We dualize now 4.11 and assume again that $\Omega$ is a locally compact metric space without isolated points and a positive Borel measure $\mu$.
Let $N:\Omega \to B(X,Y)$ be a strongly continuous map. Suppose $\tau =
\{ N(\omega):\omega \in \Omega \}$ is $\gamma$–bounded with constant $K$. Then for all $g \in \gamma_{+}'(\Omega,Y')$ $$\| N(\cdot)'[g(\cdot)] \|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} \leq K \|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,Y')}.$$ In particular, if $X$ and $Y$ have type larger than $1$ then $\{ N'(\omega):
\omega \in \Omega \}$ is $\gamma$–bounded in $B(Y',X')$.
For $f \in \gamma(\Omega,X)$ with $\|f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \leq 1$ we have $$\begin{split}
\int_{\Omega} < f(\omega), N(\omega)' g(\omega) >_X &d\mu (\omega) =
\int_{\Omega} < N(\omega)f(\omega), g'(\omega)>_Y d\mu (\omega) \\
& \leq \|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,Y')} \| N(\cdot)f(\cdot)\|_{\gamma(\Omega,Y)} \leq K \|g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,Y')}
\end{split}$$ by 4.11. Now take the supremum over $f$ to obtain the norm in $\gamma'(\Omega,X')=\gamma(\Omega,X)'$. The last statement follows from 5.2b).
We record an immediate consequence
Let $t \in I \to N(t) \in B(X)$ be strongly continuous on an interval $I$ and $\gamma$–bounded with constant $C$. Then for $h \in L_2(I)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|h(\cdot)N(\cdot)x\|_{\gamma(I,X)} & \leq & C \|h\|_{L_2(I)} \| x \|, \quad
x \in X \\
\|h(\cdot)N'(\cdot)x'\|_{\gamma'(I,X')} & \leq & C \|h\|_{L_2(I)} \|x'\|, \quad
x' \in X'.\end{aligned}$$ This example is one motivation for us to collect some criteria for $\gamma$– boundedness.
First we recall a well–known convexity result. Corollary 5.6 will often be used in connection with the following criteria for $\gamma$–boundedness.
Let $t \in \Omega \to N(t) \in B(X,Y)$ be strongly measurable and suppose that $\{N(t):t \in \Omega\}$ is $R$–bounded ($\gamma$–bounded) with $R$–bound ($\gamma$–bound) $C$. For $h \in L_1(\Omega,\mu)$ define $$N_h(x) = \int\limits_{\Omega}h(t)N(t) x d\mu(t), \quad x \in X.$$ Then the set $\{N_h:\|h\|_{L_1(\Omega)} \leq 1 \}$ is $R$–bounded ($\gamma$–bounded) in $B(X,Y)$ and with bound $2C$.
We have $N_h \in \tau := \overline{\mbox{absco}} \{N(t) : t \in \Omega \}$ for all $h$, $\|h\|_{L_1(\Omega)} \leq 1$, where the closure is with respect to the strong operator topology. Now use the $R$–boundedness of $\tau$, which is shown in [@CPSW]. The argument for $\gamma$–boundedness is similar.
Let $t \in \Omega \to N(t) \in B(X,Y)$ be strongly integrable and suppose that there is a constant $C$ with $$\int\limits_{\Omega}\|N(t)x\| d\mu(t) \leq C\|x\|, \quad x \in X.$$ Then the set $\{N_h:\|h\|_{L_{\infty}(\Omega)} \leq 1\}$ with $N_h$ as in (3) is $R$–bounded and $\gamma$–bounded with bound $2C$.
For $x_1,\dots,x_m \in X$ and $h_1,\dots,h_m \in L_{\infty}(\Omega)$ with $\|h_j\|_{L_{\infty}} \leq 1$ we obtain from Kahane’s inequality and Fubini’s theorem $$\begin{split}
& {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k N_{h_k} x_k \biggr| \biggr| \leq
\int\limits_{\Omega}{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k h_k(t)N(t)x_k \biggr| \biggr|
d\mu(t) \\
& \leq 2 \int\limits_{\Omega} {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| N(t) \biggl[ \sum_k g_k x_k \biggr]
\biggr| \biggr| d\mu(t) \leq C {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k x_k \biggr| \biggr|.
\end{split}$$ Of course the same reasoning works for Rademacher functions.
At one point we will need a generalization of this observation to vector measures (see [@DU] for definitions). Let $\Sigma$ be a $\sigma$–Algebra on $\Omega$ and denote by ${\cal L}^\infty$ the space of $\Sigma$-measurable, bounded functions, i.e., the space of uniform limits of $\Sigma$–measurable step functions. We endow ${\cal L}^\infty$ with the supremum norm.
Suppose that $U \in \Sigma \to P(U) \in B(X,Y)$ is a vector measure, such that for all $x \in X$ the vector measure $U \in \Sigma \to P(U) x$ is $\sigma$–additive. Then the set $$\{ T_h: h\in{\cal L}^\infty, \|h\|_\infty \leq 1 \}, \quad T_hx = \int_\Omega h(\omega)dP(\omega)x$$ is $R$–bounded and $\gamma$–bounded.
By the uniform boundedness principle there is a $C < \infty$ with $\operatorname{Var}(P(\cdot)x) \leq C\|x\|$. First we consider step functions $h_k = \displaystyle
\sum_{j} a_{k,j} \chi_{A_j}$ where the $A_j \in \Sigma$ form a measurable partion of $\Omega$ and $|a_{k,j}| \leq 1$. Then again by Kahane’s inequality $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k T_{h_k} x_k \biggr| \biggr| &\leq \sum_j
{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k a_{k,j} P(A_j)x_k \biggr| \biggr| \leq 2 \sum_j {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k P(A_j)(x_k) \biggr| \biggr| \\
&= 2 {\mathbb{E}}\sum_j \biggl| \biggl| P(A_j) \biggl[ \sum_k g_k x_k \biggr]
\biggr| \biggr| \leq 2 C {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_k g_k x_k \biggr| \biggr|.
\end{split}$$ Since we can approximate functions in ${\cal L}^\infty$ by step functions and the closure of a $R$–bounded ($\gamma$–bounded) set in the strong operator topology is again $R$–bounded ($\gamma$–bounded), the claim follows.
The following fact will be important in estimating square functions.
Let $X$ have finite cotype. Then there is a constant $C$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(x_i)_i\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)} & \leq & C \sup_{\delta_i = \pm 1}
\biggl| \biggl| \sum_i \delta_i x_i \biggr| \biggr|_X \\
\|(x_i')_i\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X')} & \leq & C \sup_{\delta_i = \pm 1}
\biggl| \biggl| \sum_i \delta_i x_i' \biggr| \biggr|_{X'}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $X$ has finite cotype we have $$\| (x_i)_i\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)} \leq C{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_i r_i x_i
\biggr| \biggr| \leq \sup_{\delta_i = \pm 1}
\biggl| \biggl| \sum_i \delta_i x_i \biggr| \biggr|.$$ For the second statement observe that for $x_1,\dots,x_m \in X$, $x'_1,\ldots,x'_n \in X'$ $$\begin{split}
& \biggl| \sum_{i=1}^n < x_i, x_i' > \biggr| = \biggl| {\mathbb{E}}< \sum_i r_i x_i, \sum_j r_j x_j' > \biggr| \\
& \leq \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum r_i x_i \biggr| \biggr|^2
\biggr)^{1/2} \biggl( {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_j r_j x_j'
\biggr| \biggr|^2 \biggr)^{1/2} \\
& \leq C \| ( x_i)_i \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)} \sup_{\delta_i = \pm 1}
\biggl| \biggl| \sum_j \delta_j x_j' \biggr| \biggr|.
\end{split}$$ Now take the supremum over $(x_i)_i$ with $\| (x_i)_i \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)} \leq 1$.
Before we apply the square functions $\| \cdot \|_\gamma$ and $\| \cdot \|_{\gamma'}$ to the $H^\infty$ calculus, we summarize our extensions of the basic properties (S1), (S2) and (S3) from Section 2 and 3 to the Banach space setting: Let $X$ be a Banach space and $(\Omega,\mu)$ a $\sigma$-finite measure space.
- (Hölder inequality, see 5.5) If $f\in\gamma(\Omega,X)$ and $g\in\gamma(\Omega,X')$, or even $g\in\gamma_+(\Omega,X')$, then $$\int_\Omega |<f(\omega),g(\omega)>_X| d\mu(\omega) \leq \| f \|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \cdot \| g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')}.$$
- (Pointwise Multiplier, see 4.11, 5.6) Let $N:\Omega \to B(X)$ be a strongly continuous map with a $\gamma$–bounded range $\tau := \lbrace N(\omega): \omega \in \Omega \rbrace$. For $f\in\gamma(\Omega,X)$ and $g\in\gamma'(\Omega,X')$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| N(\cdot)[f(\cdot)] \|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} &\leq \gamma(\tau) \| f\|_{\gamma(\Omega,X)} \\
\| N(\cdot)'[g(\cdot)] \|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')} &\leq \gamma(\tau) \| g\|_{\gamma'(\Omega,X')}\end{aligned}$$
- (Extension property, see 4.9, 5.4) Let $$Kf(\omega_2) = \int_{\Omega_1} k(\omega_2,\omega_1)f(\omega_1) d\mu_1(\omega_1)$$ be a kernel operator that is defined on a dense subset of $L_2(\Omega_1,\mu_1)$ and extends by continuity to a bounded operator $K: L_2(\Omega_1,\mu_1) \to L_2(\Omega_2,\mu_2)$ ($K$ could be e.g. the Fourier transform or a singular integral such as the Hilbert transform). Then, applying $K$ formally to $f\in\gamma(\Omega_1,X)$ or $K'$ to $g\in\gamma'(\Omega_2,X')$ defines bounded operators ${\cal K}: \gamma(\Omega_1,X) \to \gamma(\Omega_2,X)$ or ${\cal K}': \gamma'(\Omega_2,X') \to \gamma'(\Omega_1,X')$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\cal K} \|_{\gamma(\Omega_2,X)} &\leq \| K \|_{L_2 \to L_2} \| f \|_{\gamma(\Omega_1,X)}, \\
\| {\cal K}' \|_{\gamma(\Omega_1,X')} &\leq \| K \|_{L_2 \to L_2} \| g \|_{\gamma'(\Omega_2,X')}.\end{aligned}$$
Generators of $C_0$–groups
==========================
In connection with square function estimates we consider operators $A$ of strip–type on a Banach space $X$ such that $\{ R(\lambda,A):| \mbox{Re} \lambda| >
a \}$ is not only bounded, but even $\gamma$–bounded ($R$–bounded). We call such operators of $\gamma$–strip–type ($R$–strip–type) and $w_\gamma(A)$ (or $w_R(A))$ is the smallest $a$ for which the above $\gamma$–boundedness conditions hold.
If $A$ generates a $C_0$–group $T_t$, then $A$ is of $\gamma$– (and $R$–) strip type with $w_{\gamma}(A), w_R(A) \leq \omega(T_t)$.
For Re $\lambda \geq a$ we have with $h_{\lambda}(t) = e^{-(\lambda-a)t}$ $$R(\lambda,A)x= \int\limits_0^{\infty} h_{\lambda}(t) e^{-at} T_txdt.$$ Since $\|h_{\lambda}\|_{\infty} \leq 1$ and $e^{-at} \|T_t\|$ is integrable we may apply Lemma 5.10. Similarly for Re $\lambda \leq -a.$
Our results on the $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–calculus for strip–type operators are based on the following characterization in terms of square functions. (These square functions are finite by the same argument we employed in 3.2 and 4.6b).)
Let $A$ be a $\gamma$–strip–type operator on a Banach space $X$. Consider the conditions
- $A$ generates a $C_0$–group $(T_t)_{t \in {\mathbb{R}}}$ such that for one (all) $a > \omega(T_t)$ there is a constant $C$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\|e^{-a\cdot}T_{(\cdot)}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} & \leq & C \|x\|, \quad x \in \cal{D}(A), \\
\|e^{-a\cdot} T_{(\cdot)}'x' \|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} & \leq & C \|x'\|, \quad x' \in \cal{D}(A').\end{aligned}$$
- For one (all) $a$ with $|a| > w_\gamma(A)$ there is a constant $C$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|R(a+i \cdot,A)x \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} & \leq & C \|x\|, \quad x \in \cal{D}(A), \\
\|R(a+i \cdot,A)'x'\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}},X')} & \leq & C \|x'\|, \quad x' \in \cal{D}(A').\end{aligned}$$
- For one (all) $a$ with $|a| > w_\gamma(A)$ and $x \in X$ there is a constant $C$ such that for $x \in \cal{D}(A)$ $$\frac{1}{C}\|x\| \leq \| R(a+i \cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} \leq C \|x\|.$$
- $A$ has an $H_{\infty}(S(b))$–calculus for one (all) $b > w_\gamma(A)$.
Then a) $\Longrightarrow$ b) $\Longrightarrow$ c) $\Longrightarrow$ d) always. If $X$ has finite cotype, then d) $\Longrightarrow$ a). Furthermore, in this case $w_\gamma(A) = \omega(T_t) = w_{H^{\infty}}(A)$.
a\) The proof will show that for all operators of strip–type, a fixed $a$ and $b > a$ we always have a) $\Longrightarrow$ b) $\Longrightarrow$ c) $\Longrightarrow$ d). If $X$ has finite cotype and $b < a$ then d) $\Longrightarrow$ a).
b\) Since d) and therefore all conditions imply that $A$ is of $\gamma$–strip–type, we could have formulated the theorem for operators of strip–type. The assumption that $A$ is of $\gamma$–strip–type is only used to vary the size of the strip.
c\) If $X'$ has also finite cotype then we can replace the $\gamma'$–norm in b) by the $\gamma$–norm, i. e. the second condition takes the form $$\|R(b+i \cdot, A)'x'\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X')} \leq C \|x'\|.$$
d\) The proof below will give for b) $\Longrightarrow$ d) the following estimate: $$\| f(A)\| \leq 2aC^2 \| f \|_{H^\infty (S(a))}$$ where $C$ is the constant in condition 6.2b) (cf Remark 2.3)
We will need the following lemma:
Let $X$ have finite cotype. Assume that $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(\omega))$–calculus. Then $A$ generates a group $T_t$ with $\omega(T_t) \leq \omega$ and for $a>\omega$ there is a constant $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|e^{-a|\cdot|}T_{(\cdot)}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} & \leq & C C_{H^{\infty}} e^{\pi(a+\omega)}
\frac{1}{a-\omega} \|x\|, \quad x \in X \\
\|e^{-a|\cdot|}T_{(\cdot)}'x'\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}},X')} & \leq & C C_{H^{\infty}} e^{\pi(a+\omega)}
\frac{1}{a-\omega} \|x'\|, \quad x' \in X'\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ depends only on $X$, and $C_{H^{\infty}}$ is the bound for the $H^{\infty}(S(\omega))$–calculus.
Choose a nonnegative function $h \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$ with support in $(-\pi, \pi)$ and $\displaystyle \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}} h(t-k) = 1$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Put $h_k(t) =
h(t-k)$ for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $g(t) = [\cosh (at)]^{-1}$. Then $$\begin{split}
& \|e^{-a|\cdot|}T_{(\cdot)} x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq C \|g(\cdot)T_{(\cdot)}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq C
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \|h_k(\cdot)g(\cdot)T_{(\cdot)}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \\
& = C \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \| {\cal F}[h(\cdot)g(\cdot+k)T_{\cdot +k}x]\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{Z}},X)}
\end{split}$$ where ${{\bf \cal F}^\otimes}:\gamma(L_2(-\pi, \pi),X) \to \gamma(l_2({\mathbb{Z}},X))$ is the extension in the sense of 4.9 of the discrete Fouriertransform ${\cal F}$, i. e. $$\begin{split}
{\cal F}[h(\cdot)g(\cdot +k)T_{\cdot +k}x](n) & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
\int\limits_{- \pi}^{\pi} e^{int}h(t)g(t+k)T_{t+k}xdt \\
& = b_{k,n}(A)x
\end{split}$$ with $b_{k,n}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int\limits_{- \pi}^{\pi}
e^{int}h(t)g(t+k)e^{\lambda(t+k)}dt$ for $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. We check now the estimate $$\sum_{k=- \infty}^{\infty} \sup_{\lambda \in S_{\omega}} \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty |b_{k,n}
(\lambda)| \leq \frac{C}{a- \omega} e^{\pi(a+ \omega)}.$$ For all $n,k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\lambda \in S_{\omega}$ $$|b_{k,n}(\lambda)| \leq C \|h_{\infty} \| e^{\pi(a+\omega)} e^{(\omega - a)|k|}$$ and for $\lambda \in S_{\omega}$ with $\lambda \not= in$ and $k \not= 0$ by partial integration $$\begin{split}
& |b_{k,n}(\lambda)| \leq \biggl| \frac{1}{(in + \lambda)^2} \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}
e^{(in+ \lambda)t} \frac{d^2}{dt^2} [h(t)g(t+k) e^{-a\lambda k}]dt \biggr| \\
& \leq C \frac{e^{(\omega-a)|k|}}{|in+ \lambda|^2} \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}
(|g''(t)|+|g'(t)|+|g(t)|) dt \\
& \leq C_1 \frac{e^{(\omega-a)|k|}}{|in + \lambda|^2}(1+a+a^2)e^{\pi(\omega+a)}.
\end{split}$$ Combining these two estimates we obtain for every $k$ $$\begin{split}
& \sup_{\lambda \in S_{\omega}} \sum_n |b_{k,n}(\lambda)| \leq \sup_{\lambda
\in S_{\omega}} \biggl( \sum_{|n-\lambda|<1} |b_{k,n}(\lambda)| +
\sum_{|n-\lambda|\geq 1} |b_{k,n}(\lambda)| \biggr) \\
& \leq C e^{(\omega-a)|k|}e^{\pi(a+\omega)} + C_1 \biggl(\sum_{n>1}
\frac{1}{n^2} \biggr) e^{(\omega-a)|k|} e^{\pi(\omega+a)}
\end{split}$$ and summing over $k$ we have established (1).
Since $X$ has finite cotype we can continue our estimation of $\| e^{-|a|t}T_t x \|_\gamma$ with Lemma 5.11 and use boundedness of the $H^\infty$-calculus to obtain $$\begin{split}
& \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \| (b_{k,n}(A)x)_n \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{Z}},X)} \leq
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \sup_{|\delta_n|=1} \biggl| \biggl| \sum_n
\delta_n b_{k,n}(A)x \biggr| \biggr| \\
& \leq C_{H^{\infty}} \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \sup_{|\delta_n|=1}
\sup_{\lambda \in S(\omega)} \biggl| \sum_n \delta_n b_{k,n}(\lambda) \biggr|
\|x\| \leq C C_{\infty} \frac{1}{a-\omega} e^{\pi(a+\omega)}.
\end{split}$$ The second claim can be shown in the same way since $\|f(A)^{\ast}\|\leq$ $C_{H^{\infty}} \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(\omega))}$ and using now the estimate for $\gamma'({\mathbb{Z}},X')$ in Lemma 5.11.
We can repeat the proof of 2.2, replacing the norm $\|f(\cdot)\|_{L_2(I,H)}$ by $\|f(\cdot)\|_{\gamma(I,H)}$ and (S1), (S2) and (S3) by 5.5, 4.11 and 4.8. Since in 4.11 we need $\gamma$–boundedness of $N(\cdot)$ instead of mere boundedness, we have to appeal to Lemma 6.1 in addition. The simple fact that $e^{-at}T_tx$ belongs to $L_2({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)$ for $a>\omega(T_t)$ has to be replaced by Lemma 6.4.
The argument of 2.2 can also be used to extend an $H^{\infty}$–calculus to an operator–valued functional calculus: Let $A$ be an operator of strip–type on $X$ and denote by ${\cal A}$ the algebra of all operators in $B(X)$ that commute with the resolvent of $A$. Then $RH^{\infty}(S(a),{\cal A})$ is the space of bounded analytic functions $F:S(a) \to {\cal A}$, such that the range $\{ F(\lambda):\lambda \in S(a)\}$ is $R$–bounded. For $F \in RH^{\infty}
(S(a),{\cal A})$ and $\varphi \in H_0^\infty(S(a))$, fix $b$ with $w(A) < b < a$ and let $$(\varphi F)(A) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{\partial S(b)} \varphi(\lambda)
F(\lambda)R(\lambda,A)d\lambda.$$ We say that $A$ has an $RH^{\infty}(S(a),{\cal A})$–calculus if there is a constant $C$ such that for all $\varphi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ we have $\| \varphi F(A)\| \leq C \| \varphi F\|_{H^{\infty}(S(a))}$. In this case we can define a bounded operator $F(A)x:= \displaystyle \lim_n \varphi_n
F(A)x, x \in X$, where $\varphi_n$ is a sequence in $H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ with $|\varphi_n(\lambda)| \leq 1$ and $\varphi_n(\lambda) \to 1$ for $n \to \infty$ and $\lambda \in S(a)$.
The next result holds under weaker assumptions on $X$, see [@KW2], but in the situation considered here we have a simple proof.
Let $X$ have finite cotype. If $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–calculus for some $a > w(A)$, then $A$ has an $RH^{\infty}(S(b),{\cal A})$–calculus for all $b > a$.
Consider $f(\lambda) = \varphi(\lambda)F(\lambda)$ with $\varphi \in
H^{\infty}(S(b))$ and $F \in RH^{\infty}$ $(S(b),{\cal A})$. Using the argument of 2.2c) $\Longrightarrow$ d) and 6.2b) in place of 2.2b) we arrive at $$\begin{split}
\|f(A)x\| & \leq C \|f(\cdot)R(\cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma(\partial S(a),X)} + \| {\cal K}[f(\cdot)R(\cdot, A)]x\|_{\gamma(\partial S(a),X)}.
\end{split}$$ By the $\gamma$–boundedness of $\{f(\lambda):\lambda \in \partial S(a) \}$, 4.11 and 4.8 applied to ${\cal K}$ we get with 6.2c) $$\|f(A)x\| \leq C_1\|R(\cdot , A)x\|_{\gamma(\partial S(a),X)} \leq C_2\|x\|.$$
As a consequence we obtain an $\gamma$–boundedness criterion:
Let $X$ have property $(\alpha)$. If $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–calculus, then the set $\{f(A):\|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(a))} \leqslant 1 \}$ is $\gamma$–bounded.
Let $\|f_n\|_{H^{\infty}(S(a))} \leq 1$. The $\gamma$–boundedness of the sequence $f_n(A)$ is equivalent to the boundedness of the operator $T((x_n)_n) = (f_n(A)x_n)_n$ on $\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$. Put $F(\lambda) = (f_n(\lambda)I_X)$ for $\lambda \in S(a)$. By Kahane’s contraction principle $\lambda \in S(a)
\to F(\lambda) \in B(\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X))$ is an analytic function with $\gamma$–bounded range in $B(\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X))$. Since $X$ has property $(\alpha)$, it has also finite cotype and we can check the $\gamma$–boundedness using two independent Rademacher sequences $(r_n)_n$, $(r'_n)_n$ instead of Gaussian random variables and $\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X) \cong {\operatorname{Rad}}X$. Indeed, for $\lambda_j \in S(a)$ and $\tilde{x}_j = (x_{jn})_n \in
\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$ $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_j r_j F(\lambda_j) \tilde{x}_j \biggr|
\biggr|_{{\operatorname{Rad}}X}^2 &= {\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{j,n} r_j r_n'
f_n(\lambda_j)x_{jn} \biggr| \biggr|_X^2 \\
& \leq C {\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_{j,n} r_j r_n' x_{jn}
\biggr| \biggr|_X^2 = C {\mathbb{E}}\biggl| \biggl| \sum_j r_j \tilde{x}_j
\biggr| \biggr|_{{\operatorname{Rad}}X}^2.
\end{split}$$ Define ${\cal D}(\tilde{A}) = \{ (x_n)_n \in {\operatorname{Rad}}X : x_n \in
{\cal D}(A)\}$ and $\tilde{A}((x_n)_n) = (Ax_n)_n$ for $(x_n)_n \in {\cal D}
(\tilde{A})$. Then $\tilde{A}$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–calculus on $\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$ defined by $f(\tilde{A})(x) = f(\tilde{A})((x_n)_n) =(f(A)x_n)_n$ for $x \in \gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$ and by 6.5 $\tilde{A}$ has an $RH^{\infty}(S(a),{\cal A})$–calculus on $\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$. Since $F \in RH^{\infty}
(S(a),{\cal A})$ and for $\varphi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ $$\int\limits_{\partial S(a)} \varphi(\lambda)F(\lambda)R(\lambda,\tilde{A})
d\lambda = \biggl( \int\limits_{\partial S(a)} \varphi(\lambda) f_n(\lambda)
R(\lambda,A)d\lambda \biggr)_n$$ we conclude that $S = F(\tilde{A})$ is bounded on $\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$.
With these tools we can define a joint functional calculus for two commuting operators $A,B$ of strip–type on $X$. For $f \in H^{\infty}(S(a) \times
S(b))$ and $\varphi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a)), \psi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(b))$ define $$(\varphi \cdot f \cdot \psi)(A,B) = \int\limits_{\partial S(a)}
\int\limits_{\partial S(b)} \varphi(\lambda) f(\lambda, \mu)\psi(\mu)
R(\lambda,A)R(\mu,B)d\lambda d\mu.$$ We say that $A$ and $B$ have a joint $H^{\infty}$–calculus, if there is a constant $C$ so that $$\|(\varphi f \psi )(A)\| \leq C \| \varphi f \psi \|_{H^{\infty}(S(a)
\times S(b))}$$ for all $\varphi \in H^\infty_0(S(a))$, $\psi \in H^\infty_0(S(b))$ and $f \in H^{\infty}(S(a) \times
S(b))$. In this case we can define a bounded operator $f(A,B)$ on $X$ by $f(A,B)x =
\displaystyle \lim_n (\varphi_n f \psi_n)(A,B)x$, where $\varphi_n \in H_0^{\infty}
(S(a)), \psi_n \in H_0^{\infty}(S(b))$ are sequences with $|\varphi_n(\lambda)
| \leq 1, \varphi_n(\lambda) \to 1$ for $\lambda \in S(a)$ and $| \psi_n
(\lambda)| \leq 1$ and $\psi_n(\lambda) \to 1$ for $\lambda \in S(b)$ as $n\to\infty$.
Let $X$ have property $(\alpha)$. If $A$ and $B$ are resolvent commuting operators on $X$ with an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$ and an $H^{\infty}(S(b))$–calculus, respectively, then $A$ and $B$ have a joint $H^{\infty}(S(a) \times
S(b))$–calculus.
Let $f \in H^{\infty}(S(a) \times S(b)), \varphi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ and $\psi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(b))$. Then $$(\varphi f \psi)(A,B) = \int\limits_{\partial S(a)} \varphi(\lambda)
F(\lambda) R(\lambda,A)d \lambda$$ with $$F(\lambda) = \int\limits_{\partial S(b)} \psi(\mu)f(\lambda,\mu)R(\mu,B)d\mu.$$ Corollary 6.6 applied to $B$, implies that $F \in RH(S(a),{\cal A})$. Now we may apply 6.5 to $A$ and $F$ and obtain an estimate $$\begin{split}
\|(\varphi f \psi)(A,B)\| & \leq C_1 \| \varphi \cdot F\|_{RH^{\infty}(S(b))} \leq C_2 \| \varphi f \psi\|_{H^{\infty}(S(a)\times S(b))}.
\end{split}$$
We can state now the main result of this section.
Let $A$ be an operator of strip–type on a Banach space $X$.
a\) Suppose that $A$ generates a $C_0$–group $T_t$ on $X$ such that for some $a > \omega(T_t)$ the set $\{ e^{-a|t|}T_t:t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded. Then $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(b))$–calculus for all $b > a$.
b\) Conversely, assume $X$ has property $(\alpha)$. If $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(a))$–calculus, then $A$ generates a $C_0$–group $T_t$ such that $\{ e^{-bt}T_t:t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded for all $b > a$.
a\) Choose $a_1$ with $a_1 > a$. Since $e^{-(a_1-a)|t|} \in L_2({\mathbb{R}})$ we obtain from example 5.7 that $$\|e^{-a_1 \cdot}T_{(\cdot)}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq C \|x\|, \quad \|e^{-a_1 \cdot}T_{(\cdot)}^{\ast}x^{\ast}
\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X^{\ast})} \leq C\|x\|.$$ By 6.2a) the existence of the $H_{\infty}(S(\omega))$–calculus follows.
b\) Note that $e^{-bt}T_t = f_t(A)$ with $f_t(\lambda) = e^{-b|t|}e^{t \lambda},
t > 0$, and $\|f_t\|_{H^{\infty}(S(\omega))} \leq 1$. The $\gamma$–boundedness of $\{e^{-b|t|}T_t:t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ follows now from 6.6.
More can be said about $\gamma$–bounded groups: Their generators are spectral operators (in the sense of [@DS]). Let $A$ be an operator of strip–type on $X$ with $\sigma(A) \subset i {\mathbb{R}}$. A spectral measure $P$ for $A$ is an additive bounded (projection valued) function $P: {\cal B} \to B(X)$ on the Borel sets ${\cal B}$ of $i {\mathbb{R}}$, so that $$\Omega \in B \to P(\Omega)x \in X \qquad \mbox{ is } \sigma\mbox{-additive
for all } x \in X$$ and $$R(\mu,A)x = \int\limits_{i {\mathbb{R}}} (\mu - \lambda)^{-1} dP(\lambda)x
\qquad \mbox{ for } \lambda \not\in i {\mathbb{R}}, x \in X.$$ By $B_b(i{\mathbb{R}})$ we denote the bounded Borel functions on $i{\mathbb{R}}$.
Assume that $A$ generates a group on $T_t$ on $X$, so that $\{ T_t : t \in
{\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded.
a\) Then $A$ has a bounded functional calculus $$\phi_A : C_0({\mathbb{R}}) \to B(X).$$
b\) If $X$ does not contain $c_0$, then there exists a spectral measure $P$ for $A$ so that for all $f \in B_b(i{\mathbb{R}})$ $$\phi_A(f)x = \int\limits_{i {\mathbb{R}}} f(\lambda) dP(\lambda)x, \quad x \in X.$$
c\) Let ${\cal L}$ be the space of bounded functions on $i {\mathbb{R}}$, which are uniform limits of step functions. Then the set $\lbrace \phi_A(f) : f \in B_b(i{\mathbb{R}})$, $\|f\|_{\infty} \leq 1 \}$ is $\gamma$–bounded.
Conversely, if $A$ is a spectral operator, then $\{e^{tA} : t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded.
First we note that $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(\omega))$–calculus for all $\omega > 0$ whose norm only depends on the $\gamma$–boundedness constant $M$ of $\{T_t\}$ and $\{T_t'\}$, more precicely $$\|f(A)\| \leq 2\pi M^2 \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(\omega))}.$$ Indeed, by applying the Fourier transform to $e^{-a \cdot}T_{\cdot}$ (cf 4.9) and example 5.7 we have for $a = \frac{\omega}{2}$ $$\begin{split}
& \|R(a+i \cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq \sqrt{2 \pi} \|e^{-a \cdot}T_{(\cdot)} x
\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} \\
& \leq \sqrt{2 \pi} \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} e^{-2at}dt \biggr)^{1/2}
M\|x\| = \sqrt{\pi} a^{- 1/2} M \|x\|
\end{split}$$ and similarly $$\|R(a+ i \cdot,A')x' \|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}},X')} \leq \sqrt{\pi} a^{- 1/2} M
\|x'\|.$$ Now by remark 6.3d) $$\|f(T)\| \leq 2\pi M^2 \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(\omega))}.$$ Every $f \in C_0(i {\mathbb{R}})$ can be uniformly approximated by a sequence of functions $g_n$ of the form (see e. g. [@Co] Corollary 8.3) $$g(\lambda) = \sum_{j=1}^n e^{b_j \lambda^2} p_j(\lambda), \quad
b_j > 0, \qquad p_j \mbox{ are polynomials.}$$ If $\|g_n - g_m \|_{L_{\infty}(i {\mathbb{R}})} \leq \varepsilon$ then $\|g_n - g_m
\|_{H^{\infty}(S(\omega))} \leq 2 \varepsilon$ for $\omega > 0$ small enough. Hence $\|g_n(A) - g_m(A)\| \leq 2\pi M^2 \varepsilon$ and $(g_n(A))_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $B(X)$. We put $\phi_A(f) := \displaystyle
\lim_n g_n(A)$. The fact that $\phi_A$ is well–defined, linear and multiplicative follows from standard limit arguments.
b\) To construct the spectral measure we define for every fixed $x \in X$ a bounded operator $\Phi_x:C_0({\mathbb{R}}) \to X$ by $\Phi_x(f) = f(A)x$ with $\|\Phi_x\| \leq 2\pi M^2\|x\|.$ Since $X$ does not contain $c_0$, it follows from [@DU], Theorem 5 and 15 in IV.2, that there is a countable additive vector measure $P_x : {\cal B} \to X$ such that $\operatorname{Var}(P_x) \leq \| \phi_x \|$ and (in the sense of [@DU], $\S$ 1.4) for every $f \in C_0(i{\mathbb{R}})$ $$\phi_A(f) = \Phi_x(f) = \int_{i{\mathbb{R}}} f(\lambda)dP_x(\lambda).$$ For a Borel function $f \in {\cal B}_b(i{\mathbb{R}})$ we use now this formula to define a bounded linear operator $\phi_A(f)$ on $X$. Then $$\| \phi_A f \| \leq \sup \{ \| \operatorname{Var}P_x \| : \| \lambda \| \leq 1 \}
\|f\|_{\infty} \leq 2\pi M^2 \|f\|_{\infty}.$$ The multiplicativity of $\phi_A$ on $C_0(i{\mathbb{R}})$ can be extended to ${\cal B}_b(i{\mathbb{R}})$ by the following convergence property ([@DU], Sect. I.4.1): If $f_n \in {\cal B}_b (i{\mathbb{R}})$ is uniformly bounded and $f_n \to f$ pointwise, then $\phi_A(f_n)x \to \phi_A(f)x$ for all $x \in X$ and $n\to\infty$. In particular, $P(\Omega) = \phi_A(\chi_{\Omega})$ defines a vector measure with $P(\Omega)^2 = \phi_A(\chi_{\Omega}^2) = P(\Omega)$.
c\) $\{ \phi(f): f \in C_0(i{\mathbb{R}})\}$ is $R$–bounded and $\gamma$–bounded by 5.10 and the claim follows now from the above convergence property, since the closure of an $R$–($\gamma$–) bounded set in the strong operator topology is also $R$–($\gamma$–) bounded.
The converse statement follows in the same way since $$T_tx = \int\limits_{i{\mathbb{R}}} e^{t \lambda} dP(\lambda)x, \quad t \in {\mathbb{R}}$$ is the group generated by $A$.
Besides the square functions $\|R(a+i \cdot,A)\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}$ one can consider square functions $\|\psi(\cdot +A)\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}$ where $\psi \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$.
The following lemma shows, that they can be used to characterize the $H^{\infty}$–calculus too.
Let $A$ be an operator of strip–type on a Banach space $X$. Let $\psi$ and $\varphi$ be in $H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$. Then there is a constant $C$ (depending on $A,\varphi$ and $\psi$) so that for all $f \in H^{\infty}(S(b))$ with $b > a$ and $x \in X$ $$\|f(A)\psi(i\cdot +A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq C \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(S(b))} \|
\varphi(i\cdot +A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}.$$ In particular for $f(\lambda) \equiv 1$ we obtain $$\frac{1}{C} \| \psi(i\cdot +A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq \| \varphi(i\cdot +A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}
\leq C \| \psi(i\cdot +A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}.$$
The proof of 6.10 is similar to the proof of Proposition 7.7 below and we omit it.
$H^{\infty}$–calculus for sectorial operators
=============================================
We will consider sectorial operators with an additional $R$–bounded assumption. A sectorial operator on a Banach space $X$ is called [*$R$–sectorial*]{} ([*$\gamma$–sectorial*]{}) if for some $\omega \in (0, \pi)$ the set $\{ \lambda R(\lambda,A):|\arg \lambda| > \omega \}$ is $R$–bounded ($\gamma$–bounded). $\omega_R(A)$ (resp. $\omega_\gamma(A))$ is the infimum over all such $\omega$. A sectorial operator $A$ is called [*almost $R$–sectorial*]{} ([*almost $\gamma$–sectorial*]{}), if there is a $\omega \in (0, \pi)$ so that $\{ \lambda AR(\lambda,A)^2 : | \arg \lambda |
> \omega \}$ is $R$–bounded ($\gamma$–bounded). $\tilde{\omega}_R(A)$ (or $\tilde{\omega}_\gamma(R))$ is now the infimum over all these $\omega$.
$R$–sectorial operators are almost $R$–sectorial, but not conversely (not even in an $L_p$–space, see [@KW2]). The same is true for $\gamma$–sectorial operators. We remark that these properties follow from the existence of an $H^{\infty}$–calculus, more precisely
a\) If $A$ has BIP on an arbitrary Banach space, then $A$ is almost $R$–sectorial and almost $\gamma$–sectorial with $\tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A), \tilde{\omega}_R(A)
\leq \omega_{BIP}(A)$. If $A$ has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus then $\tilde{\omega}_R(A) = \omega_{H^{\infty}}(A) = \omega(A^{it})$.
b\) If $A$ has BIP and $X$ has the UMD–property, then $A$ is $R$–sectorial (see [@CP]). The same is true if $A$ has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus and $X$ has only property $\Delta$ (cf. [@KW1]).
c\) If $X$ has type $p>1$ and $A$ is (almost) $\gamma$–sectorial, then $A^0$ is (almost) $\gamma'$–sectorial on $X^0$ (the proof is the same as for [@KKW] Prop 3.5 with $\gamma({\mathbb{N}},X)$ in place of ${\operatorname{Rad}}X$).
Since $\int\limits_0^{\infty} s^{z-1} \textstyle \frac{s}{(1+s)^2} ds =
\textstyle \frac{\pi z}{\sinh (\pi z)}$ for $\operatorname{Re}z > -1$ we obtain as a special case of the Mellin functional calculus that $$\lambda A (1+ \lambda A)^{-2}x = \frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\frac{t}{\sinh (\pi t)} \lambda^{it} A^{it} x dt$$ for $\lambda$ with $\omega_{BIP} (A) + |\arg (\lambda)| < \pi$ and $x \in X$. For $d = \omega_{BIP}(A) + \varepsilon$ and $\theta = \pi-d- \varepsilon$ with a small $\varepsilon > 0$ we can write for $|\arg(\lambda)| < \theta$ $$\lambda A(1+\lambda A)^{-2}x = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}
h_{\lambda}(t) N(t)xdt, \quad x \in X$$ with $N(t) = e^{- d|t|}A^{it}$ and $h_{\lambda}(t)= \frac{t}{\sinh(\pi t)}
\lambda^{it} e^{d|t|}$. Since $h_{\lambda}(t)$ is uniformly bounded for $|\arg(\lambda)| \leq \theta$ the set $\{ \lambda A(1+\lambda A)^{-2} :
|\arg (\lambda)| \leq \theta \}$ is $R$–bounded and $\gamma$–bounded by 5.8. Hence $A$ is almost $R$–bounded with $\tilde{\omega}_R(A) \leq \omega_{BIP}
(A)+2 \varepsilon$ and almost $\gamma$–bounded with $\tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A) \leq \omega_{BIP}
(A)+2 \varepsilon$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$. The last claim is shown in [@KW2].
Now we can state our characterization of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus in terms of square functions. (As in 3.2 and 4.7c) we can show that these square functions are finite.)
Let $A$ be an almost $\gamma$–sectorial operator on a Banach space $X$. Consider the conditions
a\) $A$ has bounded imaginary powers and for one (all) $\omega$ with $| \omega|
\in (\omega(A^{it}), \pi]$ there is a constant $C$ with $$\begin{split}
\|e^{- \omega|\cdot|}A^{i\cdot}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} & \leq C\|x\|, \quad
x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A) \\
\|e^{- \omega|\cdot|} (A^{i\cdot})'x' \|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}},X')} & \leq C \|x'\|, \quad
x' \in \cal{D}(A^0) \cap \cal{R}(A^0).
\end{split}$$
b\) For one (all) $\omega$ with $|\omega| \in (\tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A),\pi]$ there is a constant $C$ such that $$\begin{split}
\|A^{1/2}R(\cdot e^{i \omega},A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} & \leq C \|x\|,
\quad x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A) \\
\|(A')^{1/2}R(\cdot e^{i \omega},A)'x'\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X')} & \leq C \|x'\|,
\quad x' \in \cal{D}(A^0) \cap \cal{R}(A^0).
\end{split}$$
c\) For one (all) $\omega$ with $|\omega| \in (\tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A),\pi]$ there is a constant $C$ such that for all $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ $$\frac{1}{C} \|x\| \leq \|A^{1/2}R(\cdot e^{i \omega},A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} \leq
C\|x\|.$$
d\) $A$ has an $H_{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus for one (all) $\sigma
\in (\tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A),\pi]$.
Then a) $\Longrightarrow$ b) $\Longrightarrow$ c) $\Longrightarrow$ d) always. If $X$ has finite cotype then d) $\Longrightarrow$ a). In this case $\omega_{H^{\infty}}(A) = \omega(A^{it}) = \tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A)$.
1\) For all sectorial operators and fixed angles $\omega$ and $\sigma >
\omega$, an inspection of the proofs show that we have a) $\Longrightarrow$ b) $\Longrightarrow$ c) $\Longrightarrow$ d). If $X$ has finite cotype and $\sigma < \omega$ then also d) $\Longrightarrow$ a).
We need almost $\gamma$–sectoriality only to assure that our conditions are independent of the choice of the angle.
2\) The assumption that $A$ is almost $\gamma$–sectorial can be dropped. Indeed by the first part of the remark any of the conditions a), b), c) for some angle implies d). Now apply the second part of remark 7.1a) to $A$ and $A^0$. Now we have that $A$ and $A^0$ are almost $\gamma$–bounded and we can switch angles.
3\) If $X'$ has also finite cotype, e. g. if $X$ is an $L_p(\Omega)$–space with $1 < p < \infty$ then we can replace in the second condition of b) the $\gamma'$–norm by the $\gamma$–norm (see 5.2): $$\|(A')^{1/2}R(\cdot e^{i \omega},A)'x'\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X')} \leq C \|x'\|.$$
As a preparation for the proof of 7.2 we state
Let $X$ have finite cotype. Suppose that the sectorial operator $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus. Then $A$ has bounded imaginary powers with $\omega_{BIP}(A) \leq \sigma$ and for $\theta > \sigma$ there is a constant $C$ so that $$\begin{split}
\|e^{- \theta|\cdot|}A^{i\cdot}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} & \leq C C_{H^{\infty}} e^{\pi (\theta +
\sigma)} \frac{1}{\theta - \sigma} \|x\|, \quad x \in X \\
\|e^{- \theta|\cdot|}(A^{i\cdot})'x'\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}},X')} & \leq C C_{H^{\infty}}
e^{\pi (\theta + \sigma)} \frac{1}{\theta - \sigma} \|x'\|, \quad x' \in X'
\end{split}$$ where $C$ depends only on $X$ and $C_{H^\infty}$ is the bound of the $H^{\infty}(S(\sigma))$–calculus.
We adopt the proof of 6.4 to $T_t = A^{it}$. In particular, we must choose now $$b_{k,n} (\lambda) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int\limits_{- \pi}^{\pi}
e^{int} h(t) g(t+k) \lambda^{i(t+k)}dt.$$ Since $|\lambda^{i(t+k)}| \leq e^{- \sigma(t+k)}$ we can repeat the estimates of 6.4.
For a fixed angle $\omega$, we can repeat the arguments in the proof of 2.1 by replacing the Hilbert space square functions by our generalized square functions $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ and using in place of (S1), (S2) and (S3) their generalizations in 5.12.
In a) $\Longrightarrow$ b) we can use the formula $$\frac{\pi}{\cosh(\pi s)} e^{\theta s} A^{is}x = e^{- i \theta/2}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} t^{is} [t^{1/2} A^{1/2}(e^{i \theta}t+A)]^{-1}x
\frac{dt}{t}$$ (which appeared already in (1) of Section 2 with $\theta < \pi - \omega(A^{it}$)) and appeal to the Plancherel formula 4.8 and 5.3 for $\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)$ and $\gamma'({\mathbb{R}},X')$.
In b) $\Longrightarrow$ c) we use 5.5.
In c) $\Longrightarrow$ d) we follow the lines of 2.1 c) $\Longrightarrow$ d) using the operator $K$ defined there and apply 5.5 to it.
If $X$ has finite cotype then Lemma 7.4 shows that d) $\Longrightarrow$ a).
If $A$ is a $\gamma$–sectorial operator we can check that the condition c) does not depend on the choice of $\omega \in (\omega_\gamma(A), \pi]$ by using formula (2) from Section 2. For an almost $\gamma$–sectorial operator we note that $$A^{1/2}R(t^{-1}e^{i \theta},A) = \psi_{\theta}(tA)t^{1/2} \mbox{ with }
\psi_{\theta}(\lambda) = \frac{\lambda^{1/2}}{e^{i \theta}-\lambda}$$ and $$\|A^{1/2} R(\cdot e^{i \theta},A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} = \|\psi_{\theta}(\cdot A)x
\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)}.$$ If $|\theta| > \tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A)$ then $\psi_{\theta} \in H_0^{\infty}
(\Sigma(\varphi))$ for $|\theta| > \varphi > \tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A)$ and we can appeal Proposition 7.7 below to ensure the equivalence of square functions with different angles.
With 7.2 we can explain the gap between the $H^{\infty}$–calculus and BIP.
Let $A$ be a sectorial operator on a Banach space $X$.
a\) If $A$ has BIP and $\{e^{- \theta|t|}A^{it} : t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded, then $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus for $\sigma > \theta.$
b\) Conversely, assume that $X$ has property $(\alpha)$. If $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus then $\{ e^{- \theta|t|}
A^{it}: t \in{\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded for all $\theta > \sigma$.
a\) By Example 5.7 we have for $\varepsilon > 0$ $$\| e^{- (\theta + \varepsilon)|\cdot|}A^{i\cdot}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \leq \|e^{- \varepsilon
|\cdot|}\|_{L_2({\mathbb{R}})} C \|x\|$$ where $C$ is the $\gamma$–bound of $\{ e^{- \theta|t|}A^{it} \}$. The second estimate in 7.2b) follows also from 5.7.
b\) Since $X$ has finite cotype $\gamma$–boundedness and $R$–boundedness are equivalent and we can apply [@KW1], Theorem 5.3.
Results on the vector–valued $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus, joint functional calculii and $R$–boundedness of the calculus are contained in [@KW1].
We noticed already in the proof of 7.2, that besides $\|A^{1/2}R(\cdot
e^{i \omega},A)x \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)}$, also more general square functions of the form $$\| \psi(\cdot A)\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t},X)}, \quad \psi \in H_0^{\infty}
(\Sigma(\sigma)),$$ are useful. We will show shortly that they are equivalent for an almost $\gamma$–sectorial operator. But first
Let $A$ be almost $\gamma$–sectorial. Then we have for all $\psi \in H_0^{\infty}
(\Sigma(\omega))$ with $\omega > \tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A)$ that $\{ \psi (tA) :
t > 0 \}$ is $\gamma$–bounded.
Let $\Psi$ be an antiderivative of $\frac{\psi(\lambda)}{\lambda}$ which vanishes at $0$. Define $\varphi(\lambda)= \Psi(\lambda) -
\gamma \frac{\lambda}{1 + \lambda}$, where $\gamma = \int\limits_0^{\infty}
t^{-1} \psi(t)dt$. Then $\varphi'(\lambda) = \frac{\psi(\lambda)}{\lambda}
- \gamma (1 + \lambda)^{-2}$ and one can show that $\varphi \in H_0^{\infty}
(\Sigma(\omega))$. Hence $$\varphi(tA) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)}
\varphi(\lambda) R(\lambda, tA) d\lambda$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
tA \varphi' (tA) &= \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)} \varphi(\lambda)
[tAR(\lambda,tA)^2]d\lambda \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)} \left[ \frac{\varphi(t\mu)}{\mu} \right] \left[ \mu A R(\mu,A)^2 \right] d\mu \quad \text{for} \; t\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that by 5.8 this set is $\gamma$–bounded. Since $\psi(\lambda) = \lambda\varphi'(\lambda) + \gamma\lambda(1+\lambda)^{-2}$ it follows that the set $$\psi(tA) = tA\varphi'(tA) + \gamma tA(1+tA)^{-2}, \quad t\in{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$$ is $\gamma$–bounded too.
The next result was proved for Hilbert spaces in [@M] and for $R$–sectorial operators in $L_p$–spaces in [@LeM1]. The proof in [@LeM1] can be extended to the general setting:
Let $A$ be an almost $\gamma$–sectorial operator on a Banach space $X$. Let $\psi$ and $\varphi$ be in $H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ for some $\sigma > \tilde{\omega}_\gamma(A)$. Then there is a constant $C$ (depending on $A, \varphi$ and $\psi$), so that for all $f \in H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ and $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap
\cal{R}(A)$ $$\|f(A) \psi(\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t}, X)} \leq C
\|f\|_{H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))} \| \varphi(\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t},
X)}.$$ In particular, for $f(\lambda) \equiv 1$, we obtain $$\frac{1}{C} \| \psi(\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)} \leq \| \varphi(\cdot A)x
\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)} \leq C \| \psi(\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)}$$ and $$\frac{1}{C} \| \psi(\cdot A)'x'\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X')} \leq \| \varphi(\cdot A)'x'
\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X')} \leq C \| \psi (\cdot A)'x'\|_{\gamma'({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X')}.$$ Furthermore, if $A$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus, then for $x\in X$ $$\frac{1}{C}\| x \| \leq \| \varphi(\cdot A) x \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)} \leq C\| x \|.$$
First we assume in addition that $f \in H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\theta))$. Choose two auxiliary functions $g,h \in H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\theta))$ such that $$\int\limits_0^{\infty} g(t) h(t) \varphi(t) \frac{dt}{t} = 1.$$ By analytic continuation we have for all $\lambda \in \Sigma(\theta)$ that $$\int\limits_0^{\infty} g(t \lambda) h(t \lambda) \varphi (t \lambda)
\frac{dt}{t} = 1$$ and we can apply the $H_0^{\infty}$–calculus of $A$ and some $\gamma \in
(\omega_{\gamma}(A), \theta)$ $$\begin{split}
f(A) & = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)}
\biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} g(t \lambda) h(t \lambda) \varphi (t \lambda)
\frac{dt}{t} \biggr) f(\lambda) R(\lambda,A) d \lambda \\
& = \int\limits_0^{\infty} \biggl( \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial
\Sigma(\gamma)} g(t \lambda) f(\lambda) h(t \lambda) \varphi (t \lambda)
R(\lambda,A) d \lambda \biggr) \frac{dt}{t} \\
& = \int\limits_0^{\infty} g(tA) h(tA) f(A) \varphi(tA) \frac{dt}{t}.
\end{split}$$ Furthermore, by Lemma 4.1 in [@KW1] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(sA)g(tA) &= \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)}
\psi(s \lambda)g(t \lambda) R(\lambda,A) d \lambda \\
&= \frac{1}{2 \pi i}
\int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)} \psi (s \lambda) g(t \lambda)
\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} A^{\frac{1}{2}} R(\lambda,A) \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ With these identities and Fubini’s theorem we obtain for $x \in X$ $$\begin{split}
f(A)\psi(sA)x &= \int\limits_0^\infty [\psi(sA)g(tA)]h(tA)f(A)\varphi(tA)x \frac{dt}{t} \\
& = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)}
\psi(s \lambda) \lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} A^{\frac{1}{2}} R(\lambda,A)
\\
& \quad \cdot \biggl( \int\limits_0^{\infty} g(t \lambda) f(A)h(tA) \varphi(tA) x
\frac{dt}{t} \biggr) \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda} \\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int\limits_{\partial\Sigma(\gamma)} \psi(s\lambda) M(\lambda) \left( \int\limits_0^\infty g(t\lambda) N(t) \varphi(tA) x \frac{dt}{t} \right) \frac{d\lambda}{\lambda} \\
& = {\cal K} [ M(\lambda) {\cal L} [ N(t) \varphi(tA) x](\lambda)](s)
\end{split}$$ where $M(\lambda) = \lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}A^{\frac{1}{2}} R(\lambda,A),
N(t) = f(A)h(tA)$ and $$\begin{split}
{\cal K} \varphi(s) & = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)}
\psi (s \lambda) \varphi(\lambda) \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda}, \quad
s \in {\mathbb{R}}_{+} \\
{\cal L} \varphi(\lambda) & = \int\limits_0^{\infty} g(t \lambda)
\varphi(t) \frac{dt}{t}, \quad \lambda \in \partial \Sigma(\gamma).
\end{split}$$ These operators can be reduced to convolution operators on the multiplicative group $({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t})$ with $\int\limits_0^{\infty}
| \psi (e^{\pm i \gamma} t)| \frac{dt}{t} < \infty$ and $\int |g(t
e^{\pm i \gamma})| \frac{dt}{t} < \infty$. Hence they are bounded operators ${\cal K} : L_2(\partial\Sigma(\gamma), | \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda}|) \to
L_2({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t})$ and ${\cal L}: L_2({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t}) \to
L_2(\partial\Sigma (\gamma), | \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda} |)$. $\{ M(\lambda) : \lambda \in \Sigma(\gamma)\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded by assumption. To see that $\{ N(t) : t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is $\gamma$–bounded, note that for $t \in {\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ again by Lemma 4.1 of [@KW1] $$\begin{split}
N(t) & = f(A)h(tA) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)}
f(\lambda) h(t \lambda) R(\lambda,A) d \lambda \\
& = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)} f(\lambda)
h(t \lambda) \lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} A^{\frac{1}{2}} R(\lambda,A) \frac{d \lambda}
{\lambda}.
\end{split}$$ Since $\int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)} |f(\lambda) h(t \lambda)|
|\frac{d \lambda}{\lambda}| \leq \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\theta))}
\int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\gamma)} | f(\lambda) | | \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda}|$ we can appeal to 5.8. Furthermore, by extending ${\cal K}$ and ${\cal L}$ to the $\gamma$–spaces according to 4.8, 4.9 and applying 4.11 to $M(\cdot)$ and $N(\cdot)$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
\|f(A)\psi(\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{ds}{s},X)} &= \| {\cal K}[M(\cdot)]{\cal L}[N(t) \varphi(tA)x](\cdot) \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{ds}{s},X)} \\
& \leq C_1 \| {\cal L} [N(\cdot)
\varphi(\cdot A)x]\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)} \\
& \leq C_2 \|f\|_{H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\theta))} \| \varphi(\cdot A)x
\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},\frac{dt}{t},X)}.
\end{split}$$ For a general $f \in H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\theta))$ we use the convergence lemma and 4.10. The last claim is shown in the same way using the corresponding properties of $\gamma'(X')$.\
The last inequality follows from 7.2 since a sectorial operator with an $H^\infty$-calculus has BIP and is therefore also almost $R$–bounded by Remark 7.1a).
For a sectorial operator $A$ on a Banach space $X$ we define the space $X_A$ as the completion of $\cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ with respect to the norm $$\|x\|_{X_A} = \|A^{\frac{1}{2}} R(\cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{-},X)}.$$ As an operator on $X_A$ $A$ has particularly good properties.
Let $A$ be an almost $\gamma$–sectorial operator on a Banach space $X$. Then $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus for $\sigma > \tilde{\omega}_\gamma
(A)$ as an operator on $X_A$. $A$ has an $H^{\infty}$–calculus on $X$ if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to $X_A$.
We can apply estimate (2) with $\psi(\lambda) = \varphi(\lambda) =
\lambda^{1/2}(1 + \lambda)^{-1}$. Hence there is a constant $C$ so that for all $f \in H_0^{\infty}
(\Sigma(\sigma))$ $$\|f(A)x\|_{X_A} \leq C \|x\|_{X_A} \quad \mbox{ for } x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A).$$ It follows that $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus on $X_A$. The second claim follows from 7.2c) $\Longleftrightarrow$ d).
The connection between sectorial and strip–type operators
=========================================================
There is an obvious parallel between the notions, results and proofs of Section 6 and 7 if we “apply” the map $\lambda \in \Sigma(\sigma) \to
i \log \lambda \in S(\sigma)$. In order to make this connection more explicit we use the operator $\log A$, which for a sectorial operator $A$ one can define by the extended functional calculus of [@CDMY]:
Put $\varphi(\lambda) = \lambda (1+ \lambda)^{-2}$. Then $\varphi(A) =
A(I + A)^{-2}$, $\varphi(A)^{-1} = 2+A+A^{-1}$ and ${\cal R}(\varphi(A)) =
{\cal R}(A) \cap {\cal D}(A)$. Also $\varphi (\cdot) \log (\cdot) \in
H_0^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ and for $\sigma > \omega(A)$ we can define $\log (A) = \varphi(A)^{-1} (\varphi \cdot \log)(A)$ and ${\cal D}(\log A) =
\{x \in X: (\varphi \log)(A) \in {\cal D}(\varphi(A))\}$. This definition of $\log A$ is equivalent to the definitions in [@No], cf. [@No], Lemma 1 and 3. The following integral representations show in particular that $\frac{1}{i} \log A$ is an operator of strip–type.
Let $A$ be a sectorial operator.
a\) For $| \mbox{Im }z| > \pi$ we have $$(z - \log A)^{-1} = \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty}
\frac{-1}{\pi^2 + (z-t)^2} [e^t (e^t+A)^{-1}] dt.$$
b\) For $w(\frac{1}{i}\log A) < a < \pi$ we have $$t^{1/2} A^{1/2} (t+A)^{-1} = \frac{1}{2 \pi i}
\int\limits_{|\mbox{\tiny{Im} } z| = a}
\frac{t^{1/2} e^{z/2}}{t+e^z} (z - \log (A))^{-1} dz.$$
a\) The first formula is taken from [@No], Satz 7.
b\) For $\lambda \in \Sigma(a)$ we get by Cauchy’s formula $$\lambda^{1/2} (t+\lambda)^{-1} = \frac{1}{2 \pi i}
\int\limits_{|\mbox{\tiny{Im} }z| = a} \frac{e^{z/2}}{t+e^z} (z- \log \lambda)^{-1}
dz.$$ Since $\|(z- \log A)^{-1}\| \leq C$ for $| \mbox{Im } z| = a$ and $e^{z/2}(t+e^z)^{-1}$ is integrable on $\{ z: | \mbox{Im } z| = a \}$ the properties of the $H^{\infty}$–calculus give $$A^{1/2} (t+A)^{-1} = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int\limits_{| \mbox{\tiny{Im} } z| = a}
\frac{e^{z/2}}{t+e^z} (z - \log A)^{-1}dz.$$
a\) If $A$ is a sectorial operator on $X$, then $\frac{1}{i} \log A$ is of strip–type and $w ( \textstyle \frac{1}{i} \log A) \leq \omega (A)$.
b\) If $\psi \in H_1^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ with $\sigma > \omega(A)$, then $\tilde{\psi}(\lambda) = \psi (e^{i \lambda})$ is in $H_1^{\infty}
(S(\sigma))$ and $\tilde{\psi}( \textstyle \frac{1}{i} \ln A) = \psi(A)$.
a\) For $|\theta| \leq \pi - \omega(A) - \varepsilon$ we have that $e^{- i \theta}A$ is sectorial and $\log (e^{-i \theta}A) = \log(A) - i \theta$ (cf. [@No]). By part a) of 8.1 we have for $z$ with $| \mbox{Im }z| > \pi$ $$-i(iz + \theta - i \log A)^{-1} = \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{\pi^2+(z-t)^2} e^{i \theta}t (e^{i \theta}t+A)^{-1}dt$$ and for $| \mbox{Re }\mu| > \omega(A)+ \varepsilon$ $$\| (\mu - i \log A)^{-1} \| \leq C\int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{\pi^2+t^2} dt \cdot \sup \{ \| \lambda R(\lambda,A)\|:
|\arg(\lambda)| \geq \omega(A) + \varepsilon \}.$$
For the details of the last estimate, see [@No] or [@Haa1], Lemma 3.5.1
b\) Clearly $\int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} | \tilde{\psi} (a+is)|ds =
\int\limits_0^{\infty} | \psi (e^{ia}t)| \textstyle \frac{dt}{t}$ for $|a| < \sigma$. If $T$ is a bounded operator with a bounded inverse and $\sigma(T) \subset \Sigma(\sigma)$, then the usual Dunford calculus implies that $\tilde{\psi} (\textstyle \frac{1}{i} \ln T) = \psi(T)$. For $\varepsilon > 0$ put $T_{\varepsilon} =(A+ \varepsilon I)(\varepsilon A +
I)^{-1}$. Then $T_{\varepsilon}$ is bounded, $\sigma(T_{\varepsilon}) \subset
\Sigma(\sigma)$ and for $\omega \in (\omega(A), \sigma)$ there is a constant $C$ by [@No], Lemma 3, and 8.1 such that $$\| \lambda R(\lambda, T_{\varepsilon})\| \leq C, \quad
\| R(\mu, \frac{1}{i} \log T_{\varepsilon})\| \leq C$$ for all $\lambda$ with $| \arg \lambda | \geq \omega$ and $\mu$ with $| \mbox{Re } \mu| \geq \omega$. Furthermore, $\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} R(\lambda,T_{\varepsilon})
x$ $= R(\lambda,A)x$ and $\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} R(\mu,
\textstyle \frac{1}{i} \log T_{\varepsilon})x = R(\mu, \log A)x$ so that by Lebesgue’s convergence theorem $$\psi(A)x = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(\omega)}
\psi(\lambda) R(\lambda, T_{\varepsilon})xd \lambda = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}
\psi(T_{\varepsilon})x$$ and similarly $\tilde{\psi}(\textstyle \frac{1}{i} \log A) x =
\displaystyle \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \tilde{\psi} (\textstyle \frac{1}{i}
\log T_{\varepsilon})x$.
Part b) of the following theorem was shown in [@Ok].
Let $A$ be a sectorial operator on a Banach space $X$ and put $B =
\textstyle \frac{1}{i} \log A$.
a\) $A$ has an $H^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$–calculus for $\sigma
> \omega(A)$ if and only if $B$ has an $H^{\infty}(S(\sigma))$–calculus.
b\) $A$ has BIP if and only if $B$ generates a $C_0$–group and in this case $A^{it} = e^{-tB}$ for $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
c\) If $A$ is $R$–($\gamma$–)sectorial then $B$ is of $R$–($\gamma$–)strip–type. If $B$ is of $R$–($\gamma$–)strip–type, then $A$ is almost $R$–($\gamma$–)sectorial.
d\) For $a > \tilde{\omega}_R(A)$ and $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ we have $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \| R(\cdot, B)x\|_{\gamma(\partial S(a),X)} & \leq
\| A^{1/2} R(\cdot, A)x\|_{\gamma(\partial \Sigma(a),X)} \\
& \leq \sqrt{2\pi} \| R(\cdot, B)x\|_{\gamma(\partial S(a),X)}.
\end{split}$$
e\) If $\psi \in H_1^{\infty} (\Sigma(\sigma))$ for $\sigma >
\omega(A)$ then $\tilde{\psi}(\lambda) = \psi (e^{i \lambda})$ is in $H_1^{\infty}(S(\sigma))$ and for $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ $$\| \tilde{\psi} (-i\cdot + B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} = \| \psi (\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},
\frac{dt}{t},X)}.$$
Of course this theorem allows to derive the results of Section 7 from Section 6. Since the case of sectorial operators is of particular interest in applications, we prefer the direct arguments of Section 7.
a\) By Lemma 8.2b) we have $\| \psi (A)\| = \| \tilde{\psi}(B)\|$ for all $\psi \in H_1^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$. Of course for $\varphi \in
H_1^{\infty}(S(\sigma))$ there is a $\psi \in H_1^{\infty}(\Sigma(\sigma))$ with $\varphi = \tilde{\psi}$, namely $\psi (\mu)= \varphi(\textstyle
\frac{1}{i} \ln \mu)$.
b\) Put $\psi (\lambda) = \lambda^{it}$, $\tilde{\psi}(\mu) = e^{-t \mu}$ and $\psi_n (\lambda) = \varphi_n (\lambda) \lambda^{it}$, $\tilde{\psi}_n(\mu)=$ $\varphi_n(e^{i \mu})$ $e^{- t \mu}$, where $\varphi_n
(\lambda) = \textstyle \frac{n}{n+ \lambda} - \frac{1}{1 + n \lambda}$. By 8.2b) we have $\psi_n(A)= \tilde{\psi}_n(B)$. Let $\psi(A)$ and $\tilde{\psi}(B)$ be the (possibly) unbounded operators defined by the extended calculus for $A$ and $B$, respectively. Since $\psi_n(\lambda) \to \psi(\lambda)$ and $\tilde{\psi}_n (\mu) \to
\tilde{\psi}(\mu)$ the convergence lemma implies that $\psi(A)x =
\tilde{\psi}(B)x$ for $x$ in a dense subset of $X$. Hence if one of these operators is bounded so is the other one and $A^{it} = \psi(A)$ equals $\tilde{\psi}(B)$, the semigroup operator generated by $-B$. For a different proof, see [@Ok].
c\) The first part is shown in the same way as 8.2a) using 5.8. For the second part use the integral representation 8.1b), 5.8 and the fact that $$\int\limits_{| \mbox{\tiny{Im} }z| = a} \biggl| \frac{t^{1/2}e^{z/2}}{t+e^z}
\biggr| d|z|= \int\limits_{\partial \Sigma(a)}
\frac{|(\lambda/t)^{1/2}|}{|1+ \lambda/t|} \biggl| \frac{d \lambda}{\lambda}
\biggr| =: C < \infty.$$
d\) Fix $a > \omega(A)$ and $\theta = \pi -a$. Then $e^{- i \theta}A$ is sectorial since $\theta < \pi - \omega(A)$ and we can apply formula (1) from Section 7 with $\theta = \pi -a$ so that for $x \in \cal{R}(A) \cap \cal{D}(A)$ $$\begin{split}
\frac{\pi}{\cosh (\pi s)} e^{(\pi -a)s}A^{is}x & = (-i) \int\limits_0^{\infty}
t^{is} [ (e^{-ia}t)^{1/2}A^{1/2}(e^{-ia}t-A)^{-1}x] \frac{dt}{t} \\
& = (-i) \int\limits_{- \infty}^{\infty} e^{ius} [(e^{-ia} e^u)^{1/2}
A^{1/2}R(e^{-ia}e^u,A)x]du.
\end{split}$$ Since the Fourier transform is an isomorphism on $\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)$ and substitutions which define bounded operators on $L_2$ can also be extended to $\gamma(X)$, we get $$\begin{split}
\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} &\biggl| \biggl| \frac{e^{\pi \cdot}}{\cosh (\pi \cdot)}
e^{-a\cdot}A^{i\cdot}x \biggr| \biggr|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}\\
& = \|(e^{-ia}e^{(\cdot)})^{1/2}A^{1/2}R(e^{-ia}e^{(\cdot)},A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} \\
& = \|A^{1/2}R(e^{-ia} \cdot, A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)}.
\end{split}$$ If we repeat this argument with $- \theta=a - \pi$ then $$\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \biggl| \biggl| \frac{e^{- \pi \cdot}}{\cosh (\pi \cdot)}
e^{a\cdot}A^{i\cdot}x \biggr| \biggr|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} = \|A^{1/2}R(e^{ia} \cdot , A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)}.$$ On the other hand, if $T_s$ is the possibly unbounded operator $\psi_s(B)$, $\psi_s(\lambda) = e^{- s \lambda}$, defined by the extended functional calculus for $B$, then with $\varphi(\lambda) = \textstyle \frac{\lambda}
{(1+ \lambda)^2}$ and $\tilde{\varphi}(\mu) = \textstyle
\frac{e^{i \mu}}{(1+ e^{i \mu})^2} \in H_0^{\infty}(S(a))$ $$R(a-it,B) \tilde{\varphi}(B) y = \int\limits_0^{\infty} e^{is} [e^{-as} T_s
\tilde{\varphi}(B)y]ds.$$ By 4.9 we obtain for $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ (see 4.6b), 6.2) $$\sqrt{2 \pi} \|e^{-a\cdot} T_{(\cdot)} x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} = \|R(a-i\cdot,B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}.$$ In the same way we obtain with $-a$ in place of $a$ $$\sqrt{2 \pi} \|e^{a\cdot}T_{(\cdot)} x \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{-},X)} = \|R(-a-i\cdot,B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}.$$ As in part b) of the proof we see that $A^{is}x = T_sx$ for $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap
\cal{R}(A)$. Since $e^{\pi s}(\cosh \pi s)^{-1} \leq 2$ for $s \geq 0$ and $\textstyle \frac{e^{\pi s}}{\cosh(\pi s)} e^{-2as} \leq 2$ for $s \leq 0$ we conclude from (1), (2) and (3) that for $x \in \cal{D}(A) \cap \cal{R}(A)$ $$\begin{split}
\|A^{1/2} R(e^{-ia} \cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} & \leq 2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\left(
\|e^{-a\cdot}A^{i\cdot}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} + \|e^{a\cdot}A^{i\cdot}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{-},X)}\right) \\
& \leq \sqrt{2\pi}\left(\|R(a-i\cdot,B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} + \|R(-a-i\cdot,B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}\right).
\end{split}$$ Also by (1), (2) and since $e^{\pi s}(\cosh s)^{-1} \geq 1$ for $s \geq 0$ $$\begin{split}
\|R(a-i\cdot,B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} & \leq \sqrt{2 \pi} \|e^{-a\cdot}T_{(\cdot)} x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} = \sqrt{2 \pi} \|e^{-a\cdot}A^{i\cdot}x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} \\
& \leq \sqrt{2\pi} \|A^{- 1/2} R(
e^{-ia} \cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+},X)} .
\end{split}$$ The estimates for $\|A^{1/2}R(e^{ia}\cdot,A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}$ and $\|R(-a-i\cdot,B)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}$ are similar.
e\) By Lemma 8.2 and [@No], Satz 5, we have that $\psi(e^tA) = \tilde{\psi}
(\textstyle \frac{1}{i} \log (e^tA))$ $= \tilde{\psi}(B-it)$ for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Applying the $\gamma$–norm with $x\in X$ gives $$\| \tilde{\psi}(B-i \cdot)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)} = \| \psi (e^{(\cdot)} A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}},X)}
= \|\psi (\cdot A)x\|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t},X)}.$$ Again, the substitution in the $\gamma$–norm is justified as an extention of the substitution in the $L_2$–norm via 4.8.
Suppose that $B$ generates a $C_0$–group on a Banach space $X$ with the UMD–property. By [@Mo], Theorem 4.3, there exists a sectorial operator $A$ (the so–called analytic generator of $B$), so that $A^{is} = e^{-sB}$ for all $s \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Because of the uniqueness of the generator of a $C_0$–group we have then by 8.3b) that $B = \textstyle \frac{1}{i} \log A$. Hence the statements of 8.3 apply to $A$ and its analytic generator $B$.
Littlewood Paley $g$–functions
==============================
A semigroup $T_t$ with generator $A$ defined on the scale $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ for all $1\leq p \leq \infty$ is called a symmetric diffusion semigroup if
- $\| T_t f \|_{L_p(\Omega)} \leq \| f \|_{L_p(\Omega)}$ for all $t>0, 1\leq p \leq \infty$,
- the generator $A$ of $T_t$ is selfadjoint on $L_2(\Omega)$,
- $T_t f \geq 0$ for $f \geq 0$ for all $t>0, f\in L_p(\Omega)$,
- $T_t 1 = 1$.
In [@St], Stein extended the classical $g$–function estimates of Paley-Littlewood to such symmetric diffusion semigroups. For the $g$–functions $$G_k(f)(\cdot) = \left( \int_0^\infty \left\vert t^k \left( \frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k} T_tf \right)(\cdot) \right\vert^2 \frac{dt}{t} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
which are functions on $\Omega$ for $f\in L_1(\Omega) \cap L_\infty(\Omega)$ and $K\in{\mathbb{N}}$, Stein showed that for $1<p<\infty$ $$\label{6}
\frac{1}{C_p} \| f-Q f \|_{L_p(\Omega)} \leq \| G_k(f) \|_{L_p(\Omega)} \leq C_p \| f \|_{L_p(\Omega)}$$
where $Q f = \lim_{n\to\infty} A(\frac{1}{n}+A)^{-1}f$. In [@Cow], Cowling used transference to obtain the same result for semigroups only satisfying (1) and (2) for all $1\leq p \leq \infty$. For $\sigma < \frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\beta=k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ $$G_\beta(f) = g_\beta(tA) f \quad \text{with} \quad g_\beta(\lambda) = \lambda^\beta e^{-\lambda} \in H^\infty_0(\Sigma(\sigma))$$
and $A$ is sectorial on the subspace $\overline{\cal{R}(A)}=\cal{R}(I-Q)$, complemented in $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ for $1<p<\infty$ (see [@KuWe], Proposition 15.2). Since $\frac{d^k}{dt^k} T_t = A^k T_t$, it is clear that estimate (\[6\]) also follows from Proposition 7.7 applied to $g_\beta$ if $A$ has an $H^\infty$-functional calculus on $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$ with $\sigma < \frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\beta\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For a semigroup $T_t$ on $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ for a single $p\in(1,\infty)$, which is bounded analytic and satisfies (1) and (3), this was shown in [@KW1], Corollary 5.2. Therefore we obtain a further extension of Stein’s result (\[6\]):
Let $p\in(1,\infty)$ and suppose that $(-A)$ generates an analytic semigroup on $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ such that $T_t, t>0$, satisfies (1) and (3). Then $T_t$ satisfies the Paley-Littlewood estimate (\[6\]).
Moreover, we can get Paley-Littlewood estimates for semigroups $T_t$ on Bochner spaces $L_p(\Omega,\mu,X)$. Recall that ${{\bf T}^\otimes}_t$ stands for the tensor extension of $T_t$ to $L_p(\Omega) \otimes X$. If ${{\bf T}^\otimes}_t$ defines a semigroup on $L_p(\Omega,X)$, we denote its generator bei ${{\bf A}^\otimes}= A \otimes I$ and (\[6\]) takes now the form $$\label{8}
\frac{1}{C_p} \| f-E_0 f \|_{L_p(\Omega,X)} \leq \| g_\beta(\cdot {{\bf A}^\otimes})f \|_{\gamma({\mathbb{R}}_{+}, \frac{dt}{t},L_p(\Omega,X))} \leq C_p \| f \|_{L_p(\Omega,X)}$$
for $f\in L_p(\Omega,X)$ if $\beta\in{\mathbb{N}}$. First we verify such estimates for the Gaussian and the Poisson semigroup on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n,X)$. This will give a continuous analogue to Bourgain’s Paley Littlewood decomposition of $L_p(\mathbb{T},X)$, which characterizes UMD-spaces.
Let $\Delta$ be the generator of the Gaussian semigroup $T_t$ on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for $1<p<\infty$. If $X$ is a UMD-space, then $A^\alpha = (-\Delta)^\alpha \otimes I$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n,X)$ for all $\sigma > 0$ and all $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and satisfies the Paley-Littlewood estimate (\[8\]) for all $\beta > 0$. Conversely, either one of these conditions implies that $X$ is a UMD-space.
$B_i = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \otimes I$ generates the translation group $(U_i(t)f)(x)=f(x+te_i)$ on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n,X)$. Since $U_i$ is bounded and $X$ is a UMD-space, it follows from Corollary 2 in [@CP] that $-B_i^2 = -\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i^2} \otimes I \right)$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus for all $\sigma > 0$. Since the $U_i(t)$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, commute it follows from [@LeM0], Theorem 1.1, that $A=-(\Delta \otimes I)=-\sum_{i=1}^n B_i^2$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n,X)$ for all $\sigma>0$. The same is true for $A^\alpha$ with $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Now (\[8\]) follows from Proposition 7.7 with $\psi=g_\beta$.\
Conversely, the boundedness of the $H^\infty$-calculus of $A^\alpha$ for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$ implies that $A$ has bounded imaginary powers. By the main result of [@GD], $X$ has to be a UMD-space. If (\[8\]) holds for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $\beta = \frac{1}{2}$, then theorem 7.2 and the second remark in 7.3 show that $A^\alpha$ has an $H^\infty$-calculus and we can repeat the last argument.
Note that for $\alpha = \frac{1}{2}$ this result includes the Poisson semigroup on $L_p({\mathbb{R}}^n,X)$. For more general diffusion semigoups, we have the following partial results.
Let $1<p_0\leq 2 \leq p_1 < \infty$. Suppose that $(-A)$ generates a bounded analytic semigroup on $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ for $p\in[p_0,p_1]$ such that $T_t$, $t>0$, is contractive and positive on $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ (i.e. (1) and (3) are satisfied). Suppose further that $X=[X_0,H]_{\theta}$ is a complex interpolation space of a UMD-space $X_0$ and a Hilbert space $H$ with $\theta \in (0,1)$.\
Then ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus for some $\sigma < \frac{\pi}{2}$ on $L_p(\Omega,X)$ with $p\in(p_0,p_1)$ and the semigroup generated by $(-{{\bf A}^\otimes})$ satisfies the Paley-Littlewood estimate (\[8\]) for all $\beta>0$.
By a theorem of Fendler ([@Fend]) the positive contraction semigroup $T_t$ on $L_p(\Omega), p_0\leq p \leq p_1$, has a dilation to a group of positive isometries $U_t$ on a space $L_p(\tilde{\Omega})$, i.e. $JT_t = PU_t J$, where $J:L_p(\Omega) \to L_p(\tilde{\Omega})$ is a positive embedding and $P:L_p(\tilde{\Omega}) \to L_p(\Omega)$ a positive projection. By a standard extension theorem for positive operators (see e.g. [@KuWe], 10.14), $T_t$, $U_t$, $P$ and $J$ can be extended to a contractive semigroup ${{\bf T}^\otimes}_t$ on $L_p(\Omega,X)$ and a group of isometries ${{\bf U}^\otimes}_t$ on $L_p(\tilde{\Omega},X)$ so that ${{\bf J}^\otimes}{{\bf T}^\otimes}_t = {{\bf P}^\otimes}{{\bf U}^\otimes}_t {{\bf J}^\otimes}$. Since $X$ is a UMD space the generator ${{\bf B}^\otimes}$ of ${{\bf U}^\otimes}_t$ on $L_p(\tilde{\Omega})$ and therefore by the dilation relation ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ on $L_p(\Omega,X)$ have an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\nu))$-calculus for all $\nu > \frac{\pi}{2}$, cf. [@HP]. The same is true for ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ on $L_p(\Omega,H)$ for $p_0<p<p_1$. However, on $L_2(\Omega,H)$, ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus for the same $\sigma < \frac{\pi}{2}$ that appears in our assumption on $A$. This is true since we can extend the bounded operators $\Psi(A)$, $\Psi \in H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$, to operators ${{\bf \Psi(A)}^\otimes}$ on $L_2(\Omega,H)$ (see e.g. [@KuWe], Lemma 11.11). By complex interpolation in the $L_q(\Omega,H)$ scale, ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma_\mu)$-calculus with $\mu < \frac{\pi}{2}$ on $L_p(\Omega,H)$ for all $p_0<p<p_1$ (cf. [@KKW], Proposition 4.9). Since $[L_p(\Omega,X_0),L_p(\Omega,H)]_\theta = L_p(\Omega,X)$, the same proposition implies now that ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma_\mu)$-calculus with $\mu < \frac{\pi}{2}$ on $L_p(\Omega,X)$ for $p_0<p<p_1$. Now we can apply 7.7 to $\psi=g_\beta$.
The theorem holds for all Banach lattices $X$ with the UMD property. Indeed, such $X$ are always interpolation spaces $X=[X_0,H]_\theta$ with some UMD Banach lattice $X_0$ and a Hilbert space $H$ as shown in [@Span]. Note also that in a Banach lattice $X$, the Paley-Littlewood estimate (\[8\]) for $\beta\in{\mathbb{N}}$ takes the more traditional form $$\frac{1}{C_p} \| f \|_{L_p(\Omega,X)} \leq \left( \int_\Omega \left\Vert \int_0^\infty \left\vert t^\beta \left( \frac{d^\beta}{dt^\beta} T_t f \right)(\cdot) \right\vert^2 \frac{dt}{t} \right\Vert_X^p d\mu(\cdot) \right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \leq C_p \| f \|_{L_p(\Omega,X)}$$
(see 3.6). For the Laplace operator and the Gaussian semigroup on $L_p(\mathbb{T}^n,X)$, this was already shown in [@Xu], Theorem 4.1.
Let $p\in(1,\infty)$. Suppose that $(-A)$ generates a bounded analytic semigroup on $L_p(\Omega,\mu)$ such that $T_t$, $t>0$, is contractive and positive on $L_p(\Omega)$.\
Then for every UMD-space $X$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$, the fractional power ${\bf (A^\alpha)}^\otimes$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus for some $\sigma < \frac{\pi}{2}$ on $L_p(\Omega,X)$ and the semigroup generated by ${\bf (A^\alpha)}^\otimes$ satisfies the Paley-Littlewood estimate (\[8\]) for all $\beta>0$.
The first part of the argument of Theorem 9.3 shows that ${{\bf A}^\otimes}$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\nu))$-calculus for all $\nu > \frac{\pi}{2}$ on $L_p(\Omega,X)$. Then ${\bf (A^\alpha)}^\otimes = ({{\bf A}^\otimes})^\alpha$ has an $H^\infty(\Sigma(\sigma))$-calculus with $\sigma=\alpha\nu < \frac{\pi}{2}$ for $\nu$ close enough to $\frac{\pi}{2}$. Apply now 7.7 again.
For diffusion semigroups satisfying (1) to (4), the results of 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 were shown independently by Hytönen in [@Hyt1]. Instead of using the $H^\infty$-calculus, he extends the original argument of Stein in [@St] to the vector-valued case. However, our results also cover semigroups defined only on a part of the $L_p$ scale.
[111]{} Abreu J., Haak B. and van Neerven J. *The stochastic Weiss conjecture for bounded analytic semigroups,* Journal of the London Math. Society 88(1) (2013), 181–201. Amann H., Hieber M. and Simonett G. *Bounded $H_{\infty}$–calculus for elliptic operators,* Differential Integral Equations 7 (1994), 613–653. Auscher P., Hofmann S., Lacey M., McIntosh A. and Tchamitchian P. *the solution of the Kato square root problem for second order elliptic operators on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$,* Annals of Mathematics 156 (2002), 633–654. Auscher P., McIntosh A. and Nahmod, A. *The square root problem of Kato in one dimension, and first order elliptic systems,* Indiana Univ. Math. J. 46 (1997), 659–695. Batty C.J., Haase M. and Mubeen J. *The holomorphic functional calculus approach to opertor semigroups,* Acta Sci. Math. Univ. Szeged 79 (2013), 289–323. Berkson E. and Gillespie T.A. *Spectral decompositions and harmonic analysis on UMD spaces,* Studia Math. 112 (1994), 13–49. Betancor J.J., Castro A.J., Fariña J.C., Rodríguez-Mesa L. *UMD Banach spaces and square functions associated with heat semigroups for Schrödinger and Laguerre operators,* arXiv preprint <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4482> (2012). Blunck S. and Kunstmann P.C. *Weighted norm estimates and maximal regularity,* Advances in Differential Equations 7(12) (2002), 1513–1532. Blunck S. and Kunstmann P.C. *Calderón-Zygmund theory for non–integral operators and the $H^\infty$ functional calculus,* Revista Matemática Iberoamericana 19(3) (2003), 919–942. Bourgain J., *Vector–valued singular integrals and the $H^1$–BMO duality,* Probability theory and harmonic analysis (Cleveland, Ohio, 1983), 1–19, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics 98 (Dekker, New York, 1986). Boyadzhiev K. and deLaubenfels R. *Spectral theorem for unbounded strongly continuous groups on a Hilbert space,* Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 120 (1994), 127–136. Clément P. and Prüss J. *An operator–valued transference principle and maximal regularity on vector–valued $L_p$–spaces,* Evolution equations and their applications in physical and life sciences (Bad Herrenalb, 1998), 67–87. Clément P., de Pagter B., Sukochev F. and Witvliet H. *Schauder decomposition and multiplier theorems,* Studia Mathematica 138(2) (2000), 135–163. Conway J. *A course in functional analysis,* Springer (1990). Cowling M. *Harmonic analysis on semigroups,* Annals of Mathematics 117 (1983), 267–283. Cowling M., Doust I., McIntosh A. and Yagi A. *Banach space operators with a bounded $H^{\infty}$–calculus,* J. Austral. Math. Soc. 60 (1996), 51–89. Cox S. and van Neerven J. *Convergence rates of the splitting scheme for parabolic linear stochastic Cauchy problems,* SIAM J. on Num. Anal. 48(2) (2010), 428–451. Cox. S.G. and van Neerven J. *Pathwise Hölder convergence of the implicit Euler scheme for semi-linear SPDEs with multiplicative noise,* arXiv preprint <http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4465> (2012). Denk R., Hieber M. and Prüss J. *$R$–boundedness, Fourier multipliers and problems of elliptic and parabolic type,* Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 166 (2003), viii+114. Denk R., Dore G., Hieber M., Prüss J. and Venni A. *New thoughts on old results of R.T.Seeley,* Mathematische Annalen 328(4) (2004), 545–583. Dettweiler J., Weis L. and van Neerven J. *Space-time regularity of solutions of the perabolic stochastic Cauchy problem,* Stoch. Analysis and Appl. 24(4) (2006), 843–869. Diestel J., Jarchow H. and Tonge A. *Absolutely summing operators,* Cambridge (1995). Diestel J. and Uhl J. *Vector measures,* Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, (1977). Dunford N. and Schwartz J. *Linear operators III,* Wiley (1988). Duong X. T. and McIntosh A. *Functional calculi of second–order elliptic partial differential operators with bounded measurable coefficients,* J. Geom. Anal. 6 (1996), 181–205. Duong X. T. *$H^{\infty}$–functional calculus of second order elliptic partial differential operators on $L^p$–spaces,* Proc. Centre for Math. Analysis ANU, Canberra 24 (1989), 91–102. Fendler G. *Dilations of one-parameter semigroups of positive contractions on $L^p$-spaces,* Canadian Journal of Mathematics 49(4) (1997), 736–748. Franks E. and McIntosh A. *Discrete quadratic estimates and holomorphic functional calculi in Banach spaces,* Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 58 (1998), 271–290. Fröhlich A.M. and Weis L. *$H^\infty$ calculus and dilations,* Bull. Soc. Math. France 134(4) (2006), 487–508. Girardi M. and Weis L. *Operator–valued Fourier multiplier theorems on $L_p(X)$ and geometry of Banach spaces,* Journal of Functional Analysis 204 (2003), 320–354. Girardi M. and Weis L. *Criteria for $R$–boundedness of operator families,* Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics 234 (2003), 203–221. Guerre-Delabrière S. *Some remarks on complex powers of $(-\Delta)$ and UMD spaces,* Illinois Journal of Mathematics 35 (1991), 401–407. Haak B.H. and Haase M. *Square Function Estimates and Functional Calculi,* arXiv preprint <http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0453> (2013). Haak B.H., Haase M. and Kunstmann P.C. *Perturbation, inertpolation, and maximal regularity,* Advances in Differential Equations 11(2) (2006), 201–240. Haak B.H. and Kunstmann P.C. *Admissibility of unbounded operators and wellposedness of linear systems in Banach spaces,* Integral Equations and Operator Theory 57 (2006), 497–533. Haak B.H. and Le Merdy C. *$\alpha$-admissibility of obervation and control operators,* Houston J. Math. 31(4) (2005), 1153–1167. Haak B., van Neerven J. and Veraar M. *A stochastic Datko-Pazy theorem,* Journal of mathematical analysis and applications 329(2) (2007), 1230–1239. Haase M. *A decomposition theorem for generators of strongly continuous groups on Hilbert space,* Journal of Operator Theory 51 (2004), 1–17. Haase M. *A characterization of group generators on Hilbert space and the $H^{\infty}$–calculus,* Semigroup Forum 66(2) (2003), 288–304. Haase M. *Transference principle for semigroups and a theorem of Peller,* Journal of Functional Analysis 261(10) (2011), 2959–2989. Haase M. *The Functional Calculus for Sectorial Operators,* Birkhäuser (2006). Haase M., Rozendaal, M. *Functional calculus for semigroup generators via transference,* Journal of Functional Anaylsis 265(12) (2013), 3345–3368. Han Y.–S. and Meyer Y. *A characterization of Hilbert spaces and the vector–valued Littlewood–Paley theorem,* Math. Appl. Anal. 3 (1996), 228–234. Hieber M. and Prüss J. *Functional calculi for linear operators in vector–valued $L^p$–spaces via the transference principle,* Adv. Differential Equations 3 (1998), 847–872. Hytönen T.P. *Aspects of probabilistic Littlewood-Paley theory in Banach spaces,* Banach spaces and their applications in analysis (2007), 343–355. Hytönen T.P. *Square functions in Banach spaces,* <http://130.161.208.20/seminar/seminar2004_2005/seminar_04_05.pdf> (2004). Hytönen T.P. *Littlewood-Paley-Stein theory for semigroups in UMD spaces,* Revista Matemática Iberoamericana 23(3) (2007), 973–1009. Hytönen T.P., van Neerven J. and Portal P. *Conical square function estimates in UMD Banach spaces and applications to $H^\infty$-functional calculi,* Journal d’Analyse Mathématique 106(1) (2008), 317–351. Hytönen T.P. and Weis L. *On the necessity of property $(\alpha)$ for some vector-valued multiplier theorems,* Archiv der Mathematik 90(1) (2008), 44–52. Hytönen T.P. and Weis L. *The Banach space-valued BMO, Carleson’s condition, and paraproducts,* Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications 16(4) (2010), 495–513. Kaiser C. and Weis L. *Wavelet transform for functions with values in UMD spaces,* Studia Math. 186(2) (2008), 101–126. Kalton N., Kunstmann P. and Weis L. *Perturbation and Interpolation theorems for the $H^\infty$-calculus with Applications to Differential Operators,* Mathematische Annalen 336 (2006), 747–801. Kalton N. J. and Lancien G. *A solution to the problem of $L^p$–maximal regularity,* Mathematische Zeitschrift 235(3) (2000), 559–568. Kalton N., van Neerven J., Mark M. and Weis L. *Embedding vector-valued Besov spaces into spaces of $\gamma$-radonifying operators,* Mathematische Nachrichten 281(2) (2008), 238–252. Kalton N. J. and Weis L. *The $H^{\infty}$–calculus and sums of closed operators,* Math. Ann. 321(2) (2001), 319–345. Kalton N. J. and Weis L. *Euclidean Structures,* in preparation. Komatsu H. *Fractional powers of operators,* Pacific Journal of Mathematics 19 (1966), 285–346. Kriegler C. *Functional calculus and dilation for $C_0$-groups of Polynomial growth,* Semigroup Forum 84 (2012), 393–433. Kriegler C. *Hörmander type functional calculus and square function estimates,* Journal of Operator theory 71(1) (2014), 223–257. Kunstmann P. and Ullmann A. *$\mathcal{R}_s$-Sectorial Operators and Generalized Triebel–Lizorkin Spaces,* Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications 20 (2012), 135–185. Kunstmann P., Weis L. *Maximal $L_p$-regularity for parabolic equations, Fourier multiplier theorems and $H^\infty$-functional calculus,* Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1855 (2003), 65–311. Kunze M.C. *Perturbation of strong feller semigroups and well-posedness of semilinear stochastic equations on banach spaces,* Stochastics An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes 85(6) (2013), 960–986. Kunze M. and van Neerven J. *Approximating the coefficients in semilinear stochastic partial differential equations,* Journal of Evolution Equations 11(3) (2011), 577–604. Kwapien S. *On Banach spaces containing $c_0$,* Studia Mathematica 52 (1974), 187–188. Lancien F., Lancien G. and Le Merdy C. *A joint functional calculus for sectorial operators with resolvent,* Proc. London Math. Soc. 77 (1998) 387–414. Lancien G. *Counterexamples concerning sectorial operators,* Archiv Math. 71 (1998) 388–398. Ledoux M. and Talagrand M. *Probability theory in Banach spaces,* Springer (1991). Le Merdy C. *$H^{\infty}$–functional calculus and applications to maximal regularity,* Publications Mathématiques de Besançon, Fasicule 16 (1999). Le Merdy C. *Two results about $H^\infty$ functional calculus on analytic UMD Banach spaces,* Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society 74(3) (2003), 351–378. Le Merdy C. *On square functions associated to sectorial operators,* Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France 132 (2004), 137–156. Le Merdy C. *Square functions, bounded analytic semigroups, and applications,* Banach Center Puclications 75 (2007), 191–220. Le Merdy C. *$H^\infty$ functional calculus and square function estimates for Ritt operators,* arXiv preprint <http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0768> (2012). Le Merdy C. *A sharp equivalence between $H^\infty$ functional calculus and square function estimates,* Journal of Evolution Equations 12 (2012), 789–800. Linde W. and Pietsch A. *Mappings of Gaussian cylindrical measures in Banach spaces,* Theory of Probability and Applications 19 (1974), 445–460. Lindenstrauss J. and Tzafriri L. *Classical Banach spaces II,* Springer Verlag, Berlin (1979). Maas J. and van Neerven J. *A Clark-Ocone formula in UMD Banach spaces,* Electron. Commun. Probab 13 (2008), 151–164. Maas J. and van Neerven J. *Boundedness of Riesz transforms for elliptic operators on abstract Wiener spaces,* Journal of Functional Analysis 257(8) (2009), 2410–2475. McIntosh A. *Operators which have an $H_{\infty}$–functional calculus,* Miniconference on operator theory and partial differential equations (North Ryde, 1986), 210–231, Proc. Centre Math. Anal. Austral. Nat. Univ., 14, Austral. Nat. Univ., Canberra (1986). Monniaux S. *A new approach to the Dore–Venni–theorem,* Math. Nachrichten 204 (1999) 163–183. van Neerven J. *$\gamma$-radonifying operators – a survey,* The AMSI-ANU workshop on spectral theory and harmonic analysis 44 (2010), 1–61. van Neerven J and Veraar M. *On the action of Lipschitz functions on vector-valued random sums,* Archiv der Mathematik 85(6) (2005), 544–553. van Neerven J.M.A.M., M.C. Veraar and Weis L. *Stochastic integration in UMD Banach spaces,* The Annals of Probability 35(4) (2007), 1438–1478. van Neerven J., M.C. Veraar and Weis L. *Conditions for stochastic integrability in UMD Banach spaces,* Banach spaces and their applications in analysis, De Gruyter Proceedings in Mathematics (2007), 125–146. van Neerven J., M.C. Veraar and Weis L. *Stochastic evolution equations in UMD Banach spaces,* Journal of Functional Analysis 255(4) (2008), 940–993. van Neerven J., M. Veraar and Weis L. *Stochastic maximal $L^p$-regularity,* The Annals of Probability 40(2) (2012), 788–812. van Neerven J., M. Veraar and Weis L. *Maximal $L^p$-Regularity for Stochastic Evolution Equations,* SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 44(3) (2012), 1372–1414. van Neerven J., M. Veraar and Weis L. *Maximal gamma-regularity,* arXiv preprint <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3782> (2012). van Neerven J., M. Veraar and Weis L. *Stochastic integration in Banach spaces – a survey,* arXiv preprint <http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7575> (2013). van Neerven J. and Weis L. *Stochastic integration of functions with values in a Banach space,* Studia Math 166(2) (2005), 131–170. van Neerven J. and Weis L. *Invariant measures for the linear stochastic Cauchy problen abd $R$-boundedness of the resolvent,* Journal of Evolution Equations 6(2) (2006), 205–228. Nollan V. *Über den Logarithmus abgeschlossener Operatoren in Banachschen Räumen,* Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 30 (1969) 161–174. Okazawa N. *Logarithmic characterizations of bounded imaginary powers,* Semigroups of Operators: Theory and Applications, Birkhäuser Basel, 229–237. Pisier G. *Some results on Banach spaces without local unconditional structure,* Comp. Math. 37 (1978) 3–19. Pisier G. *Holomorphic semigroups and the geometry of Banach spaces,* Annals of Math. (2) 115 (1982) 375–392. Pisier G. *Factorization of linear operators and geometry of Banach spaces,* CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, American Mathematical Society (60), Providence, R. I. (1986). Pisier G. *The volume of convex bodies and Banach space geometry,* Cambrige University Press (1989). Pronk M. and Veraar M. *Tools for Malliavin calcukus in UMD Banach spaces,* Potential Analysis (2012), 1–38. Rubio de Francia J.L. *Martingale and integral transforms of Banach space valued functions,* Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1221 (1986), 195–222. Schnaubelt R. and Veraar M. *Structurally damped plate and wave equations with random point force in arbitrary space dimensions,* Differential and Integral Equations 23(9/10) (2010), 957–988. Stein E. *Topics in Harmonic Analysis Related to the Paley-Littlewood theory,* Annalys of Mathematical Studies 63, Princeton 1970. Veraar M.C. *Embedding results for $\gamma$-spaces,* Recent Trends in Analysis: proceedings of the conference in honor of Nikolai Nikolski (Bordeaux, 2011), Theta series in Advanced Mathematics (2012), 209–220. Veraar M.C. *Non-autonomous stochastic evolution equations and applications to stochastic partial differential equations,* Journal of Evolution Equations 10(1) (2010), 85–127. Veraar M.C. *Continuous local martingales and stochastic integration in UMD Banach spaces,* Stochastics: An International Journal of Probabilty and Stochastic Processes 79(6) (2007), 601–618. Veraar M. and Weis L. *A note on maximal estimates for stochastic convolutions,* Czechoslovak mathematical journal 61(3) (2011), 743–758. Veraar M. and Weis L. *On semi-$R$-boundedness and its applications,* Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 363(2) (2010), 431–443. Veraar M.C. and Zimmerschied J. *Non-autonomous stochastic Cauchy problems in Banach spaces,* Studia Math 185(1) (2008), 1–34. Weis L. *The $H^\infty$ holomorphic functional calculus for sectorial operators – a survey,* Partial differential equations and functional analysis (2006), 263–294. Weis L. *Operator–valued Fourier multiplier theorems and maximal regularity,* Mathematische Annalen 319(4) (2001), 735–758 Weis L. *A new approach to maximal $L_p$–regularity,* to appear in Proc. of the 6th. International Conference on Evolution Equations, (G. Lumer and L. Weis editors), Marcel Dekker (2000). Xu Q. *Littlewood–Paley theory for functions with values in uniformly convex spaces,* J. für reine und angewandte Mathematik 504, (1998) 195–226.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I investigate the possibility to define the sign of the leptonic asymmetry by the low energy parameters. It is shown that in the context of the minimal renormalizable $SO(10)$ model the sign of the matter-antimatter asymmetry can be defined by the leptonic mixing and masses in the case of Type II see-saw.'
author:
- Pavel Fileviez Pérez
title: 'IS IT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT THE SIGN OF THE MATTER-ANTIMATTER ASYMMETRY IN THE UNIVERSE?'
---
The problem of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe is one of the most interesting problems in modern physics. There are many scenarios where we could explain the absence of antimatter in the Universe [@Early]. Baryogenesis via leptogenesis is one of the most popular mechanisms where it is possible to predict the baryon asymmetry in a very simple way [@Yanagida].
In this letter we investigate the possibility to define the sign of the baryon asymmetry in the Universe in the context of the $SO(10)$ models [@SO(10)].
In minimal renormalizable $SO(10)$ the Higgs sector is composed by $10_H$ and $126_H$. In this model the Yukawa couplings for leptons are given by [@Babu]: $$\begin{aligned}
Y_N \ = \ U_{11}^H \ Y_{10} \ - \ 3 \ U_{21}^H \ Y_{126}\\
Y_E \ = \ D_{11}^H \ Y_{10} \ - \ 3 \ D_{21}^H \ Y_{126} \ = \ E_C^* \ Y_{E}^{diag} \ E^{\dagger} \end{aligned}$$ where $Y_N$ and $Y_E$ are the Dirac Yukawa coupling matrices for neutrinos and charged leptons, respectively; $U_{11}^H=v_{10}^u / v^{u}$, $D_{11}^H=v_{10}^d / v^{d}$, $U_{21}^H=v_{126}^u / v^{u}$, and $D_{21}^H=v_{126}^d / v^{d}$. The parameters $v_i$ are the expectation values entering in the theory. $E_C$ and $E$ are the matrices which diagonalize the Yukawa coupling matrix for charged leptons. Since the Yukawa couplings in this model are symmetric, $E_C = E K_3$. $E^{\dagger}N = K_e \ V_{PMNS}$, where $K_e$ and $K_3$ are matrices containing three CP violating phases, and $N$ is the matrix which diagonalize the Yukawa coupling matrix for left-handed neutrinos.
In those models the so-called Type II see-saw [@see-saw] contribution for neutrino mass is given by: $$M_{\nu}^{II} \ = \ Y_{126} \ v_L$$ while the mass of the right-handed neutrinos read as: $$M_R \ = \ Y_{126} \ v_R$$ with $v_L$ and $v_R$ the vacuum expectation values of the triplets $\Delta_L$ and $\Delta_R$, respectively (for more details see reference [@Babu]). Now, using the above equations we can write $Y_N$ in the following way: $$Y_N \ = \ c_1 \ V_{PMNS}^T \ K \ Y_E^{diag} \ V_{PMNS} \ + \ c_2 \ M_{\nu}^{II}$$ where $K= K_e^2 K_3^*$, while $c_1$ and $c_2$ are given by: $$c_1=\frac{U_{11}^H}{D_{11}^H}$$ $$c_2=3 \frac{(U_{11}^H D_{21}^H - U_{21}^H D_{11}^H)}{v_L D_{11}^H}$$ Notice that we can choose the parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$ as real. Now, since the matrix $K_3$ is arbitrary or unphysical, we are allow to choose $K_3= K_e^2$, i.e. we can rotate the right-handed charged leptons in such way that we can satisfy this relation. You could think about the possibility that those phases contribute to any physical process. For example, in the most important prediction coming from grand unified theories, in the decay of the proton, the phases in $K_3$ do not appear in the different proton decay channels [@PFP]. Therefore, working in the Type II see-saw limit the above expression for $Y_N$ read as: $$\label{YN}
Y_N \ = \ c_1 \ V_{PMNS}^T \ Y_E^{diag} V_{PMNS} \ + \ c_2 \ M_{\nu}^{diag}$$
Now let us investigate the implications for the different mechanisms of Baryogenesis via Leptogenesis [@Yanagida] in the case of Type II see-saw.
In reference [@GoranHambye] the authors studied the different scenarios for leptogenesis in the context of left-right models. Let us analyze the cases when the Type II mechanism dominates. We have two cases [@GoranHambye]:
- [**Case a)**]{} $M_{N_K} << M_{\Delta_L}$ (take $k=1$ for the lightest right-handed neutrino)
In this case the lepton asymmetry is generated by the decays of the lightest right-handed neutrino. $M_{N_K}$ and $M_{\Delta_L}$ are the right-handed neutrino and triplet masses, respectively. The sign of the lepton-asymmetry in this case is defined by:
$$\text{sign}(\epsilon^{\Delta_L}_{N_1})\ = \ - \text{sign}[ \ \text{Im} (Y_N \ M_{\nu}^{diag} \ Y_N^T)_{11} \ ]$$
- [**Case b)**]{} $M_{\Delta_L} << M_{N_K}$
It is the so-called Triplet leptogenesis. Here the sign of the lepton asymmetry is given by:
$$\text{sign}(\epsilon_{\Delta_L}) \ = \
\text{sign} [ \ \text{Im} (Y_N^* \ M_{\nu}^{diag} \ Y_N^{\dagger})_{11} \ ] \ = \ \text{sign}(\epsilon^{\Delta_L}_{N_1})$$
Now, since it has been shown before that in case of Type II see-saw, $Y_N$ is given by the Eq. (\[YN\]). Therefore we can conclude that the sign of the lepton-asymmetry could be defined by matrix $V_{PMNS}$ and the leptonic masses. However, in those theories it is very difficult to predict the real parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$. The simplest way to predict the sign of the lepton asymmetry from the low energy parameters of the leptonic sector, is assuming that we have one massless neutrino, therefore the sign of the lepton asymmetry will be independent on the parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$.
In future neutrino experiments we will know about all CP violating phases in the leptonic sector. Therefore we will able to understand much better quantitatively the connection between the sign of the baryon asymmetry and the low energy parameters in the context of the minimal renormalizable $SO(10)$ model.
The main conclusion of this Letter is that it is possible to find a direct connection between the sign of the matter-antimatter asymmetry and the low energy parameters of the leptonic sector in the context of the renormalizable minimal $SO(10)$ theory if the Type II see-saw term for neutrino masses dominates. The sign of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe can be defined by the low energy physical quantities.
I would like to thank Gustavo C. Branco, R. Gonzalez Felipe, Thomas Hambye and Goran Senjanović for discussions and comments. I would like to thank G. Walsch for strong support.
[99]{} E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, *The Early Universe*, Addison-Wesley (1990)
M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**174**]{} (1986) 45. V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**155**]{} (1985) 36. For a review see: W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei and T. Yanagida, arXiv:hep-ph/0502169. A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**49**]{} (1999) 35 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9901362\]. See also: G. C. Branco, R. Gonzalez Felipe, F. R. Joaquim, I. Masina, M. N. Rebelo and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 073025,\[arXiv:hep-ph/0211001\]. T. Hambye, arXiv:hep-ph/0412053 and references there.
H. Georgi, in *Particles and Fields*, ed. C. E. Carlson (AIP, New York, 1975) 575. H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals Phys. [**93**]{} (1975) 193.
K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} (1993) 2845 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9209215\]. C. S. Aulakh, B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanović and F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B [**588**]{} (2004) 196 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0306242\]. B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanović and F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 035007 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0402122\]. See also: B. Bajc, G. Senjanović and F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 051802 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0210207\]. H. S. Goh, R. N. Mohapatra and S. P. Ng, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 115008 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308197\]. K. S. Babu and C. Macesanu, arXiv:hep-ph/0505200 and references there.
P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B [**67**]{} (1977) 421; T. Yanagida, proceedings of the [*Workshop on Unified Theories and Baryon Number in the Universe*]{}, Tsukuba, 1979, eds. A. Sawada, A. Sugamoto, KEK Report No. 79-18, Tsukuba. S. Glashow, in [*Quarks and Leptons, Cargèse 1979*]{}, eds. M. L' evy. et al., (Plenum, 1980, N ew York). M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, R. Slansky, proceedings of the [*Supergravity Stony Brook Workshop*]{}, New York, 1979, eds. P. Van Niewenhuizen, D. Freeman (North-Holland, Amsterdam). R. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovi' c, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**44**]{} (1980) 912 P. Fileviez Pérez, Phys. Lett. B [**595**]{} (2004) 476 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0403286\].
T. Hambye and G. Senjanović, Phys. Lett. B [**582**]{} (2004) 73 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0307237\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the fermion determinant for 2-D Wilson lattice fermions coupled to an external scalar field is equivalent to self avoiding loops interacting with the external field. In an application of the resulting formula we integrate the scalar field with a Gaussian action to generate the $N$-component Gross-Neveu model. The loop representation for this model is discussed.'
---
MIT-CTP-2800\
hep-lat/9811014
[**Christof Gattringer**]{}
Massachusetts Institute of Technology\
Center for Theoretical Physics\
77 Massachusetts Avenue\
Cambridge MA 02129, USA
PACS: 11.15.Ha\
Key words: Lattice field theory, fermion determinant
Introduction
============
The fermion determinant is a highly non-local object as can e.g. be seen from the hopping expansion for lattice regularized fermions (see [@MoMu94] for a basic introduction). The hopping expansion expresses the fermion determinant as the exponential of a sum over all possible closed loops and the external field variables along a loop are collected as factors for this loop. The exponential function can then be expanded and the result is a representation of the fermion determinant in terms of loops. The loop-sum in the exponent, however, contains loops of arbitrary length, which can also iterate parts or all of their contour arbitrarily often. Thus, the exponent contains arbitrarily high powers of the external fields. On the other hand we know that, at least on a finite lattice, the fermion determinant is a finite polynomial in the external fields, and thus infinitely many contributions present in the exponent have to cancel each other when expanding the exponential. The result has to be a relatively simple loop representation for the fermion determinant.
For the case of staggered fermions several papers can be found in the literature [@RoWo84]-[@Mo90] where polymer representations for the fermions are obtained. For the case of Wilson fermions relatively few is known due to the more involved spinor structure of the fermions. Here we concentrate on 2-D Wilson fermions.
An instance where the above discussed cancellation of contributions was brought under control for a model with Wilson fermions is Salmhofer’s mapping of the strongly coupled lattice Schwinger model to a self avoiding loop model [@Sa91]. In a first step the gauge fields at strong (=infinite) coupling were integrated out and the remaining Grassmann integral was then represented as a sum over loops. Subsequently Scharnhorst studied the two-flavor lattice Schwinger model with this method [@Sch96] and extended the techniques to find a two-color loop model for the 2-D lattice Thirring model [@Sch97]. In all of these cases, however the external field was either integrated out in the strong coupling limit [@Sa91; @Sch96] or wasn’t present at all [@Sch97]. On the other hand, our arguments given in the first paragraph show that the cancellation of higher winding loops is a universal phenomenon and that it should be possible to find a simple loop representation also for the fermion determinant in an external field.
In this article we present a simple formula for the fermion determinant of 2-D Wilson lattice fermions in a scalar background field (Eq. (\[equivalence\])). The proof is based on a result for the hopping expansion for a generalized 8-vertex model where the vertices are coupled to a background field [@Ga98b]. With a proper choice of the vertex weights the square of the partition function for this model represents the 2-D fermion determinant in a scalar background field. The resulting expression reduces the hopping expansion to a finite sum (on a finite lattice) of loops. In addition it is possible to explicitly integrate out the external field. By doing so with a Gaussian action for the scalar we generate a loop representation of the 2-D Gross-Neveu model. Such loop representations for lattice field theories allow for a considerably more accurate numerical treatment as has e.g. been demonstrated for the strongly coupled Schwinger model [@GaLaSa92].
Setting and hopping expansion
==============================
The basic idea for the proof of our loop representation is to identify the hopping expansion of the Wilson fermion determinant with the hopping expansion of a generalized 8-vertex model [@Ga98b]. Here we briefly rederive the hopping expansion for Wilson fermions in a form suitable for comparison with the generalized 8-vertex model (see e.g. [@MoMu94] for a more detailed discussion of the hopping expansion).
We study a lattice model of 2-D fermions which in the continuum corresponds to the action $$S \; = \; \int d^2 x \; \overline{\psi}(x) \;
\Big[ \gamma_\mu \partial_\mu \; - \; m
\; - \; \theta(x) \Big] \; \psi(x) \; ,
\label{continuum}$$ where $\theta(x)$ is a scalar external field. The lattice fermion determinant is expressed as a path integral $$\det M[\theta] \; = \; \int D\psi D\overline{\psi} \;
\exp\left(-\sum_{x,y \in \Lambda} \overline{\psi}(x)
M[\theta](x,y) \psi(y) \right) \; ,
\label{partfunct}$$ where the kernel for the lattice fermion action (Wilson fermions) which regularizes the continuum action (\[continuum\]) is given by $$M[\theta](x,y) \; = \; \Big[2 + m + \theta(x)\Big] \; \delta_{x,y}
\; - \; \sum_{\mu = \pm 1}^{\pm 2} \Gamma_\mu \delta_{x+\mu,y} \; ,$$ and we defined $$\Gamma_{\pm \mu} \; = \; \frac{1}{2} [ 1 \mp \sigma_\mu ]
\; \; \; \; , \; \; \; \; \mu = 1,2 \; .$$ Here $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ are Pauli matrices. The sum in the exponent of (\[partfunct\]) runs over the whole lattice $\Lambda$, which for simplicity we assume to be a finite rectangular piece of ZZ$^2$ (the generalization to e.g. a torus is straightforward). The boundary conditions are open, i.e. hopping terms that would lead to the outside of our lattice are omitted. We define $$h(x) \; = \; 2 + m + \theta(x) \; ,$$ and assume that $\theta(x)$ is such that $h(x) \neq 0$ for all lattice points $x$. This is a purely technical assumption due to the particular techniques we use for computing the determinant. The final result will be a finite polynomial in the $\theta(x)$ and the above restriction is irrelevant then. We now can write $$\det M[\theta] \; = \; \prod_{x \in \Lambda} h(x)^2
\det\Big(1 - R[\theta] \Big)
\; = \; \prod_{x \in \Lambda} h(x)^2
\exp \left( - \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} \mbox{Tr} \;
R[\theta]^n \right) \; .
\label{hopexp}$$ In the last step the hopping expansion was performed, i.e. the determinant was expressed using the well known trace-logarithm formula and the logarithm was expanded in a power series. The hopping matrix $R[\theta]$ is defined as $$R[\theta](x,y) \; = \; \sum_{\mu = \pm 1}^{\pm 2} \;
\Gamma_{\mu} \; \frac{1}{h(x)} \; \delta_{x+\mu, y} \; .
\label{hoppingmatrix}$$ The series in the exponent of (\[hopexp\]) converges for $||R[\theta]|| < 1$, which can be enforced by choosing large enough $h(x)$, i.e. suitable $\theta(x)$. Again this is only a technical restriction and can be abandoned in the final result. Due to the Kronecker delta in (\[hoppingmatrix\]), the contributions to Tr$R[\theta]^n$ are supported on closed loops on the lattice, and since closed loops are of even length, the contributions for odd $n$ vanish. For even $n = 2k$ we obtain $$\mbox{Tr} \; R[\theta]^{2k} \; = \;
\sum_{x \in \Lambda} \; \sum_{l \in {\cal L}^{(2k)}_x} \; \prod_{y \in P(l)}
\frac{1}{h(y)} \; \; \mbox{Tr} \; \prod_{\mu \in l} \Gamma_\mu \; .
\label{hoptrace}$$ Here ${\cal L}^{(2k)}_x$ is the set of all closed, connected loops of length $2k$ and base point $x$. By $P(l)$ we denote the set of all sites visited by the loop $l$. Note that a factor $1/h(x)$ is produced whenever $l$ runs through $x$ which can be arbitrary often for long enough loops. The last term in (\[hoptrace\]) is the trace of the ordered product of the hopping generators $\Gamma_\mu$ as they appear along the loop $l$. We remark, that $\Gamma_{\pm \mu} \Gamma_{\mp \mu} = 0$, which implies that whenever a loop turns around at a site and runs back along its last link this contribution vanishes. Thus all these [*back-tracking*]{} loops can be excluded from ${\cal L}_x^{(2k)}$.
Evaluating the trace over the matrices $\Gamma_\mu$ for a given loop is the remaining problem in the hopping expansion. It first has been solved in [@St81] by realizing that the Pauli matrices give rise to a representation of discrete rotations on the lattice. Alternatively one can decompose the loop using four basic steps and compute the trace in an inductive procedure along the lines of [@GaJaSe98]. The result is $$\mbox{Tr} \; \prod_{\mu \in l} \Gamma_{\mu} \; = \;
-(-1)^{s(l)} \Big( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big)^{c(l)} \; .
\label{gtrace}$$ By $s(l)$ we denote the number of self-intersections of the loop $l$ and $c(l)$ gives its number of corners. The result is independent of the orientation of the loop. Inserting (\[hoptrace\]) and (\[gtrace\]) in (\[hopexp\]) we obtain $$\det M[\theta] \; = \; \prod_{x \in \Lambda} h(x)^2
\exp \left( \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{2k}
\sum_{y \in \Lambda} \; \sum_{l \in {\cal L}^{(2k)}_y}
(-1)^{s(l)} \Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big)^{c(l)}
\prod_{z \in P(l)}
\frac{1}{h(z)} \right) .
\label{prelim}$$ Finally we further simplify this expression by removing the explicit summation over the base points $x$. A loop of length $2k$ without complete iteration of its contour allows for $2k$ different choices of a base point thus cancelling the factor $1/2k$ in (\[prelim\]). A loop which iterates its whole contour $I(l) > 1$ times allows only for $2k/I(l)$ different base points and a factor $1/I(l)$ remains. The final expression is $$\det M[\theta] \; = \; \prod_{x \in \Lambda} h(x)^2 \;
\exp \left( 2 \sum_{l \in {\cal L}}
\frac{(-1)^{s(l)}}{I(l)} \Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big)^{c(l)} \;
\prod_{y \in P(l)}
\frac{1}{h(y)} \right) \; ,
\label{finalhop}$$ where ${\cal L}$ is the set of all closed, connected, non back-tracking loops of arbitrary length. Each loop is included in ${\cal L}$ with only one of its two possible orientations and we collect an overall factor of 2 in the exponent.
Identification of the corresponding generalized 8-vertex model
==============================================================
As already outlined, the next step is to compare the result (\[finalhop\]) to the hopping expansion for a generalized 8-vertex model studied in detail in [@Ga98b]. In this generalized model, the vertices are coupled to a locally varying external field $\varphi(x)$. Before we proceed let’s first discuss this generalized model and its relation to the standard 8-vertex model.
The standard 8-vertex model [@FaWu69; @FaWu70; @Ba82] can be viewed as a model of 8 quadratic tiles (vertices) and each of them is assigned a weight $w_i\; (i = 1, ... 8)$ (compare Fig. \[tiles\]). A [*tiling*]{} of our lattice $\Lambda$ (the same rectangular piece of $\mbox{Z\hspace{-1.3mm}Z}^2$ as before) is a covering of $\Lambda$ with the tiles such that on each site of $\Lambda$ we place one of our tiles with the centers of the tiles sitting on the sites. The set ${\cal T}$ of [*admissible tilings*]{} is given by those arrangements of tiles where the black lines on the tiles never have an open end. The partition function of the standard 8-vertex model is the sum over all admissible tilings $t \in {\cal T}$ and the Boltzmann weight for a particular tiling $t$ is given by the product of the weights $w_i$ for all tiles used in this tiling $t$.
In our generalization of the model we now couple the vertices to an external field $\varphi(x)$ located on the sites $x$ of $\Lambda$. The partition function of the generalized model is given by $$Z_{8v}[\varphi] \; = \;
\sum_{t \in {\cal T}} \; \prod_{i = 1}^8 {w_i}^{n_i(t)} \!
\prod_{x \in P(t)} \varphi(x) \; .
\label{8vertex}$$ Here $P(t)$ denotes the set of all sites occupied by the tiling $t$. When a site $x$ is occupied by tile Nr. 2, this site is counted twice giving a factor $\varphi(x)^2$. In case $x$ is occupied by tile Nr. 1, $x \notin P(t)$ and the factor is 1. For all other tiles $x$ is counted once and the factor is $\varphi(x)$.
The generalized model (\[8vertex\]) also allows for a hopping expansion which is derived in [@Ga98b]. The central step is to rewrite the partition function as an integral over Grassmann variables along the lines of [@Sa80; @FrSrSu80; @It82]. The action is a quadratic form in the Grassmann variables and the partition function gives rise to a Pfaffian. The Pfaffian however can be expanded similar to the expansion in Section 2 and it is furthermore possible to explicitly evaluate the traces over the hopping matrix. The resulting expression reads [@Ga98b] $$Z_{8v}[\varphi] \; = \;
(-1)^{|\Lambda|} w_1^{|\Lambda|} \;
\exp \left( \sum_{l \in {\cal L}} \frac{(-1)^{s(l)}}{I(l)}
\Big( \frac{1}{w_1} \Big)^{|l|}
\prod_{i=3}^8 w_i^{n_i(l)} \;
\prod_{x \in P(l)} \varphi(x)
\right).
\label{8vertexhop}$$ As for the Wilson fermions the sum runs over the set ${\cal L}$ of all closed, non back-tracking loops of arbitrary length. Each loop $l$ is included in ${\cal L}$ with only one of its two possible orientations. By $|l|$ we denote the length of the loop, $I(l)$ is the number of iterations of its complete contour and $s(l)$ is the number of self-intersections. $P(l)$ again denotes the set of sites visited by the loop $l$ with $x$ being included in $P(l)$ whenever the loop $l$ runs through $x$. By $|\Lambda|$ we denote the size of the lattice. In the following we will work on lattices with an even number of sites and the overall sign factor is 1.
The exponents $n_i(l)$ in (\[8vertexhop\]) give the numbers for the abundance of the line elements as they are depicted in Fig. \[tiles\]. E.g. when the loop $l$ changes from heading east to heading north at a site it picks up a factor of $w_5$ and similarly for the other tiles $w_3, w_4, w_6, w_7, w_8$. Note that the loops $l \in {\cal L}$ occur as an ordered set of instructions for the directions the loop takes as it hops from one site to the next. The element corresponding to the tile 2 with weight $w_2$ (compare Fig. \[tiles\]) is not needed to describe the loop $l$. Equation (\[8vertexhop\]) does not contain $w_2$ explicitly at all. The weight $w_2$ is related to the other weights through the free fermion condition [@FaWu69] $$\omega_1 \omega_2 \; + \; \omega_3 \omega_4 \; = \;
\omega_5 \omega_6 \; + \; \omega_7 \omega_8 \; .
\label{freecond}$$ The free fermion condition is a sufficient condition for finding an explicit solution to the standard 8-vertex model without external fields. The above mentioned Grassmann representation automatically enforces the free fermion condition as is discussed in more detail in $\cite{Ga98b}$.
By comparing (\[finalhop\]) with (\[8vertexhop\]) we find that the sums over the loops in the exponent become identical when setting $$w_1 = w_3 = w_4 = 1 \; \; \; , \; \; \; w_5 = w_6 = w_7 = w_8 =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \; \; \; , \; \; \; \varphi(x) = \frac{1}{h(x)} \; .$$ Using the free fermion condition (\[freecond\]) we find $w_2 =0$. This implies that when representing Wilson fermions using Eq. (\[8vertex\]), the sum over the tilings can be replaced by a sum over the set ${\cal L}_{sa}$ of closed, self-avoiding loops, i.e. loops that are not allowed to self intersect or touch each other. The loops can have several disconnected but closed pieces and each piece is included in ${\cal L}_{sa}$ with only one of its two possible orientations.
It is important to note, that the exponents in (\[finalhop\]) and (\[8vertexhop\]) differ by an overall factor of 2. This is due to the fact that the action for the Wilson fermions is a bilinear form giving rise to a determinant while the Grassmann action for (\[8vertex\]) is a quadratic form giving rise to a Pfaffian when integrating out the Grassmann variables. Since the kernel of the latter action is anti-symmetric the Pfaffian, however, is given by the square root of a determinant causing the difference by a factor of 2 in the exponent.
Putting things together we obtain the final formula $$\det M[\theta] \; = \; \prod_{x \in \Lambda} [2 + m + \theta(x)]^2 \;
\left( \sum_{l \in {\cal L}_{sa}} \Big( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big)^{c(l)}
\prod_{y \in P(l)} \frac{1}{2 + m + \theta(y)} \right)^2 \; ,
\label{equivalence}$$ where as above $c(l)$ is the number of corners of $l$. The loops in ${\cal L}_{sa}$ are self-avoiding and thus for a given loop configuration $l$ each site of the lattice is occupied only once. Thus in the sum each inverse field $[2 + m + \theta(y)]^{-1}$ can only occur linearly. When taking the square of this sum we can only produce terms which are at most quadratic in the inverse field. The overall factor, however, still can cancel the quadratic terms and the final result is a finite polynomial in the fields $\theta(x)$. The above imposed technical restrictions on the range of $\theta(x)$ can now be lifted.\
Several remarks on the result (\[equivalence\]) are in order: When setting all external fields to zero we find that free Wilson fermions are equivalent to the square of the partition function of the self avoiding loop model [@Pr78; @RyHe82] with bending rigidity $1/\sqrt{2}$ and bond weight $[2 + m]^{-1}$. Thus for a trivial background field we reproduce the result for free fermions obtained by Scharnhorst [@Sch97] with a different method. Eq. (\[equivalence\]) is a direct generalization of the trivial case to fermions in a scalar background field.
From an algebraic point of view Eq. (\[equivalence\]) is exactly the expression we had in mind when discussing the general algebraic structure of the determinant. In two dimensions the fermion determinant has to be a polynomial which can at most be quadratic in the external field. The feature that the terms in this polynomial are organized according to closed loops is inherited from the hopping expansion. Actually, for single contributions to (\[equivalence\]) it is even possible to trace their emergence from an expansion of the exponential in (\[finalhop\]). When doing so, one finds that the intersection factor $(-1)^{s(l)}$ provides the mechanism which ensures the cancellation of loops with multiply occupied links. Eq. (\[8vertexhop\]) establishes that this cancellation mechanism is also independent of the corner weights.
Finally, it is obvious from (\[equivalence\]) that in the loop representation it is straightforward to integrate out the scalar fields. This can be done with different actions for $\theta$. In the next section we discuss the case of a simple Gaussian which will produce the Gross-Neveu model [@GrNe74]. We remark, that a loop representation for the Gross-Neveu model with staggered fermions has been analyzed in [@Mo90] and a numerical study of the model with conventional methods (introduction of the auxialiary field) is given in [@CoElRa83].
Application of the result to the Gross-Neveu model
==================================================
In order to give an application of our Eq. (\[equivalence\]) we now integrate the scalar field with a Gaussian measure $$\int d\mu[\theta] \; = \;
\int \prod_{x \in \Lambda}\frac{d \theta(x)}{\sqrt{2 \pi g}}
\exp\left(- \frac{1}{2 g} \theta(x)^2 \right) \; .$$ When integrating $(\det M[\theta])^N$ with this measure we generate a lattice version of the $N$-component Gross-Neveu model [@GrNe74] with (continuum) action $$S \; = \; \int d^2 x \Big(
\overline{\psi}(x) \Big[ \gamma_\mu \partial_\mu \; - \; m \Big] \psi(x) \; -
\; g^2 \Big[ \overline{\psi}(x) \psi(x) \Big]^2 \Big) \; ,
\label{grossneveu}$$ where $\overline{\psi}, \psi$ now have $N$ flavor components. Using (\[equivalence\]) the lattice partition function for the Gross-Neveu model reads $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{gn} & = & \int d\mu[\theta] \prod_{x \in \Lambda}
[2\!+\!m\!+\!\theta(x)]^{2N} \;
\left( \sum_{l \in {\cal L}_{sa}}\!\Big( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big)^{c(l)}
\!\prod_{y \in P(l)} \frac{1}{2\!+\!m\!+\!\theta(y)} \right)^{2N}
\nonumber \\
& = & \int d\mu[\theta]
\sum_{l_1, ..., l_{2N}} \Big( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big)^{c(l_1) + ...
+ c(l_{2N})} \prod_{x \in \Lambda} [2\!+\!m\!+\!\theta(x)]^{2N -
O_x(l_1, ..., l_{2N})}
\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{l_1, ..., l_{2N}}
\Big( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big)^{c(l_1) + ...
+ c(l_{2N})} \prod_{x \in \Lambda} G[2N - O_x(l_1, ... ,l_N)] \; .
\label{loopgn}\end{aligned}$$ The function $O_x(l_1, ..., l_{2N})$ counts how many of the independent loops $l_1, ..., l_{2N}$ occupy the site $x$ for a given loop configuration. Each loop can either leave the site empty or occupy it once (the loops are self-avoiding) and thus $O_x$ has values between 0 and $2N$. The function $G[J], J = 0, 1, ..., 2N$ is given by $$G[J] \; = \; \int\!\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{2\pi g}}
e^{- \frac{1}{2g} \theta^2} [2\!+\!m\!+\!\theta ]^J \; = \;
\sum_{k=0}^{[J/2]} {J \choose 2k} (2k-1)!! \; g^k \; (2+m)^{J-2k}.$$ Equation (\[loopgn\]) establishes that the $N$-component Gross-Neveu model is equivalent to a model of $2N$ independent self-avoiding loops. The partition function is a sum over all loop configurations with a weight corresponding to the total number of corners times a simple function of the occupation number for each site.
The partition function can easily be reformulated as a $8^{2N}$-vertex model. The new tiles are obtained by using $2N$ different colors and with each color one of the line patterns of Fig. \[tiles\] is drawn onto our new tile, giving a total of $8^{2N}$ different tiles. The weight for the tiles is given by a product of the weights $w_i$ for each color (1 for $w_1,w_3,w_4$, 0 for $w_2$ and $1/\sqrt{2}$ for $w_5, ..., w_8$) times the occupation factor $G[J]$.\
Let’s discuss the case of $N=1$ in more detail. Here the tiles show lines in two colors, say red and blue. The weight factors are the products of the $w_i$ for the blue and red lines multiplied by 1 when the tile is empty, by a factor of $2 + m$ when there is only one color and a factor of $(2 + m)^2 + g$ when both colors are used on the tile. When setting $g = 0$ the weights can be factorized into two terms corresponding to the two colors and we recover the result for the free case already discussed above.
A second choice of parameters also leads to a particularly simple model. When setting $2+m = 0$, we find that all tiles which show only one color vanish. Thus for a non-vanishing contribution every site has to either be empty or is visited by both, a blue and a red loop. For our simple rectangular lattice this implies, that the red and blue loop configurations have to sit on top of each other and integrating out the scalar field at $2+ m = 0$ has produced a Dirac delta on the space of loops. The resulting model is again a self avoiding loop model, now with bending rigidity $1/2$ and bond weight $g$. This is the same model which was shown [@Sa91] to be equivalent to the strong coupling Schwinger model. It has been analyzed with Monte-Carlo methods in $\cite{GaLaSa92}$ where the existence of a phase transition at $g_c = 0.5792$ was established. For a study of this model, using computer algebra on small lattices see [@KaMeTu95]. In the form of the above discussed two-color (64-vertex) model, the $N = 1$ Gross-Neveu model is now relatively simple to analyze numerically in the whole $g,m$-plane. In particular, the representation as a vertex model may allow for the use of efficient cluster algorithms [@EvLaMa93].
Summary and discussion
======================
The motivation for this article was to find simple representations for the Wilson lattice fermion determinant in an external field. Counting the powers of the external field in the determinant one finds that a large set of contributions appearing in the standard hopping expansion has to cancel. The determinant can only be a finite polynomial in the external variables. Finding, however, a reasonably simple and useful expression for the determinant is a hard problem.
In this article we succeeded in finding such a simple representation for the case of 2-D Wilson fermions in a scalar background field. The determinant can be written as the product of two self-avoiding loop models coupled to the external field. To prove this result, Grassmann techniques and hopping expansion for a generalized 8-vertex model were used. In the obtained loop representation it is straightforward to integrate out the scalar fields, and the application to the case of the Gross-Neveu model was discussed in more detail.
When one instance of a simple expression for a Wilson type fermion determinant in an external field can be found it is natural to ask whether other and more realistic models also allow for a simple representation of the fermion determinant.
The next candidate are 2-D fermions interacting with an abelian vector field. The vector field is coupled to the fermions through its gauge transporters which are supported on links instead of sites. This does not pose a fundamental problem since the generalized 8-vertex model [@Ga98b] can also be formulated for external field living on links. All terms of the hopping expansion can still be evaluated explicitly. A certain difficulty is, however, given by the fact that the link variables have to be complex conjugated when hopping in backward direction. Thus the loops in the hopping expansion give contributions complex conjugated to each other when the orientation is reversed. We believe, however, that when properly organizing the loops this problem can be overcome. A hint in this direction is Scharnhorst’s proof for the existence of a vertex model for the 2-D Thirring model [@Sch97]. If a loop representation for the determinant in an external vector field exists then it should be possible to obtain Scharnhorst’s result by integrating out the vector field, similar to the loop representation of the Gross-Neveu model which was obtained by integrating out the scalar field. The case of non-abelian gauge fields poses the additional difficulty, that due to the traces over the gauge field matrices the product of two loops cannot be written as a new loop. Nevertheless, the power counting argument discussed in the introduction still suggests, that representations simpler than the standard hopping expansion should exist. Similar in 4 dimensions where at least the problem of computing the trace of the 4-D $\gamma$-matrices is solved [@St81].\
\
[*Acknowledgement:*]{} The Author thanks Christian Lang, Klaus Scharnhorst and Uwe-Jens Wiese for discussions and remarks on the literature.
[9]{}
I. Montvay and G. Münster, [*Quantum Fields on a Lattice*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994. P. Rossi and U. Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B248 (1984) 105. M. Karowski, R. Schrader and H.J. Thun, Commun. Math. Phys. 97 (1985) 5. I. Montvay, Phys. Lett. B227 (1989) 260. I. Montvay, [ *Probabilistic Methods in Quantum Field Theory*]{}, P.H. Damgaard et al. (Eds.) Plenum Press, New York 1990. M. Salmhofer, Nucl. Phys. B362 (1991) 641. K. Scharnhorst, Nucl. Phys. B479 (1996) 727. K. Scharnhorst, Nucl. Phys. B503 (1997) 479. C. Gattringer, [*A formula for the hopping expansion of 8-vertex models coupled to an external field*]{}, Report cond-mat/9811139. H. Gausterer, C.B. Lang and M. Salmhofer, Nucl. Phys. B388 (1992) 275; H. Gausterer and C.B. Lang, Nucl. Phys. B455 (1995) 785. I.O. Stamatescu, Phys. Rev. D25 (1981) 1130. C.R. Gattringer, S. Jaimungal and G.W. Semenoff, [*Loops, surfaces and Grassmann Representation for Two- and Three-Dimensional Ising Models*]{}, Report hep-th/9801098, to appear in Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A.;\
C. Gattringer, [*Hopping expansion as a tool for handling dual variables in lattice models*]{}, Report hep-lat/9809176, parallel talk given at ‘Lattice-98’, to appear in the proceedings. C. Fan and F.Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. 179 (1969) 179. C. Fan and F.Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. B2 (1970) 723. R. Baxter, [*Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Academic Press, London 1982. S. Samuel, J. Math. Phys. 21 (1980) 2806. E. Fradkin, M. Srednicki and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 2885. C. Itzykson, Nucl. Phys. B210 (1982) 448. V.B. Priezzhev, Sov. Phys. JETP 47 (1978) 619. F. Rys and W. Helfrich, J. Phys. A15 (1982) 599. D.J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 3235. Y. Cohen, S. Elitzur and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B220 (1983) 102. F. Karsch, E. Meggiolaro and L. Turko, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 6417. H.G. Evertz, G. Lana and M. Marcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 875.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The notion of distance in Hilbert space is relevant in many scenarios. In particular, “distances" between quantum states play a central role in quantum information theory. An appropriate measure of distance is the quantum Jensen Shannon divergence (QJSD) between quantum states. Here we study this distance as a geometrical measure of entanglement and apply it to different families of states.'
address:
- |
Departament de Fisica and IFISC-CSIC, Universitat de les Illes Balears\
Palma de Mallorca, 07122, Spain\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
- |
Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía y Física, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba and CONICET\
Córdoba, 5000, Argentina\
[email protected]
- |
IFLP-Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET\
La Plata, 1900, Argentina\
[email protected]
author:
- 'A.P. Majtey, A. Borras, M. Casas'
- 'P.W. Lamberti'
- 'A. Plastino'
title: JENSEN SHANNON DIVERGENCE AS A MEASURE OF THE DEGREE OF ENTANGLEMENT
---
Introduction
============
Discerning possible candidates for measuring distances between quantum states is a subject of perennial interest. Many of these measures were first defined as distances between probability distributions and subsequently employed as distance-measures in Hilbert space. Let ${\cal H}$ be the Hilbert space associated with a quantum system and let ${\cal S}$ be the set of all states, i.e. the set of self-adjoint, (semi)positive and trace-one operators. A frequently employed notion of distance between quantum states is the relative entropy, which is a natural extension to the realm of quantum mechanics of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. This quantity, however, is not useful for ascertaining the degree of purification of an arbitrary state with respect to a pure reference state. The relative entropy of an operator $\rho$, with respect to an operator $\sigma$, both belonging to $\cal{S}$, is given by $$S(\rho\|\sigma)={{\mathrm{tr}}}[\rho(\log\rho-\log\sigma)],\label{relative-entropy}$$ where $\log$ stands for logarithm in base two. $S(\rho\|\sigma)$ is nonnegative and vanishes if and only if $\rho = \sigma$, being nonsymmetric and unbounded. A particular and important requirement indicates that the relative entropy is well defined only when the support of $\sigma$ is equal to or larger than that of $\rho$. Otherwise, it is defined to be $+\infty$ [@Lindblad] (the support of an operator is the subspace spanned by its eigenvectors with non-zero eigenvalues). To overcome this restriction we have introduced a distance between elements of ${\cal S}$ that shares with the relative entropy several of their main properties but that is always well defined and bounded [@Majtey]. This distance is the quantum Jensen-Shannon divergence (QJSD), which is a quantum mechanical extension of the Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD) introduced by Rao [@Rao] and Lin [@Lin] as a distance between probability distribution (for a detailed analysis of the properties of the JSD, see reference [@Majtey0]). Here we wish to investigate the ability of the QJSD to serve as a measure of the degree of entanglement.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next Section we review the basic properties of the QJSD. In Section 3 we study its properties as an entanglement measure and we apply it to quantify the degree of entanglement of different families of two-qubit mixed states. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Section 4.
The quantum Jensen-Shannon divergence
=====================================
We define the QJSD in the fashion [@Majtey] $$JS(\rho\|\sigma) =
\frac{1}{2}\left[S\left(\rho\|\frac{\rho+\sigma}{2}\right)+
S\left(\sigma\|\frac{\rho+\sigma}{2}\right)\right],
\label{relative-entropy}$$ which can be also recast in terms of the von Neumann entropy $H_N(\rho) = - {{\mathrm{tr}}}(\rho \log \rho)$ as follows $$JS(\rho\|\sigma) = H_N\left(\frac{\rho +
\sigma}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2} H_N(\rho) - \frac{1}{2} H_N(\sigma).$$ This quantity has a lot to speak for, being positive, null iff $\rho = \sigma$, symmetric, bounded, and always well defined. In fact, the restriction imposed on the supports of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ for the relative entropy (\[relative-entropy\]) is lifted for the QJSD, that possesses all the adequate properties of a proper distance between states in a Hilbert space. As stated above, in this work we attempt to study the QJSD as an entanglement measure which justifies listing the main QJSD properties. Most of these properties are discussed and proved in Ref. [@Majtey]. The list reads
- $JS(\rho\|\sigma)\geq 0$ with the equality iff $\rho=\sigma$
- Unitary operations left JS invariant, i.e., $JS(U\rho U^\dag\|U \sigma U^\dag) =
JS(\rho\|\sigma)$.
- $JS({{\mathrm{tr}}}_p\rho \|{{\mathrm{tr}}}_p\sigma) \leq JS(\rho \| \sigma)$ where ${{\mathrm{tr}}}_p$ is the partial trace.
- JS is jointly convex $JS(\sum_i \alpha_i \rho^{(i)}\|\sum_i \alpha_i \sigma^{(i)}) \leq
\sum_i \alpha_i JS(\rho^{(i)}\|\sigma^{(i)})$, where the $\alpha_i$ are positive real numbers such that $\sum_i \alpha_i
=1$.
- $JS(\Phi\rho\|\Phi\sigma)\leq JS(\rho\|\sigma)$ for all positive mappings $\Phi$.
- For any set of orthogonal projectors $P_i$, such that $P_iP_j=\delta_{ij}P_i$, $JS(\sum P_i\rho P_i\|\sum P_i\sigma
P_i)=\sum JS(P_i\rho P_i\| P_i\sigma P_i)$
- $JS(\rho\otimes P_{\alpha}\|\sigma\otimes
P_{\alpha})=JS(\rho\|\sigma)$ where $P_{\alpha}$ is any projector.
The two last properties, which have not been discussed before, are verified by the relative entropy [@Lindblad; @Vedral98], and inherited by the QJSD.
In a recent work [@Triangular] the metric character of the QJSD has been discussed. There it was formally proved for pure states, and checked numerically for mixed ones by performing Monte Carlo simulations. We can thus assert that the square root of the QJSD verifies the triangle inequality, as it does the square root of the JSD.
The entanglement measure
========================
Entanglement constitutes a physical resource that lies at the heart of quantum information processes [@Nielsen; @LPS98; @BEZ00]. Quantum teleportation, superdense coding, and quantum computation, are some of the most representative examples. Let us recall that a state of a composite quantum system is called entangled if it can not be expressed as a convex sum of factorizable pure states. Otherwise, the state is called separable.
Nowadays a variety of measures are used to quantify the degree of entanglement. These include the entanglement of distillation, the relative entropy of entanglement, etc. The canonical measure of entanglement in a bipartite pure systems is the so-called entanglement of formation, which is a strictly monotonic function of the squared concurrence. For simplicity the entanglement of formation is frequently used as [*the*]{} measure of entanglement. However, for mixed state there exist several available measures.
Before starting with the entanglement-characterization using the QJSD we study the structure of Hilbert space (HS) according to this distance measure. To do that we evaluate $d_{JS}=\sqrt{JS}$ between a given random generated state and the maximally mixed (MM) state $\rho_{MM}=I/N$, with $N$ the HS-dimension. In Fig. 1 we plot the probability distribution for finding an arbitrary state $\rho$ at a given distance from the $\rho_{MM}$. We find, as expected, that the mean value of such distance increases for higher Hilbert space-dimensions.
Let us now enumerate the properties that any adequate measure of entanglement should satisfy [@Bengtsson]:
- Discrimination: ${\cal{E}}(\rho)=0 \;\; iff\;\; \rho$ is separable.
- Monotonicity: the measure does not increase under local general measurements and classical communication, for every completely positive map $\Phi$, ${\cal{E}}(\Phi\rho)\leq{\cal{E}}(\rho)$
- Convexity: ${\cal{E}}(x\rho + (1-x)\sigma)\leq
x{\cal{E}}(\rho)+(1-x){\cal{E}}(\sigma)$, with $x \in [0,1]$.
As it was already stated, the main purpose of the present communication is to investigate the QJSD as a [*geometrical*]{} measure of entanglement. Following Vedral *et al.*, [@Vedral97] we define an entanglement measure $\cal{E}(\rho)$ as the minimum QJSD from the state $\rho$ to the set ${\cal D}$ of the disentangled states. $${\cal{E}}_{JS}(\rho)=\min_{\sigma\in {\cal
D}}JS(\rho,\sigma).\label{js-entanglement}$$ The QJSD properties enunciated in the preceding section ensure that (\[js-entanglement\]) fulfills the conditions for an adequate entanglement measure. For convenience’s sake, we normalize the entanglement measure by a trivial re-scaling in order to adequately compare different quantities of interest, i.e., ${\cal{E}}(\rho)={\cal{E}}(\rho)/{\cal{E}}(|\psi^-\rangle\langle\psi^-|).$
It is notheworthy to stress that expression (\[js-entanglement\]) has already been investigated for different distances, other than the JS-one. For example, Vedral and coworkers used to this effect the relative entropy (${\cal{E}}_{RE}(\rho)$) and the Bures metric (${\cal{E}}_B(\rho)$) [@Vedral97; @Vedral98]. Also the Trace-distance and the Hilbert-Schmidt metric have received consideration for the purpose [@Eisert03; @Witte99]. We shall below use as a reference the quantity ${\cal{E}}_B(\rho)$.
In order to investigate the behavior of the QJSD as an entanglement measure we consider now three well-known families of two-qubits mixed states, namely,
- Werner ones [@Werner],
- maximally entangled mixed ones [@MEM] (MEM), and
- parametric down-conversion [@PDC] (PDC) states.
All of these are diagonal in the Bell basis. We perform an optimization procedure so as to find the separable state that lies in the closest proximity to the state of interest $\rho$. Such task is performed by following a simulated annealing minimization procedure, starting from the maximally mixed state $\rho_{MM}$. Appropriately perturbing $\rho_{MM}$ we look for the minimal QJSD between $\rho$ and some state in $\cal{D}$.
In Fig.2 we depict, versus the linear entropy $S_L$ (the degree of impurity), i) the concurrence and the two normalized quantities: ii) our ${\cal{E}}_{JS}$ and iii) Vedral’s ${\cal{E}}_{B}$ measure. This is done for the three families enumerated above.
Notice that the concurrence and ${\cal{E}}_{B}$ are greater than ${\cal{E}}_{JS}$, except for the “extreme" cases of maximally entangled or disentangled Bell states in two of the sub-figures. In the MEMs-instance this is not entirely so. Crossings are detected between ${\cal{E}}_{B}$ and the concurrence ${\cal{C}}$, although the ${\cal{E}}_{JS}-$curve lies always below the other two for all the three families, except for the extreme (trivial) situations. The behavior here described mimics that of the relative entropy vs. $S_L$. In that instance, the relative entropy-induced entanglement is strictly smaller than that of formation, as analytically demonstrated in [@Vedral98].
Our crucial point is the fact that the measure induced by the QJSD is easier to compute than that induced by the Bures metric. This is so because of the square root in the definition of Bures’ metric, which forces cumbersome matrix-diagonalization and basis’ changes in order to compute ${\cal{E}}_{B}$. Instead, so as to calculate the QJSD one i) only needs to solve the eingenvalue-equation for three matrices (eigenvectors are not necessary) and ii) the optimization procedure is much more efficient than in the Bures situation.
Conclusions
===========
We have here advanced a new entanglement-measure ${\cal{E}}_{JS}$, based on the Jensen-Shannon distance. For three important families of states this new quantity behaves in rather similar fashion as the established entanglement-measure ${\cal{E}}_{B}$ of Vedral *et al.*, with an important difference: the former is much more easy to compute than the later.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by the MEC grant FIS2005-02796 (Spain) and FEDER (EU) and by CONICET (Argentine Agency). AB and APM acknowledge support from MEC through FPU grant AP-2004-2962 and contract SB-2006-0165. PWL wants to thank SECyT-UNC (Argentina) for financial support. We thank J. Batlle and Prof. A. R. Plastino for using his Hilbert-Monte Carlo numerical program.
G. Lindblad, *Comm. Math. Phys.* **33** (1973) 305. A.P. Majtey *et al.*, *Phys. Rev. A* [**72**]{} (2005) 052310. C. Rao, *IMS-Lectures Notes* **10** (1987) 217. J. Lin, *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory* [**37**]{} 1 (1991) 145. A.P. Majtey *et al.*, *Eur. Phys. J. D* **32** (2005) 413. V. Vedral and M.B. Plenio, *Phys. Rev. A* **57** (1998) 1619. P.W. Lamberti *et al.*, On the metric character of the quantum Jensen-Shannon divergence, arXiv/0801.1586. M.A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2000). H.-K. Lo *et al.*, (Eds.), [*Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information*]{} (World Scientific, River Edge, 1998). D. Bouwmeester *et al.*, (Eds.), [*The Physics of Quantum Information*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000). I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, [*Geometry of Quantum States*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2006). V. Vedral *et al.*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **78** (1997) 2275. J. Eisert *et al.*, *J. Phys. A* **36** (2003) 5605. C. Witte and M. Trucks, *Phys. Lett. A* **257** (1999) 14. R.F. Werner, *Phys. Rev. A* **40** (1989) 4277. W.J. Munro *et al.*, *Phys. Rev. A* **64** (2001) 030302. M. Barbieri *et al.*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92** (2004) 177901. A. Cabello *et al.*, *Phys. Rev. A* **72** (2005) 052112.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The ever-accelerated process of globalization enables more than half the population to live in cities, thus the air quality in cities exerts critical influence on the health status of more and more urban residents. In this article, based on the urban air quality data collected through meteorological sites, mobile crowdsourcing and IoT sensing, along with user’s body signals, we propose an urban healthcare big data system, named UH-BigDataSys. In this article, we first introduce a method of integrating multi-source air quality data, for the data preparation of the artificial intelligence based smart urban services. Then, a testbed of UH-BigDataSys is set up with the deployment of air quality-aware healthcare applications. Finally, we provide health guidance for urban residents in aspects of respiratory diseases, outdoor travel, and sleep quality, etc. The ultimate goal of UH-BigDataSys is to lead urban resident a more healthy life.'
author:
- 'Min Chen, Jun Yang, Long Hu, M. Shamim Hossain, Ghulam Muhammad [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
title: 'Urban Healthcare Big Data System based on Crowdsourced and Cloud-based Air Quality Indicators'
---
Internet of Things, Crowdsourcing, Air Quality Indicators, Smart City, Big Data Analytics, Healthcare, Urban Sensing.
Introduction
============
[|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|]{} **Data Category** & & &\
\*[Air Quality Data]{} & & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
\*[Physiological Data]{} & & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
\*[M-AQI]{} & **(Longitude** & **Latitude)** & **Time** & **AQI** & **PM2.5** & **PM10** & **CO** & **NO2** & **O3** & **SO2**\
&114.3672 & 30.5719 & 2017-05-15(12:00-13:00) & 75 & 29 & 60 & 1.3 & 25 & 180 & 14\
&114.2511 & 30.5514 & 2017-05-15(12:00-13:00) & 70 & 9 & 90 & 0.5 & 30 & 144 & 7\
&114.2836 & 30.6197 & 2017-05-15(12:00-13:00) & 52 & 9 & 53 & 0.5 & 21 & 141 & 8\
&114.3006 & 30.5494 & 2017-05-15(12:00-13:00) & 35 & 10 & 22 & 0.6 & 24 & 112 & 10\
\[tab:SensingData\]
In the 2016 edition of World Health Statistics, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that people died of diseases related to air pollution reached 6,500,000 in 2012. And this number exceeds 11% of death toll in 2012. Meantime, it is explicitly pointed out by WHO in report “Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health” that air pollution is a main environmental risk that exerts influence on health. The diseases such as stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, chronic and acute respiratory illnesses [@disease] may be prevented by decreasing air pollution level. The lower the air pollution level is, the healthier the cardiovascular and respiratory systems of people are, no matter whether it is in long term or in short term. The impact of air pollution on health of human in urban environment is presented in [@1; @2]. Thus, air quality evaluation can bring significant impact on health status of the enormous urban residents.
Air Quality Indicators (AQIs) include an internationally-used parameter set to evaluate air quality, and the statistics reflects five pollution standards, including ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbonic oxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. At present, AQIs are usually measured by weather monitoring sites. Due to their high construction cost, limited coverage and insufficient quantity, the air quality data collected by traditional meteorological sites are not enough to portrait the real situations. Fortunately, with the evergrowing number of smart devices and mobile terminals, urban residents with portable mobile devices can contribute to sense ambient air quality in real time [@7; @8]. Then, the data are stored and shared in clouds. Thus, the public can participate in the collection of urban air quality data through mobile devices and the perception of urban air quality may be established over large scale networks [@4]. This crowdsourcing methods for urban environment sensing are discussed in [@5; @6]. Furthermore, with the technology advances regarding Internet of Things (IoT) and vehicle networking [@vehicle], smart building and vehicles are also equipped with monitoring facilities. The related design of hardware, software as well as architecture for urban environment sensing are presented [@11; @13]. Zheng et. al [@14] propose to predict air quality by analyzing the correlation among air quality data collected by weather monitoring and vehicles. Through the above methods, more comprehensive analytics is applied with and more abundant urban air quality data, which are acquired with lower cost. The seamless integration between public daily life and the perception of air quality can be realized based on the sensing assisted by mobile users. The purpose is not only to improve the coverage area and the efficiency of air quality data collections, but also enable the efficient processing and sharing of real-time data flows in combination with the historical information.
However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no work considering the integration of meteorological site data, mobile device crowdsourced data and IoT sensing data to improve the accuracy of AQI analysis. Furthermore, user’s physiological indicators are not considered in the solution. In the face of abominable urban air quality conditions in lots of developing countries, how to conduct joint urban air quality sensing and health status analytics is critical to provide personalized health monitoring solution. Although challenging, it brings extensive social value to diagnose individual physiological state based on urban air quality data for improving the quality of people’s life. Thus, an innovative healthcare solution should be discussed based on user-oriented physiological data and urban AQI.
In this article, we propose urban healthcare big data system (i.e., UH-BigDataSys), where data integration and physiological indicator are considered. Meteorological sites, mobile crowdsourcing and IoT sensing are adopted for air quality data collection, in order to provide urban residents with more comprehensive and more accurate air quality monitoring services. Besides air quality monitoring, realtime physiological index monitoring for user is also realized by the use of wearable devices. Corresponding guidance for health and daily activities is provided to urban residents dynamically as air quality changes. As for a user who participates outdoor activities, personalized and healthy activity plan is recommended by UH-BigDataSys, with the analytics of his or her current physiological status and air quality in his or her surrounding environment. The introduction of air quality index provides health analysis for the user with more abundant dimensionalities of information and improves efficiency in health guidance. The main contributions of this article are as follows:
- M-AQI (Multidimensional Air Quality Indicators) big data integration method is proposed based on AQI sensing in three networking levels. First, crowdsourced AQI data is collected as the first level. Then, data fusion of AQI data is considered in edge cloud-based level. Finally, AQI data are integrated on remote cloud or meteorological supercomputing platform.
- An innovative healthcare monitoring system via urban big data (i.e., UH-BigDataSys) is proposed based on M-AQI big data and physiological data of user. Compared with traditional health monitoring system on basis of physiological indices, the range of applications for UH-BigDataSys is broader. UH-BigDataSys is not only limited to traditional health monitoring, it can also give suggestions in a higher level in combination with current health status of user and their surrounding environment, for example, the travel guidance to patients with respiratory diseases may be personalized by this system.
- The demonstration application platform for UH-BigDataSys is established. Typical applications include early forcasting for diseases related with urban air quality, travel guidance to patients with respiratory diseases, and monitoring for user emotion and sleep quality related to indoor air quality.
The remain contents are arranged as follows in this article. Section II introduces the method for the integration of M-AQI big data, Section III introduces the design of UH-BigDataSys, Section IV discusses the testbed of UH-BigDataSys, finally Section V gives conclusion.
![Flowchart of M-AQI Big Data Integration[]{data-label="fig001"}](Fig011.eps){width="3.5in"}
M-AQI Big Data Integration based on Crowdsourcing and Edge Clouds
=================================================================
In this section, we mainly consider two categories of smart city data related with the health status of urban residents, i.e., AQI data and user’s body signals. To collect AQI data, we use various AQI sensing devices which are widely spread on urban environments [@15]. For the collection of body signals, wearable 2.0 device (e.g., smart clothing) can be utilized. Fig. \[fig001\] shows the procedure of the integration of M-AQI big data. The heterogeneous AQI data are integrated for data fusion and sharing in edge clouds and data center cloud. With the accumulation of M-AQI data, the related big data analytics is conducted in the clouds. This section will address issues on sensing and fusion process of AQI data.
AQI Data Sensing through Crowdsourcing
--------------------------------------
In Table \[tab:SensingData\], three categories of data are classified. There are 6 fundamental indicators in the category of “Air Quality Data”, i.e., PM2.5, PM10, CO, NO2, O3 and SO2. By the use of mobile devices carried by urban residents, the technique of crowdsourcing is useful for sensing AQI data. With various advantages such as low cost, large sensing coverage, location-aware and personalized data collection, it can be widely used in various aspects of daily life, such as traffic, environment monitoring and healthcare. However, this method also exhibits some disadvantages such as poor data quality and intermittent data provisioning.
AQI sensing via crowdsourcing requires to distribute numerous data sensing tasks to available caching and computing resources of mobile devices carried by urban residents. The specific steps of crowdsourcing are list as follows. Firstly, UH-BigDataSys should establish an association matrix using mobility data of urban residents such as GPS, acceleration and moving speed, etc. Based on the association matrix, mobility pattern and movement features of the residents are extracted. Then, we can establish the residents’ behavioral model. Finally, optimal selection can be achieved regarding those urban residents whose routes of mobility match with the sensing points of AQI. Furthermore, UH-BigDataSys should choose those urban residents with higher credits (i.e., users who contribute high-quality sensing data, as data quality evaluated by accuracy, timeliness, correlativity and integrity, etc.) and assigns data sensing task to them.
Edge Cloud-based AQI Integration
--------------------------------
![Schematic diagram for dynamic data integration based on time-space characteristic and data density distribution[]{data-label="fig002"}](Fig02.eps){width="3in"}
As shown in Fig. \[fig002\], there are three categories of AQI data collected: (i) AQI data sensed by urban residents via crowdsourcing; (ii) AQI monitored by IoT sensing with monitoring facilities (such as vehicles and intelligent buildings, etc.); (iii)AQI data acquired in meteorological sites deployed by meteorological agency. These data are synchronized to edge clouds through various communication modes. However, the diversity of data source causes heterogeneity of AQI data in time-space characteristic, data density distribution and data accuracy. Heterogeneity of data density refers to the different densities of AQI data in different time slots or different regions. The heterogeneity of data accuracy refers to the accuracies for data from different sources are different. Intuitively, the accuracy of AQI data from meteorological monitoring sites is highest. In comparison, AQI data acquired from mobile devices are low, especially under their high-speed movements. Thus, how to integrate multi-source and multi-quality AQI data is a challenging problem.
In this section, we propose an edge cloud-based AQI integration method and it can be conducted on edge cloud and remote cloud synchronously. First, we extracte location (i.e., longitude and latitude) feature and time feature of AQI data, as shown in Table \[tab:SensingData\]. Then, we partition those data based on time slot feature and determine the size of grid on basis of data density in a single time slot. The grid size is set to be smaller if the data density in that region is higher, thus to guarantee the grid with finer granularity in those regions with high data density. Typically, those regions correspond to residential areas with high dense population. Thus, it needs to provide precise data with finer granularity. Finally, for the heterogeneity of data accuracy, we use weighted average for the sake of simplicity, $$\begin{aligned}
v&=\frac{w_1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}v_i+\frac{w_2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_i+\frac{w_3}{l}\sum_{i=1}^{l}v_i
\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ represents the number of data segments in a certain time slot through crowdsourcing, $n$ stands for the number of data segments collected from meteorological sites, $l$ stands for the number of data segments via IoT sensing, $v_i$ stands for the sampling value of an attribute (e.g., PM2.5), where $w_1$, $w_2$ and $w_3$ denote the weights of various measurements, and $w_1+w_2+w_3=1$. After the calculation is completed, combination for each attribute value in the same category in a certain time slot is conducted to generate a new M-AQI record. And the profile of M-AQI data is shown in column “M-AQI" in Table \[tab:SensingData\], thereinto, the value of AQI will be obtained by converting the 6 air quality attributes.
AQI Integration on Remote Cloud or Supercomputing Platform
----------------------------------------------------------
M-AQI data produced at edge clouds will be synchronized and shared to remote cloud. Thus data integration can also be conducted at remote cloud with same method as at edge clouds. There are stringent requirements in aspect of computing and storage for M-AQI big data applications. With limited resources, edge clouds can not fulfill the requirements of authentic big data applications. With its particular performance in terms of convenience, scalability and on-demand services, remote cloud is able to provide ultimate guarantee for M-AQI big data analysis.
Furthermore, supercomputing platform has massive high-performance computing resource, which provides new possibility for expanding the capability of remote cloud. Because of the deficiency of user-friendly interface, current supercomputing platform can not provide convenient and interactive services. By the construction of virtual resource pool, uniform management of supercomputing resources may be formed, and on basis of which connectivity is convenient with affordable cost in terms of supercomputing platform or remote cloud. Furthermore, uniform management of supercomputing resources could define virtualized interface, protocol and software module for supercomputing platform, to abstract resources of supercomputing platform into open services. Finally, the common user-oriented supercomputing resource services can be obtained, and on basis of which, M-AQI big data services may provide urban residents with more accurate and personalized services.
Design of UH-BigDataSys
=======================
{width="6in"}
The architecture of UH-BigDataSys is shown in Fig. \[fig003\], based on the acquired M-AQI big data, UH-BigDataSys also collects personalized physiological data of user via wearable 2.0 devices (e.g., smart clothing). Furthermore, the system jointly analyze physiological big data of the user and M-AQI big data based on user’s location information. Finally, it provides the user with health advices for respiratory diseases, outdoor travel, and sleep quality control, etc.
For physiological big data collection, smart clothing is a great choice for urban residents under various scenes [@wearable2]. It integrates textile clothing and body sensors, and exhibits good performance in term of sensor deployment, user’s comfortableness, and low-power communications. The physiological data acquired by smart clothing are shown in Table \[tab:SensingData\] which include 5 fundamental indicators, i.e., electrocardiograph (ECG), electromyography (EMG), heart rate, saturation of blood oxygen and body temperature. The ECG and EMG are acquired via textile dry electrodes in smart clothing. Heart rate can be figured out from original ECG signals. As for the saturation of blood oxygen, optical sensor may be integrated into smart clothing to achieve non-invasive detection. Body temperature can be acquired by NTC thermistor sensor. Finally, data processing modules in smart clothing receive and process original signals generated by each sensor, then convert them into digital signals, and store them into its memory. Local processing unit determines whether to send physiological data to intelligent terminals or not according to status of communication module. Typically, intelligent terminal is a smart phone, for further transmitted them to cloud, thus to finally realize persistent storage for physiological data of the user in cloud.
With the sustainable sensing and analysis on physiological data of urban residents, UH-BigDataSys can provide guidance based on physiological and mental status of the user. Furthermore, through the detection on air quality, UH-BigDataSys enriches the perception of surrounding environment of urban residents. Finally, UH-BigDataSys can provide health guidance to urban residents, with the combination of physiological data and air quality data around them. For example, in outdoor environment, a resident with physiological diseases, especially respiratory disease, will get timely warning from UH-BigDataSys about air quality around him or her, and remind him or her to pay attention to air quality conditions, thus to avoid deterioration of his or her respiratory disease. Meantime, through sensing on air quality data widely and dynamically in the city, UH-BigDataSys will also advise user for outdoor activities, plan the outdoor route for user when necessary, and guide user to avoid epidemic area or area with high air pollution. As for the indoor environments, air quality would also exert influence on disease and emotion of humanscite[emotion]{}. For example, the dreary air would bring discomfort to human body and exert influence on sleep of residents at night. Based on physiological data of user and indoor air quality data, UH-BigDataSys extract the correlations among sleep, daily activities, air quality and health of user. Furthermore, on the basis of analyzing the correlations among all factors, UH-BigDataSys constructs measure model to figure out the influence of air quality on sleep status of user.
A Testbed for UH-BigDataSys
===========================
We have deployed a testbed to evaluate the performance of UH-BigDataSys system, the infrastructure we design for our testbed is a minimal cloud platform, which consists of 4 different servers, i.e., one controller, one networker as well as two computing nodes. And the executive environment for our testbed is constructed on the basis of openstack technology. Then we utilize Spring Framework to implement the UH-BigDataSys system and define all services as restful API. Finally all kinds of clients access restful API to fetch all implemented services.
Fig. \[fig004\] and Fig. \[fig005\] exhibit the user interface of our UH-BigDataSys testbed. Fig. \[fig04b\] and Fig. \[fig05a\] shows urban air quality data acquired by portable sensors carried by urban residents through mobile crowdsourcing. Fig. \[fig04c\] and Fig. \[fig05b\] shows physiological data of residents acquired by smart clothing. Fig. \[fig04d\] shows health advices given by UH-BigDataSys based on the acquired air quality around residents and the physiological status of residents.
As shown in Fig. \[fig04a\], the sleep quality of a resident is closely related to his or her daily activities, surrounding air quality and his or her physiological and psychological state. UH-BigDataSys perceives physiological information of residents such as heart rate, blood oxygen, body temperature and exercise status via smart clothing, and obtains air quality data via crowdsourcing and IoT sensing, then utilizes big data analysis and machine learning to establish efficient prediction model, which guides behaviors of residents to improve their sleep quality. We found that psychological state, physiological state and sleep quality can affect each other.
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we first discuss AQI data collection based on meteorological sites data, mobile crowdsourcing sensing and IoT sensing. Then, the integration of M-AQI is proposed based on the edge clouds. M-AQI big data exhibits higher data quality and finer granularity. Next, physiological data of urban residents based on smart clothing is discussed and UH-BigDataSys is proposed. The system analyse M-AQI and physiological big data to provide guidance for urban residents in aspects such as respiratory disease, travel advice and sleep quality, in order to improve the life quality of urban residents. Finally, a tested of UH-BigDataSys is established towards the smart applications for enhanced healthcare based on AQI in urban environments.
[1]{}
M. Chen, Y. Hao , K. Hwang, L. Wang, L. Wang, “Disease Prediction by Machine Learning over Big Healthcare Data”, IEEE Access, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 8869-8879, 2017.
E. Fotopoulou, A. Zafeiropoulos, D. Papaspyros, P. Hasapis, et al. “[Linked Data Analytics in Interdisciplinary Studies: The Health Impact of Air Pollution in Urban Areas]{},” *IEEE Access*, vol. 4, pp. 149-164, 2016.
K. B. Shaban, A. Kadri, E. Rezk, “[Urban Air Pollution Monitoring System With Forecasting Models]{},” *IEEE Sensors Journal*, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 2598-2606, 2016.
C. Bermejo, P. Hui, “[Steal Your Life Using 5 Cents: Hacking Android Smartphones with NFC Tags]{},” *arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02081*, pp., 2017.
D. Chatzopoulos, P. Hui, “[ReadMe: A Real-Time Recommendation System for Mobile Augmented Reality Ecosystems]{},” *Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Multimedia*, pp. 312-316, 2016.
D. Wu, I. D. Arkhipov, M. Kim, et al. “[ADDSEN: Adaptive Data Processing and Dissemination for Drone Swarms in Urban Sensing]{},” *IEEE Transactions on Computers*, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 183-198, 2017.
R. Tse, G. Pau, “[Enabling street-level pollution and exposure measures: a human-centric approach]{},” *Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Workshop on Pervasive Wireless Healthcare*, pp. 1-4, 2016.
B. Han, F. Qian, L. Ji, “[When should we surf the mobile web using both wifi and cellular?]{},” *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on All Things Cellular: Operations, Applications and Challenges*, pp. 7-12, 2016.
D. Tian, J. Zhou, Z. Sheng, V Leung, “[Robust Energy Efficient MIMO Transmission for Cognitive Vehicular Networks]{},” *IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology*, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 3845-3859, 2016. K. Zheng, S. Zhao, Z. Yang, X. Xiong, W. Xiang, “[Design and Implementation of LPWA-Based Air Quality Monitoring System]{},” *IEEE Access*, vol. 4, pp. 3238-3245, 2016.
B. Predi[ć]{}, Z. Yan, J. Eberle, et al. “[Exposuresense: Integrating daily activities with air quality using mobile participatory sensing]{},” *2013 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops*, pp. 303-305, 2013.
Y. Zheng, F. Liu, P. H. Hsieh, “[U-air: When urban air quality inference meets big data]{},” *Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM*, pp. 1436-1444, 2013.
K. Hu, V. Sivaraman, B. G. Luxan, A. Rahman, “[Design and Evaluation of a Metropolitan Air Pollution Sensing System]{},” *IEEE Sensors Journal*, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1448-1459, 2016.
M. Chen, et al. “Wearable 2.0: Enable Human-Cloud Integration in Next Generation Healthcare System”, *IEEE Communications*, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 54-61, Jan. 2017.
M. Chen, P. Zhou, G. Fortino, “Emotion Communication System”, *IEEE Access*, Vol. 5, pp. 326-337, 2017.
[^1]: M. Chen, J. Yang and L. Hu are with School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.
[^2]: M. Chen, J. Yang and L. Hu are also with Embedded and Pervasive Computing (EPIC) Lab, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.
[^3]: M. Shamim Hossain is with the Department of Software Engineering, College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11543, Saudi Arabia.
[^4]: G. Muhammad is with the Department of Computer Engineering, College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11543, Saudi Arabia.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In [@AB], Auslander and Bridger introduced Gorenstein projective modules and only about 40 years after their introduction a finite dimensional algebra $A$ was found in [@JS] where the subcategory of Gorenstein projective modules did not coincide with $^{\perp}A$, the category of stable modules. The example in [@JS] is a commutative local algebra. We explain why it is of interest to find such algebras that are non-local with regard to the homological conjectures. We then give a first systematic construction of algebras where the subcategory of Gorenstein projective modules does not coincide with $^{\perp}A$ using the theory of gendo-symmetric algebras. We use Liu-Schulz algebras to show that our construction works to give examples of such non-local algebras with an arbitrary number of simple modules.'
address: 'Institute of algebra and number theory, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany'
author:
- René Marczinzik
title: On stable modules that are not Gorenstein projective
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $A$ always be a finite dimensional connected non-semisimple algebra over a field $K$ and modules are finite dimensional right modules if nothing is stated otherwise. For a module $M$ we have the left module $D(M):=Hom_K(M,K)$. Recall that the *finitistic dimension* of $A$ is defined as $findim(A):= sup \{ pd(M) | pd(M) < \infty \}$. The *dominant dimension* of a module $M$ with minimal injective coresolution $(I_i)$ is defined as $domdim(M)=0$ in case the injective envelope of $M$ is not projective and $domdim(M)= \sup \{ n \geq 0 | I_i$ is projective for $i=0,1,...,n \}+1$ in case $I_0$ is projective. The *codominant dimension* of a module $M$ is defined as the dominant dimension of $D(M)$. The dominant dimension of an algebra is defined as the dominant dimension of the regular module. Recall the following famous homological conjectures, which are all open:
1. (Finitistic dimension conjecture) The finitistic dimension of an algebra is finite.
2. (Strong Nakayama conjecture) For any non-zero module $M$ we have $Ext^{i}(M,A) \neq 0$ for some $i \geq 0$.
3. (Generalised Nakayama conjecture) For any simple module $M$ we have $Ext^{i}(M,A) \neq 0$ for some $i \geq 0$.
4. (Nakayama conjecture) Any non-selfinjective algebra has finite dominant dimension.
5. (First Tachikawa conjecture) For any non-selfinjective algebra, there is $i \geq 1$ with $Ext^{i}(D(A),A) \neq 0$.
6. (Second Tachikawa conjecture) For any selfinjective algebra and non-projective module $M$, there is $i \geq 1$ with $Ext^{i}(M,M) \neq 0$.
It is well known that one has the implications $(1) \implies (2) \implies (3) \implies (4)$ and that $(4)$ is equivalent to $(5)$ and $(6)$, see for example [@Yam].
Recall that a module $M$ is called *Gorenstein projective* in case $Ext^{i}(M,A)=0$ and $Ext^{i}(D(A),\tau(M))=0$ (here $\tau$ denotes the Auslander-Reiten translate) for all $i \geq 1$ and it is called *Gorenstein injective* in case $D(M)$ is Gorenstein projective. A module $M$ is called a *stable module* in case $Ext^{i}(M,A)=0$ for all $i \geq 1$ and it is a *costable module* in case $D(M)$ is stable. We write $^{\perp}N:= \{ M | Ext^i(M,N)=0$ for all $i \geq 1 \}$ and $N^{\perp}:= \{ M | Ext^i(N,M)=0$ for all $i \geq 1 \}$. Following [@Mar2], we call a finite dimensional algebra *nearly Gorenstein* in case the Gorenstein projective modules coincide with the stable modules and dually the Gorenstein injective modules coincide with the costable modules. For example all Gorenstein algebras are nearly Gorenstein. In [@Mar2] it was shown that every nearly Gorestein algebra satisfies the strong Nakayama conjecture and thus also the generalized Nakayama conjecture. Thus in order to really challenge those conjecture, one first has to find a systematic way to construct non-nearly Gorenstein algebras. This means that one has to construct stable modules that are not Gorenstein projective. Only around 40 years after the definition of Gorenstein projective modules by Auslander and Bridger in [@AB], a finite dimensional algebra was found that is not nearly Gorenstein in [@JS]. However, the algebra was a local algebra and thus not of interested for the homological conjectures, since the homological conjectures are trivially true for local algebras (local algebras have finitistic dimension equal to zero). Thus it is of interest to find a construction of non-local and non-nearly Gorenstein algebras to challenge the homological conjectures and study non-Gorenstein projective stable modules.
In our first section we introduce two new homological conjectures between the finitistic dimension conjecture and the first Tachikawa conjecture and we look at the finitistic dominant dimension of an algebra, that is defined as the supremum of all dominant dimensions of modules having finite dominant dimension. The finitistic codominant dimension is defined dually. This is an analog of the finitistic dimension and we will see that this dimension can be infinite.
The second section gives our main theorem, see \[maintheorem\].
Let $A$ be a symmetric algebra and $X$ a direct sum of indecomposable non-projective modules. Let $M$ be an indecomposable module such that $Ext^{l}(X,M) \neq 0$ for some $l \geq 1$ and $Ext^i(X,M)=0$ for all $i \geq l+1$. Then the gendo-symmetric algebra $B:=End_A(A \oplus X)$ is not nearly Gorenstein and has infinite finitistic codominant dimension.
We remark that in the situation of the previous theorem, our proof of the theorem will show that the $B$-module $Hom_A(A \oplus X, \Omega^{-l}(M))$ will be a costable module but not Gorenstein injective. Thus applying the duality one also has a stable module over the opposite algebra of $B$ that is not Gorenstein projective. After proving the previous theorem, the rest of the second section is devoted to give a concrete construction of non-local algebras that are not nearly Gorenstein with an arbitrary number of simple modules.
Liu-Schulz example algebras (we call them Liu-Schulz algebras in the following) are defined as $K<x,y,z>/(x^2,y^2,z^2,yx+qxy,xz+qzx,zy+qyz)$ with $q$ being a non-zero field element. They are local Frobenius algebras and were first studied in [@LS]. For more information on those algebras we refer for example to [@Rin] and [@Sm]. They appear also as the trivial extension algebras of the algebras $K<x,y>/(x^2,y^2,xy+ayx)$ for $a$ being a non-zero field element. We call the algebras of the form $K<x,y>/(x^2,y^2,xy+ayx)$ quantum 2-exterior algebras in the following.
Liu-Schulz algebras and quantum 2-exterior algebras have appeared often in the representation theory of algebras as construction of counterexamples to conjectures or examples of exotic behavior of algebras. We mention three such examples:
1. The first non-periodic modules with syzygies of bounded dimension were found over quantum 2-exterior algebras by Schulz in [@Sch].
2. A conjecture on the shape of Auslander-Reiten components was proven to be wrong using Liu-Schulz algebras in [@LS].
3. A question of Happel about finite Hochschild cohomology and global dimension was shown to have a negative answer using quantum 2-exterior algebras in [@BGMS].
We will look at certain endomorphism rings of generators over Liu-Schulz algebras. Those algebras are gendo-symmetric algebras in the sense of Fang and Koenig (see [@FanKoe]) and we will use the theory of gendo-symmetric algebras and dominant dimension for the construction of non-nearly Gorenstein algebras and non-Gorenstein injective costable modules. We also assume knowledge of basic representation theory and Auslander-Reiten theory of finite dimensional algebras. See for example [@SkoYam] and [@Ta]. The author is thankful to Osamu Iyama for a useful suggestion.
Finitistic dominant dimension and two new conjectures
=====================================================
The *finitistic dominant dimension* of $A$ is defined as $findomdim(A):= sup \{ domdim(M) | domdim(M) < \infty \}$, this was first introduced in [@Mar]. Dually, one can define the *finitistic codominant dimension* as the supremum of all codominant dimensions of modules having finite codominant dimension. We will show in forthcoming work that the finitistic dominant and codominant dimension of large classes of algebras, including monomial algebras, is always finite. We have the following easy lemma:
\[first lemma\]
1. Let $A$ be an algebra of finite fintistic dimension, then every non-projective module $M$ with infinite dominant dimension has infinite projective dimension.
2. Let $A$ be an algebra of finite fintistic codominant dimension, then every non-projective module $M$ with infinite dominant dimension has infinite codominant dimension.
<!-- -->
1. Assume there is a non-projective module $M$ with finite projective dimension and infinite dominant dimension. Then the modules $\Omega^{-i}(M)$ have arbitrary large finite projective dimension and thus the finitistic dimension is infinite.
2. Assume there is a non-projective module $M$ with finite codominant dimension and infinite dominant dimension. Then the modules $\Omega^{-i}(M)$ have arbitrary large finite codominant dimension and thus the finitistic codominant dimension is infinite.
Note that in case one algebra $A$ has infinite finitistic dominant dimension then the opposite algebra has infinite finitistic codominant dimension.
The previous lemma motivates to study modules of infinite dominant dimension and look at their minimal projective resolution in order to test algebras for finite finitistic dimension and finite finitistic codominant dimension. As an analog to the finitistic dimension conjecture, one can ask wheter the finitistic dominant dimension is always finite. We will give a negative answer in the next section using the previous lemma. Recall that for a module $M$, a *minimal right $add(M)$-approximation* of a module $N$ is a map $f: M \rightarrow N$ such that $Hom(M,f)$ is surjective and $f$ is right minimal. We often just say approximation instead of $add(M)$-approximation in case the $M$ is clear. Assume now additionally that $M$ is a generator in the following. In this case any minimal right approximation is surjective. We define the *$add(M)$-resolution dimension* of $N$ as the minimal $n$ such that there is an exact sequence of the form $$0 \rightarrow M_n \xrightarrow{f_n} M_{n-1} \cdots M_0 \xrightarrow{f_0} N \rightarrow 0,$$ where the maps $f_0$ and $f_n: M_n \rightarrow K_n$ are all minimal right approximations when $K_n$ denotes the kernel of $f_{n-1}$.
We also need the following well known theorem of Mueller, see [@Mue]:
\[mueller\] Let $A$ be an algebra with generator-cogenerator $M$ and $B:=End_A(M)$. Let $N$ be an $A$-module. Then the $B$-module $Hom_A(M,N)$ has dominant dimension equal to $\inf \{ i \geq 1 | Ext^{i}(M,N) \neq 0 \}+1$. Especially: The dominant dimension of $B$ equals $\inf \{ i \geq 1 | Ext^{i}(M,M) \neq 0 \}+1$.
We will also use that in the situation of the previous theorem, the functor $Hom_A(M,-)$ is an equivalence between $mod-A$ and the full subcategory $Dom_2$ of $mod-B$ constisting of modules of dominant dimension at least two, see for example [@APT] section 3.
The next definition is taken from [@CIM], where such algebras are used to give a new characterisation of representation-finite hereditary algebras.
Let $A$ be an algebra, then define the SGC-extension algebra of $A$ to be the algebra $End_A(D(A) \oplus A)$, that is obtained from $A$ by taking the endomorphism ring of the smallest generator-cogenerator.
Look at the following four statements:
1. (Finitistic dimension conjecture) Any algebra has finite finitistic dimension.
2. Any non-projective module with infinite dominant dimension has infinite projective dimension.
3. Any non-injective costable module has infinite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension.
4. (First Tachikawa conjecture) For any non-selfinjective algebra, there is an $i \geq 1$ with $Ext^i(D(A),A) \neq 0$.
We have $(1) \implies (2) \implies (3) \implies (4)$.
We saw $(1) \implies (2)$ already in \[first lemma\]. Assume now (2) and let $M$ be a costable module with finite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension. The defining condition $Ext^i(D(A),M)=0$ for all $i \geq 1$ gives that the module $Hom_A(D(A) \oplus A, M)$ has infinite dominant dimension over the SGC-extension algebra $B=End_A(A \oplus D(A))$, by \[mueller\]. Applying the functor $Hom_A(A \oplus D(A),-)$ to a finite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution of $M$, one obtains that the $B$-module $Hom_A(D(A) \oplus A, M)$ has finite projective dimension, contradicting (2). Now assume (3) and $Ext^i(D(A),A)= 0$ for all $i \geq 1$ in a non-selfinjective algebra. Then the module $M=A$ is a costable module with finite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension, contradicting (3).
The previous proposition motivates us to state (2) and (3) as new homological conjectures:
1. Any non-projective module with infinite dominant dimension has infinite projective dimension.
2. Any non-injective costable module has infinite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension.
Those conjectures motivate us to study modules of infinite dominant dimension and costable modules.
We prove the conjecture (2) for Gorenstein algebras:
Let $A$ be a Gorenstein algebra, then any non-injective costable module has infinite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension.
First assume $A$ has Gorenstein dimension equal to zero, which is equivalent to $A$ being selfinjective. In this case $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolutions coincide with projective resolutions and the result follows since any non-injective module over a selfinjective algebra has infinite projective dimension. Assume $A$ is a non-selfinjective Gorenstein algebra for the rest of the proof. We use three known facts about Gorenstein algebras, for proofs see for example [@Che]:
1. An $A$-module $N$ has finite injective dimension iff it has finite projective dimension.
2. An $A$-module $N$ is Gorenstein projective iff it is a costable module and an $A$-module $N$ is Gorenstein injective iff it is a costable module.
3. A non-projective Gorenstein projective module has infinite projective dimension and a non-injective Gorenstein injective module has infinite injective dimension.
Assume $N$ is a non-injective costable module with finite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension. Then there is an $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution of the form: $0 \rightarrow M_n \xrightarrow{f_n} \cdots M_0 \xrightarrow{f_0} N \rightarrow 0$ with $M_n \in add(A \oplus D(A))$. Let $K_r$ denote the kernel of $f_{r-1}$. Note that all $M_i$ have finite projective dimension, since $A$ is Gorenstein and thus $D(A)$ has finite projective dimension. Then there is a short exact sequence $0 \rightarrow M_n \rightarrow M_{n-1} \rightarrow K_{n-1} \rightarrow 0$, which shows that also $K_{n-1}$ has finite projective dimension. Using induction, we see that also $N$ has finite projective dimension. But since $A$ is Gorenstein, the costable modules coincide with the Gorenstein injective modules, which always have infinite injective dimension when they are non-injective. But for Gorenstein algebras, a module has infinite injective dimension iff it has infinite projective dimension and thus $N$ also has infinite projective dimension. This is a contradiction and thus $N$ has infinite $add(A \oplus D(A))$-resolution dimension.
The Liu-Schulz algebra and non-nearly Gorenstein algebras
=========================================================
We first need the following result in order to calculate the codominant dimension of algebras:
\[codomdimprop\] Let $A$ be a selfinjective algebra and $M=A \oplus X$ a generator with $X$ having no projective direct summands. Let $B:=End_A(M)$ and $Y:=Hom_A(M,N)$ for an $A$-module $N$.
1. The codominant dimension of the $B$-module $Y$ equals $\inf \{ i \geq 1 | Ext^{1}(M,\Omega^{i}(N)) \neq 0 \} -1.$
2. $Y$ has infinite dominant and infinite codominant dimension iff $Ext^{1}(M, \Omega^{i}(N))=0$ for all $i \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Note that minimal $add(M)$-approximations of an $A$-module $N$ correspond to the projective cover of the $B$-module $Hom_A(M,N)$ by applying the functor $Hom_A(M,-)$. Let $R$ be the direct sum of all projective-injective indecomposable $B$-modules. Then one has $add(R)=add(Hom_A(M,A))$. Thus the codominant dimension of the module $Y$ is at least one iff its projective cover is in $add(R)$ iff the minimal $add(M)$-approximation of $N$ is equal to the projective cover of $N$ in $mod-A$. Let $f: P \rightarrow N$ be the projective cover of $N$ in mod-$A$. Then this is a minimal $add(M)$-approximation iff $Hom_A(M,f)$ is surjective. Applying to the short exact sequence $0 \rightarrow \Omega^1(N) \rightarrow P \rightarrow N \rightarrow 0$ the functor $Hom_A(M,-)$ we get the exact sequence: $0 \rightarrow Hom_A(M,\Omega^1(N)) \rightarrow Hom_A(M,P) \rightarrow Hom_A(M,N) \rightarrow Ext^1(M,\Omega^1(N)) \rightarrow 0$. This gives us that the projective cover is the minimal $add(M)$-approximation iff $Ext^1(M,\Omega^1(N))=0$. We obtain (1) by applying the same argument to $\Omega^l(N)$ for $l \geq 1$. (2) is a consequence of (1) in combination with Mueller’s theorem \[mueller\].
Recall that an algebra $B$ is *gendo-symmetic* in case $B \cong End_A(M)$, when $A$ is a symmetric algebra and $M$ a generator-cogenerator. See [@FanKoe] for more on such algebras. We need the following results in this section:
\[gendoresults\] Let $A$ be an algebra of dominant dimension $n \geq 1$.
1. Then every Gorenstein projective module has dominant dimension at least $n$ and every Gorenstein injective module has codominant dimension at least $n$.
2. Let $A$ be a gendo-symmetric algebra and $M$ an $A$-module. Then $M$ has dominant dimension at least two iff $M \cong Hom_A(D(A),M)$ and in this case the dominant dimension of $M$ is equal to $\inf \{ i \geq 1 | Ext^{i}(D(A),M) \neq 0 \} +1$.
<!-- -->
1. See [@Mar2], lemma 3.9.
2. See [@FanKoe], proposition 3.3.
We can now prove the main theorem of this article.
\[maintheorem\] Let $A$ be a symmetric algebra and $X$ a direct sum of indecomposable non-projective modules. Let $M$ be an indecomposable module such that $Ext^{l}(X,M) \neq 0$ for some $l \geq 1$ and $Ext^i(X,M)=0$ for all $i \geq l+1$. Then the gendo-symmetric algebra $B:=End_A(A \oplus X)$ is not nearly Gorenstein and has infinite finitistic codominant dimension.
Let $N:=A \oplus X$ and $B:=End_A(N)$. Then $B$ is by definition gendo-symmetric. We now look at the $B$-module $R:=Hom_A(N,\Omega^{-l}(M))$. Since we have $Ext^i(X,\Omega^{-l}(M))=Ext^{i+l}(X,M)=0$ for all $i \geq 1$, by \[mueller\] the module $R$ has infinite dominant dimension. Now using \[codomdimprop\], $R$ has codominant dimension zero since $Ext^1(X,\Omega^1(\Omega^{-l}(M)))=Ext^1(X,\Omega^{-(l-1)}(M))=Ext^{l}(X,M) \neq 0$. Now one has by \[gendoresults\] (2) that $R$ is a costable module, since modules $W$ with infinite dominant dimension over gendo-symmetric algebras have $Ext^i(D(A),W)=0$ for all $i \geq 1$. By (1) of \[gendoresults\] it can not be Gorenstein injective since it has codominant dimension zero, while all Gorenstein injective modules have codominant dimension at least two. Thus $B$ is not nearly Gorenstein, as it contains a module that is costable but not Gorenstein injective. Now look at the $B$-modules $\Omega^{-i}(R)$ for $i \geq 1$. Since $R$ has infinite dominant dimension and codominant dimension zero, those modules have codominant dimension equal to $i$. Thus the algebra $B$ has infinite finitistic codominant dimension.
We remark that in the proof of the previous theorem we constructed a costable module $R$ over an algebra $B$ that is not Gorenstein injective. To obtain stable modules that are not Gorenstein projective, one can just look at $D(R)$ over the opposite algebra of $B$. We now construct non-local algebras with costable modules that are not Gorenstein injective with an arbitrary large number of simple modules. Let $A$ be the Liu-Schulz algebra, see for example Ringel [@Rin] for an article about this algebra. That is $A=A_r:=K<x,y,z>/(x^2,y^2,z^2,yx+rxy,zy+ryz,xz+rzx>$ for some nonzero field element $r$. We often write short $A$ instead of $A_r$. For non-zero field elements $c$, we define the right $A$-modules $M_c:=A/(x+c y)A$. In the following $c,d,e,f$ will denote field elements. We assume that $r^2 \neq 1$ and $r^3 \neq 1$ for simplicity in the following.
We collect some results for this algebra and those modules, where we refer to Ringel for proofs:
Let $A$ be the Liu-Schulz algebra, then
1. $A$ is a local 8-dimensional symmetric algebra.
2. $M_c$ is 4-dimensional and $M_c$ is isomorphic to $M_d$ iff $c=d$.
Note that $\Omega^{1}(M_c)=(x+cy)A \cong M_{cr}$.
\[mainlemma\] Let $A$ be the Liu-Schulz algebra, then
1. $dim(Hom_A(M_c,M_e))=2+\delta_{c,e}+\delta_{c r^2,e}$, where $\delta_{s,t}$ is the Kroenecker delta.
2. $Ext^{1}(M_c,M_d)=0$ iff $c \neq d, cr \neq d, cr^2 \neq d$ and $cr^3 \neq d$.
3. $Ext^{i}(M_c,M_d)=0$ for all $i \geq 1$ iff $d \neq r^l c$ for all $l \geq 0$.
<!-- -->
1. We calculate $dim(Hom_A(A/(x+cy)A, (x+dy)A)))$, which gives the result by setting $e:=dr$ since $(x+dy)A \cong A/(x+dry)A$. The elements in $Hom_A(A/(x+cy)A, (x+dy)A))$ are of the form $l_z$, which is the homomorphism by right multplication by an element $z \in (x+dy)A$ with $z (x+cy)A$=0, which is equivalent to $z (x+cy)=0$. Now a general $z \in (x+dy)A$ can be written as $z=a_1 (x+dy) + a_2 xy + a_3 xyz+a_4(xz+dyz)$ and the condition $z (x+cy)=0$ leads to $a_1(x+dy)(x+cy)+a_4 (xz+dyz)(x+cy)$. This is simplified to $a_1(cxy-rd xy)+a_4(-rcyzx+dyzx)=0$. Now this gives that we can choose $a_2$ and $a_3$ arbitrary and $a_1=0$ iff $e \neq c$ and $a_4=0$ iff $e \neq r^2 c$. This gives the result.
2. Look at the short exact sequence: $$0 \rightarrow A/(x+cry)A \rightarrow A \rightarrow A/(x+cy)A \rightarrow 0$$ and apply the functor $Hom_A(-,A/(x+dy)A)$ to obtain the exact sequence:
$$0 \rightarrow Hom_A(A/(x+cy)A,A/(x+dy)A) \rightarrow Hom_A(A,A/(x+dy)A) \rightarrow Hom_A(A/(x+cry)A,A/(x+dy)A) \rightarrow Ext^{1}(A/(x+cy)A,A/(x+dy)A) \rightarrow 0.$$
Thus, $dim(Ext^{1}(A/(x+cy)A,A/(x+dy)A))=dim(Hom_A(A/(x+cy)A,A/(x+dy)A))+dim(Hom_A(A/(x+cry)A,A/(x+dy)A))-Hom_A(A,A/(x+dy)A)= 2+\delta_{c,d}+\delta_{cr^2,d}+2+\delta_{cr,d}+\delta_{cr^3,d}-4$ by (1). This gives $dim(Ext^{1}(A/(x+cy)A,A/(x+dy)A))=0$ iff $c \neq d, cr \neq d, cr^2 \neq d$ and $cr^3 \neq d$.
3. This follows directly by (2) using that $Ext^{i}(M_c,M_d)=Ext^{1}(\Omega^{i-1}(M_c),M_d)=Ext^{1}(M_{r^{i-1}c},M_d)$.
\[theoreminfinitefindomdim\] Let $K$ be a field element with an element $r$ such that $r^l \neq 1$ for all $l \geq 1$ and let $c_1, ... , c_n$ be $n$ pairwise distinct field elements. Let $N:=A_r \oplus M_{c_1} \oplus ... \oplus M_{c_n}$.
1. $B$ is a gendo-symmetric algebra of dominant dimension equal to two with $n+1$ simple modules.
2. The algebra $B:=End_{A_r}(N)$ has infinite finitistic codominant dimension and is not nearly Gorenstein.
<!-- -->
1. $B$ is by definition gendo-symmetric, since $A_r$ is symmetric. By \[mainlemma\], $Ext^{1}(M_{c_i},M_{c_i}) \neq 0$ and thus $B$ has dominant dimension equal to two by Mueller’s theorem. Since the module $N$ is basic, the number of simple modules of $B$ equals the number of indecomposable summands of $N$.
2. We want to use \[maintheorem\] to prove the result and show that the assumptions of \[maintheorem\] are satisfied. Choose $Z:=M_{c_i}$ with $i$ choosen so that for $d:=\frac{c_i}{r}$, $d \neq r^l c_j$ for any $l \geq 0$ and any $j$. Note that $M_d \cong \Omega^{-1}(M_{c_i})$. Then we have $Ext^{1}(N,Z) \neq 0$ since $Ext^{1}(Z,Z) \neq 0$ by \[mainlemma\] (2). But for $l \geq 2$ we have $Ext^{l}(N,Z)=Ext^{l-1}(N,\Omega^{-1}(Z))=Ext^{l-1}(N,M_d)$=0 by \[mainlemma\] (2), since $Ext^{i}(M_{c_j},M_d)=0$ for any $i \geq 1$ and any $j$ because $d \neq r^i c_j$ for any $i \geq 0$ and any $j$.
Open Questions
==============
We note that Liu-Schulz algebras are a special case of quantum complete intersection algebras that are those of the form $K<x_1,x_2,...,x_n>/(x_i^{a_i}, x_i x_j + q_{i,j} x_j x_i )$ for $i >j$, $a_i \geq 2$ natural numbers and $q_{i,j}$ non-zero field elements. Those are local Frobenius algebras that are not always symmetric, see for example [@Op]. One can construct non-nearly Gorenstein algebra from such algebras that are not necessarily Liu-Schulz algebras by finding modules $M$ with $Ext^{1}(M,M) \neq 0$ and $Ext^{i}(M,M)=0$ for $i \geq 2$ as we did in \[theoreminfinitefindomdim\]. We thus formulate some questions more generally for quantum complete intersection algebras. We call an indecomposable module $M$ $l$-special for some $l \geq 1$ in case $Ext^l(M,M) \neq 0$ and $Ext^i(M,M)=0$ for all $i \geq l+1$.
1. Can one construct $l$-special modules over symmetric algebras over an arbitrary field? Can one construct non-nearly Gorenstein algebras over an arbitrary field? Note that in our construction we had to assume that there are field elements that are not roots of unity so our construction did not work for example for finite fields.
2. Can one classifly all $l$-special modules over quantum complete intersection algebras?
3. Are there non-projective modules $M$ with $Ext^{1}(M,M)=0$ over quantum complete intersection algebras? We remark that it seems to be an open problem in general to find modules over local Frobenius algebras with $Ext^{1}(M,M)=0$. We refer to [@Mar3] for more on this.
4. Do algebras of the form $B=End_A(A \oplus X)$ have finite finitistic dimension in case the assumption of \[maintheorem\] are fullfilled ? We note that we do not know the answer even for the algebras in \[theoreminfinitefindomdim\].
[Gus]{} Auslander, M.; Bridger, M.: [*Stable Module Theory.*]{} Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 94 American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I. (1969) 146 pp. Auslander, M.; Platzeck, M.; Todorov, G.: [*Homological theory of idempotent Ideals*]{} Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 332, Number 2 , August 1992. Buchweitz R.; Green R.;Madsen, D.; Solberg, O.:[*Finite Hochschild cohomology without finite global dimension.*]{} Math. Res. Lett. 12 (2005), no. 5-6, 805-816 Chan, A.; Iyama, O.; Marczinzik, R. : [*Auslander-Gorenstein algebras from Serre-formal algebras via replication.*]{} https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03996. Chen, X.: [*Gorenstein Homological Algebra of Artin Algebras.*]{} <http://home.ustc.edu.cn/~xwchen/Personal%20Papers/postdoc-Xiao-Wu%20Chen%202010.pdf>, retrieved 18.06.2017. Fang, M.; Koenig, S.: [*Endomorphism algebras of generators over symmetric algebras.*]{} Journal of Algebra 332 (2011) 428-433. Jorgensen, D.; Sega, L.: [*Independence of the total reflexivity conditions for modules.*]{} Algebras and Representation Theory 9 (2006), 217-226. Liu, S.; Schulz, R.: [*The existence of bounded infinite DTr-orbits.*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 122 (1994) 1003-1005. Marczinzik, R.: [*Upper bounds for the dominant dimension of Nakayama and related algebras.*]{} http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.09634. Marczinzik, R.: [*Gendo-symmetric algebras, dominant dimensions and Gorenstein homological algebra.*]{} https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04212. Marczinzik, R.: [*Upper bounds for dominant dimensions of gendo-symmetric algebras.*]{} Archiv der Mathematik September 2017, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 231-243. Mueller, B.: [*The classification of algebras by dominant dimension.*]{} Canadian Journal of Mathematics, Volume 20, pages 398-409, 1968. Oppermann, S. : [*Hochschild cohomology and homology of quantum complete intersections.*]{} Algebra Number Theory 4(7)(2010)821-838. Ringel, C.: [*The Liu-Schulz example.*]{} Representation theory of algebras. Seventh International Conference on Representations of Algebras August 22-26, 1994 Cocoyoc, Mexico. CMS conference proceedings Volume 18. Schulz, R.: [*A non-projective module without self-extensions.*]{} Archiv der Mathematik June 1994, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 497-500. Smith, S.P.: [*Some finite dimensional algebras related to elliptic curves.*]{} Seventh International Conference on Representations of Algebras August 22-26, 1994 Cocoyoc, Mexico. CMS conference proceedings Volume 18. Skowronski, A.; Yamagata, K.: [*Frobenius Algebras I: Basic Representation Theory.*]{} EMS Textbooks in Mathematics, (2011). Tachikawa, H.: [*Quasi-Frobenius Rings and Generalizations: QF-3 and QF-1 Rings (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 351)* ]{} Springer; (1973). Yamagata, K.: [*Frobenius Algebras*]{} [Hazewinkel, M. (editor): Handbook of Algebra, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Volume I, 841-887, (1996).]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Duality is a central concept in the theory of session types. Since a flaw was found in the original definition of duality for recursive types, several other definitions have been published. As their connection is not obvious, we compare the competing definitions, discuss tradeoffs, and prove some equivalences. Some of the results are mechanized in Agda.'
author:
- 'Simon J. Gay'
- Peter Thiemann
- 'Vasco T. Vasconcelos'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Duality of Session Types: The Final Cut'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the spectral shape, the anisotropy of the wave vector distributions and the anisotropy of the amplitudes of the magnetic fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetosheath within a broad range of frequencies $[10^{-3},10]$ Hz which corresponds to spatial scales from $\sim 10$ to $10^5$ km. We present the first observations of a Kolmogorov-like inertial range of Alfvénic fluctuations $\delta B^{2}_{\perp}\sim f^{-5/3}$ in the magnetosheath flanks, below the ion cyclotron frequency $f_{ci}$. In the vicinity of $f_{ci}$, a spectral break is observed, like in solar wind turbulence. Above the break, the energy of compressive and Alfvénic fluctuations generally follow a power law with a spectral index between $-3$ and $-2$. Concerning the anisotropy of the wave vector distribution, we observe a clear change in its nature in the vicinity of ion characteristic scales: if at MHD scales there is no evidence for a dominance of a slab ($k_{\|}\gg k_{\perp}$) or 2D ($k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$) turbulence, above the spectral break, ($f>f_{ci}$, $kc/\omega_{pi} > 1$) the 2D turbulence dominates. This 2D turbulence is observed in six selected one-hour intervals among which the average proton $\beta$ varies from $0.8$ to $9$. It is observed for both the transverse and compressive magnetic fluctuations, independently on the presence of linearly unstable modes at low frequencies or Alfvén vortices at the spectral break. We then analyse the anisotropy of the magnetic fluctuations in a time dependent reference frame based on the field ${\bf B}$ and the flow velocity ${\bf V}$ directions. Within the range of the 2D turbulence, at scales $[1,30]k c/\omega_{pi}$, and for any $\beta$ we find that the magnetic fluctuations at a given frequency in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$ have more energy along the ${\bf B} \times {\bf V}$ direction. This non-gyrotropy of the fluctuations at a fixed frequency is consistent with gyrotropic fluctuations at a given wave vector, with $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$, which suffer a different Doppler shift along and perpendicular to ${\bf V}$ in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$.'
author:
- 'O. Alexandrova'
- 'C. Lacombe'
- 'A. Mangeney'
title: 'Spectra and anisotropy of magnetic fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetosheath: Cluster observations'
---
Introduction
============
In the space plasma turbulence, the presence of a mean magnetic field ${\bf B}$ gives rise to anisotropies with respect to the field direction (${\parallel}$ means parallel, and ${\perp}$ means perpendicular to ${\bf B}$). There are anisotropies both in the intensities $\delta B^2$ of the magnetic fluctuations ($\delta B^2_{\perp}\ne \delta B^2_{\|}$) and in the distribution of their wave vectors ${\bf k}$ ($k_{\perp}\ne k_{\|}$), i.e., the energy distribution of the turbulent fluctuations is anisotropic in ${\bf k}$–space.
To study the anisotropy of turbulent fluctuations in space plasma, we chose here the Earth’s magnetosheath as a laboratory. Downstream of the bow shock, the solar wind plasma slows down, and the plasma density, temperature and magnetic field increase in comparison with the solar wind plasma. The magnetosheath boundaries (bow shock and magnetopause) introduce an important temperature anisotropy $T_{\perp}>T_{\|}$, and therefore linearly unstable waves, such as Alfvén Ion Cyclotron (AIC) and mirror modes, are present (see the reviews by Schwartz et al., 1996; Lucek et al., 2005; Alexandrova, 2008). In the vicinity of the bow-shock, an $f^{-1}$ power law spectrum is observed at frequencies below the ion cyclotron frequency, $f<f_{ci}$, [@czay01]. The power law spectra $\sim f^{-5/3}$, typical of the solar wind inertial range at $f<f_{ci}$, have not been observed in the magnetosheath. However, as in the solar wind, the energy of the magnetic fluctuations follows a power law close to $\sim f^{-3}$ at frequencies $f>f_{ci}$ [@rezeau99; @czay01].
The question of the anisotropy of wave vectors in the magnetosheath has been mostly addressed for dominant frequencies in the turbulent spectrum (spectral peaks), below $f_{ci}$, where linearly unstable modes are expected (Sahraoui et al. 2004; Alexandrova et al., 2004; Schäfer et al., 2005; Narita et al., 2006; Narita and Glassmeier, 2006; Constantinescu et al., 2007). Instead, we are interested in permanent fluctuations in the magnetosheath (and not in spectral peaks) which cover a very broad range of frequencies (more than 5 decades), from frequencies well below $f_{ci}$ to frequencies much higher than $f_{ci}$.
These permanent fluctuations within the frequency range $[0.35,12.5]$ Hz, above $f_{ci}$, and for one decade of scale lengths around Cluster separations ($\sim 100$ km), have been studied by Sahraoui et al. (2006) using the $k$-filtering technique. For a relatively short time interval in the inner magnetosheath (close to the magnetopause) and for a proton beta $\beta_p \sim 4$, the authors show that the wave-vectors of the fluctuations are mostly perpendicular to the mean magnetic field ${\bf B}$, $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$, and that their frequency $\omega_0$ in the plasma frame is zero. In the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, the ${\bf k}$-distribution is non-gyrotropic, more intense and with a well-defined power law $k^{-8/3}$ in a direction along the flow velocity ${\bf V}$ which was perpendicular to both ${\bf B}$ and the normal to the magnetopause for this particular case. The presence of linearly unstable large scale mirror mode during the considered time interval makes the authors conclude that the small scale fluctuations with the observed dispersion properties $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$ and $\omega_0 = 0$ result from a non-linear cascade of mirror modes.
At higher frequencies, $\sim[10,10^3]$ Hz, between about the lower hybrid frequency $f_{lh}$ and 10 times the electron cyclotron frequencie $f_{ce}$, the permanent fluctuations observed in the magnetosheath, during four intervals of several hours, have been studied by Mangeney et al. (2006) and Lacombe et al. (2006). The corresponding spatial scales, $\sim [0.1,10]$ km $\simeq [0.3,30] kc/\omega_{pe}$ ($c/\omega_{pe}$ being the electron inertial length), are much smaller than the Cluster separations, and so only the one-spacecraft technique could be used to analyze the anisotropy of wave vector distributions.
Magnetic fluctuations with $k_{\|}\gg k_{\perp}$, usually called [*slab turbulence*]{}, have rapid variations of the correlation function along the field and weak dependence upon the perpendicular coordinates. For the fluctuations with $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$, called [*2D turbulence*]{}, the correlation function varies rapidly in the perpendicular plane, and there is no dependence along the field direction. So, measurements along different directions with respect to the mean field can give the information on the wave vector anisotropy. Under the assumption of convected turbulent fluctuations through the spacecraft (i.e., the phase velocity $v_{\phi}$ of the fluctuations is small with respect to the flow velocity), these measurements are possible with one spacecraft thanks to the variation of the mean magnetic field ${\bf B}$ direction with respect to the bulk flow ${\bf V}$. While ${\bf V \| B}$, the spacecraft resolve fluctuations with ${\bf k \| B}$, when ${\bf V \perp B}$, the fluctuations with ${\bf k \perp B}$ are measured.
This idea was already used in the solar wind for studying the wave vector anisotropies of the Alfvénic fluctuations in the inertial range (Matthaeus et al., 1990; Bieber et al., 1996; Saur & Bieber, 1999). The authors suppose that the observed turbulence is a linear superposition of two uncorrelated components, slab and 2D, and both components have a power law energy distribution with the same spectral index $s$, $\delta B_{\perp}^2(k_{\|})\sim A_1 k_{\|}^{-s}$ and $\delta B_{\perp}^2(k_{\perp}) \sim A_2 k_{\perp}^{-s}$, where $A_1$ and $A_2$ are the amplitudes of slab and 2D turbulent components, respectively. Bieber et al. (1996) propose two independent observational tests for distinguishing the slab component from the 2D component.
The first test is based on the anisotropy of the power spectral density (PSD) of the magnetic fluctuations in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, i.e., on the non-gyrotropy of the PSD at a given frequency in the spacecraft frame: in the case of a slab turbulence with ${\bf k \| B}$, all the wave vectors suffer the same Doppler shift depending on the angle between ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf V}$, and if the spectral power is gyrotropic in the plasma frame, it will remain gyrotropic in the spacecraft frame; in the case of a 2D turbulence, with ${\bf k \perp B}$, if the PSD is gyrotropic in the plasma frame, it will be non-gyrotropic in the spacecraft frame because the Dopler shift will be different if ${\bf k}$ is perpendicular to ${\bf V}$ and if ${\bf k}$ has a component along ${\bf V}$.
The second test reveals the dependence of the PSD at a fixed frequency on the angle between the plasma flow and the mean field $\Theta_{BV}$ (defined between $0$ and $90$ degrees): For a PSD decreasing with $k$ (like a power-law, for example), in the case of the slab turbulence, the PSD for a given frequency will be more intense for $\Theta_{BV} = 0^{\circ}$, and therefore, the PSD decreases while $\Theta_{BV}$ increases; for the 2D turbulence the PSD will be more intense for $\Theta_{BV} = 90^{\circ}$, and so it increases with $\Theta_{BV}$. Using these tests, Bieber et al. (1996) have shown that the inertial range of the slow solar wind is dominated by a 2D turbulence; however, a small percentage of a slab component is present.
Mangeney et al. (2006) proposed a model of anisotropic wave vector distribution without any assumption on the independence of the two turbulence components. In their gyrotropic model, the wave vector can be oblique with respect to the $\|$ and $\perp$ directions. The authors introduce a cone aperture of the angle $\theta_{kB}$ between ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf B}$, as a free parameter of the model. They assume a power law distribution of the total energy of the fluctuations $\sim k^{-s}$, with $s$ independent on $\theta_{kB}$. For a given $k$, the turbulent spectrum is modeled by one of the two typical angular distribution $\sim \cos(\theta_{kB})^{\mu}$ for ${\bf k}$ nearly parallel to ${\bf B}$ and $\sim \sin(\theta_{kB})^{\mu}$ for ${\bf k}$ nearly perpendicular to ${\bf B}$. For these two distributions, the cone aperture of $\theta_{kB}$ is about $20^{\circ}$ for $\mu=10$ and $7^{\circ}$ for $\mu=100$. The angle $\theta_{kB}$ can be easily represented through $\Theta_{BV}$ and so the model can be tested with one-spacecraft measurements.
An advantage of the magnetosheath with respect to the solar wind in ecliptical plane is that the angle $\Theta_{BV}$ covers the range from $0^{\circ}$ to $90^{\circ}$ within rather short time periods (one hour, or so) while other plasma conditions remain roughly the same. A comparison of the model described above with the observations of the total PSD of the magnetic fluctuations within the magnetosheath flanks, at frequencies between $f_{lh}$ and $10 f_{ce}$, shows that these fluctuations have a strongly anisotropic distribution of ${\bf k}$, with $\theta_{kB}=(90 \pm 7)^{\circ}$ (Mangeney et al., 2006). Actually, this model (as well as the tests of Bieber et al., 1996) is valid not only for a power law energy distribution in $k$, but for any monotone dependence where the energy decreases with increasing $k$.
Mangeney et al. (2006) have also shown that the variations of $\delta B^2$ with $\Theta_{BV}$ for a given frequency was not consistent with the presence of waves with a non-negligible phase velocity $v_\phi$. In other words, if the observed turbulent fluctuations are a superposition of waves, their $v_\phi$ has to be much smaller than the flow velocity for any wave number $k$. This is consistent with the assumption that the wave frequency $\omega_0$ is vanishing: the fluctuations are due to magnetic structures frozen in the plasma frame. These results have been obtained in the magnetosheath flanks for $f>10$ Hz, at electron spatial scales $\sim[0.3,30] kc/\omega_{pe}$.
In this paper we extend the study of Mangeney et al. (2006) to frequencies below 10 Hz, for the same time periods in the magnetosheath flanks. As a result, we will cover the largest possible scale range, from electron ($\sim 1$ km) to MHD scales ($\sim 10^5$ km). At variance with the previous study, we analyse the spectral shapes and anisotropies for parallel ($\sim$ compressive) $\delta B_{\|}$ and for transverse ($\sim$ Alfvénic) $\delta B_{\perp}$ fluctuations independently. For Alfvénic fluctuations $\delta B_{\perp}$ we perform the first test of Bieber et al. (1996), i.e., we analyze the gyrotropy of the PSD of the magnetic fluctuations in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, at a given frequency, as a function of $\Theta_{BV}$.
Data and methods of analysis
============================
For our study we use high resolution (22 vectors per second) magnetic field waveforms measured by the FGM instrument (Balogh et al., 2001). Four seconds averages of the PSD of the magnetic fluctuations at 27 logarithmically spaced frequencies, between $8$ Hz and $4$ kHz, are measured by the STAFF Spectrum Analyser (SA) (Cornilleau-Wehrlin et al., 1997). Plasma parameters with a time resolution of 4 seconds are determined from HIA/CIS measurements (Rème et al., 2001).
Magnetic spectra and decomposition in $\delta B_{\perp}$ and $\delta B_{\|}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
High resolution FGM measurements allow to resolve turbulent spectra up to $\sim 10$ Hz. Similar to Alexandrova et al. (2006), we calculate the spectra of the magnetic fluctuations in the GSE directions X, Y and Z, using the Morlet wavelet transform. The total power spectral density (PSD) is $\delta B^2(f) = \sum_{j=X,Y,Z} \delta B^2_j(f)$. The PSD of the compressive fluctuations $\delta B^2_{\parallel}(f)$ is approximated by the PSD of the modulus of the magnetic field. This is a good approximation when $\delta B^2 \ll B_0^2$, where $B_0$ is the modulus of the magnetic field at the largest scale of the analysed data set. The PSD of the transverse fluctuations is therefore $$\delta B^2_{\perp}(f) = \delta B^2(f) - \delta B^2_{\parallel}(f) .$$ This approach, based on wavelet decomposition, allows the separation of $\delta B_{\perp}$ and $\delta B_{\|}$ with respect to a local mean field, i.e. to the field averaged on a neighbouring scale larger than the scale of the fluctuations. The lower frequency limit of this approach is a scale where the ordering $\delta B^2 \ll B_0^2$ is no longer satisfied.
The STAFF-SA instrument measures the spectral matrix $\langle \delta B_i(f) \delta B_j(f) \rangle$ at higher frequencies. Because of a recently detected error about the axes directions in the spin plane (O. Santolik, 2008, private communication) we cannot separate parallel and perpendicular spectra at the STAFF-SA frequencies; however we present here the total PSD, the trace of the spectral matrix.
Anisotropy of the ${\bf k}$ distribution
----------------------------------------
The motion of the plasma with respect to a probe allows a 1D analysis of the wave vector distribution along the direction of ${\bf V}$, as was discussed in section 1. The 3D wave vector power spectrum $I({\bf k}) \equiv I(k,\theta_{kB},\varphi_k)$ depends on the wave number $k$, on the angle $\theta_{kB}$ between ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf B}$, and on the azimuth $\varphi_k$ of ${\bf k}$ in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$. If $\omega_0$ is the frequency of a wave in the plasma rest frame ($\omega_0$ and $\omega$ are assumed to be positive), the Doppler shifted frequency $f = \omega /2 \pi$ in the spacecraft frame is given by $$\omega = |\omega_0 + {\bf k\cdot V}|.$$ The trace of the power spectral density at this frequency is $$\delta B^2(\omega) = A \int I({\bf k}) \delta(\omega -|\omega_0 + {\bf k\cdot V}|) d{\bf k}$$ i.e. the sum of the contributions with different ${\bf k}$. $A$ is a normalisation factor and $\delta$ the Dirac function.
The angle $\theta_{kB}$ can be considered as depending on the angle $\theta_{kV}$ between ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf V}$, the angle appearing in the Doppler shift frequency, and on the angle $\Theta_{BV}$ between ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf V}$ (see equation (2) of Mangeney et al., 2006). Thus, the variations of $\delta B^2$ with $\Theta_{BV}$ for a given $\omega$ will give information about $I({\bf k})$. As was discussed in section 1, $\delta B^2$ increases with increasing $\Theta_{BV}$ when the fluctuations have $k_{\perp} \gg k_{\|}$ (2D turbulence) and it decreases for a slab turbulence with $k_{\|} \gg k_{\perp}$ (see Figure 6 of Mangeney et al., 2006). As a consequence, in the case of 2D turbulence, the spectrum of the fluctuations will be higher for large angles $\Theta_{BV}$ than for small ones, and vice-versa for the slab geometry.
$\delta {\bf B}$–anisotropy in the ${\bf BV}$–frame
---------------------------------------------------
To study the distribution of the PSD $\delta B_{\perp}^2(f)$ in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, i.e. the gyrotropy of the magnetic fluctuations, taking into account the direction of the flow velocity ${\bf V}$, we shall consider the following reference frame (${\bf b, bv, bbv}$): ${\bf b}$ is the direction of the ${\bf B}$ field, ${\bf bv}$ the direction of ${\bf B \times V}$ and ${\bf bbv}$ the direction of ${\bf B \times (B \times V)}$.
The definition of this frame depends on the considered scale (frequency). A local reference frame (defined on a neighbouring scale larger than the scale of the fluctuations) can be defined only for frequencies below the spacecraft spin frequency $f_{spin}=0.25$ Hz which limits the plasma moments time resolution to $4$ s. That is why, for any frequency $f>f_{spin}$ we shall use the frame (${\bf b, bv, bbv}$) redefined every $4$ s.
In this frame, we only consider the frequencies below $10$ Hz, i.e., the FGM data (the STAFF-SA data cannot be used because of the error that has to be corrected in the whole data set). We project the wavelet transform of $B_X$, $B_Y$ and $B_Z$ on the ${\bf b, bv, bbv}$ directions and we calculate the squares of these projections $\delta B^2_b(f,t)$, $\delta B^2_{bv}(f,t)$ and $\delta B^2_{bbv}(f,t)$ which are the diagonal terms of the spectral matrix in this new frame.
${\bf k}$-distribution of $\delta B_{\perp}$ and $\delta B_{\|}$
=================================================================
A case study with $\beta_p \simeq$ 1
------------------------------------
![\[fig:fig1\_I\] FGM and STAFF-SA/Cluster data on 19/12/2001, 02:00-04:00 UT. Average spectra of the magnetic fluctuations, calculated using the Morlet wavelet transform of the FGM data ($f<10$ Hz). Solid line: for the transverse fluctuations $\delta B_{\perp}$. Dashed line: for the compressive fluctuations $\delta B_{\|}$. Dotted line: the total power spectral density, STAFF-SA data ($f>8$ Hz). The diamonds give the scales $k c/\omega_{pi} \simeq k r_{gi} \simeq 0.01$ to $100$. The vertical dotted line gives the average proton cyclotron frequency $f_{ci}$. The shapes of the power laws $f^{-1.8}$ and $f^{-2.5}$ are shown.](angeo-2008-0040-f01.pdf){width="8cm"}
We consider an interval on the day 19/12/2001, from 02:00 to 04:00 UT. For this interval, the mean plasma parameters are the following: the magnetic field $B=(18\pm 2)$ nT, the proton plasma density $N_p=(7 \pm 1)$ cm$^{-3}$, the proton temperature $T_p=(120\pm 15)$ eV, the proton plasma beta $\beta_p =(1.1\pm 0.4)$, the ion inertial length $c/\omega_{pi}=(90\pm 5)$ km and the ion Larmor radius $r_{gi}=(65\pm 15)$ km. The average upstream bow shock angle $\theta_{BN}$ calculated with the ACE data is about $70^{\circ}$ (Lacombe et al., 2006).
Figure \[fig:fig1\_I\] displays the average spectra of the FGM data for the transverse fluctuations (solid lines) and for the compressive fluctuations (dashed lines). The total PSD of the STAFF-SA data is the dotted line above $8$ Hz. The total covered frequency range is more than six decades, from $3\cdot 10^{-4}$ Hz to $300$ Hz. The small vertical bars just above the abscissae-axis indicate the scales from $\lambda = 10^4$ km to $1$ km corresponding to the Doppler shift $f = V / \lambda$ for $\theta_{kV}=0^{\circ}$ and for the average velocity $V=(246\pm 25)$ km/s. The diamonds above the abscissae indicate the scales $k c/\omega_{pi} \simeq k r_{gi} \simeq 0.01$ to $100$, corresponding to the frequency $f = k V / 2 \pi$. Precisely, $k c/\omega_{pi}=1$ appears in the spectrum at $f=(0.44\pm 0.05)$ Hz and $k r_{gi}=1$ appears at $f=(0.63\pm 0.11)$ Hz.
We see in Figure \[fig:fig1\_I\] that, in the FGM frequency range, $\delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ is everywhere larger than $\delta B^2_{\|}(f)$, except around $f\sim 5\cdot 10^{-2}$ Hz where $\delta B^2_{\perp} \sim \delta B^2_{\|}$, and where the compressive fluctuations display a spectral break. The spectrum of $\delta B_{\perp}$ displays a bump and a break around $0.2$ Hz, that can be a signature of Alfvén vortices [@olga06]. Below the bump, $\delta B^2_{\perp}(f) \sim f^{-1.8}$, a power law with an exponent close to the Kolmogorov’s one $-5/3$ (in section 5 we will analyse spectral shapes in more details). Above the bump, for $k c/\omega_{pi} > 0.2$, $\delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ and $\delta B^2_{\|}(f)$ follow a similar power law $\sim f^{-2.5}$. This power law extends on the STAFF-SA frequency range up to $k c/\omega_{pi} \simeq 50$ ($kc/\omega_{pe} \simeq 1.3$). It is quite possible that, above these scales, the dissipation of the electromagnetic turbulence starts. However, around $f\simeq 100$ Hz, there is another spectral bump, which is due to whistler waves, identified by their right-handed polarisation. The question of the turbulence dissipation is out of scope of the present paper and will be analysed in details in the future.
![FGM/Cluster data on 19/12/2001, 02:00-04:00 UT. Upper panels: Scatter plots of the power spectral density of the magnetic fluctuations at $f=3$ Hz as a function of the angle between the local mean field and velocity, $\Theta_{BV}$. The distributions of the energy of Alfvénic fluctuations $\delta B_{\perp}^2$ is shown in the left panel, $\delta B^2_{\|}$ is shown in the right panel. Middle and lower panels have the same format, but here the frequencies are respectively $0.52$ Hz and $0.2$ Hz. In all panels, the thick lines give the median value for bins $5^{\circ}$ wide.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](angeo-2008-0040-f02.pdf){width="8cm"}
Now, we consider the anisotropy of the distribution of the wave vectors. Figure \[fig:fig2\] shows the dependence of $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ (left column) and $\delta B^2_{\|}$ (right column) on the angle $\Theta_{BV}$ at different frequencies. The thick solid curves give the median values for bins $5^\circ$ wide. The upper panels of Figure \[fig:fig2\] correspond to $f=3$ Hz ($kc/\omega_{pi} \simeq 7$). The observed increase of $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ and $\delta B^2_{\|}$ with $\Theta_{BV}$ can be produced only by fluctuations with $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$, with phase velocities $v_{\phi}$ negligible with respect to the plasma bulk velocity, and with decreasing intensity of the fluctuations with increasing $k$ (as was discussed in sections 1 and 2.2).
At larger scales (lower frequencies) we observe the same tendency for $f>0.3$ Hz. The middle panels of Figure \[fig:fig2\] display $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ and $\delta B^2_{\parallel}$ as functions of $\Theta_{BV}$ for $f=0.52$ Hz ($kc/\omega_{pi} \simeq 1.2$): we still observe here a clear increase of $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ and $\delta B^2_{\parallel}$ with $\Theta_{BV}$. The lower panels of Figure \[fig:fig2\] display $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ and $\delta B^2_{\parallel}$ at $0.2$ Hz ($kc/\omega_{pi} \simeq 0.5$), just at the spectral bump of $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ (see Figure \[fig:fig1\_I\]). $\delta B^2_{\parallel}$ still increases with $\Theta_{BV}$ (in spite of a large dispersion of the data points around the median), while $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ has a flat distribution with $\Theta_{BV}$. This can be due to several reasons: (i) $I(k)$ is no longer a decreasing function with $k$, (ii) $I(\theta_{kB})$ is more isotropic in the spectral bump and/or (iii) the fluctuations are not frozen in plasma at this scale. This spectral bump, as we have already mentioned, can be the signature of Alfvén vortices with $k_{\perp} \gg k_{\|}$, propagating slowly in the plasma frame. It can be also the signature of propagating AIC waves with $k_{\|} \gg k_{\perp}$, which are unstable for the observed plasma conditions (Mangeney et al., 2006; Samsonov et al., 2007). However, as explained in sections 1 and 2.2, the energy of fluctuations with $k_{\|} \gg k_{\perp}$ would decrease with increasing $\Theta_{BV}$ at a given frequency, while in our case $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ seems to be independent on $\Theta_{BV}$.
As we have just seen from Figure 2 (and as discussed in sections 1 and 2.2), the comparison of the energy level of the turbulent fluctuations for different $\Theta_{BV}$ at a given frequency gives us a good estimate of the wave vector anisotropy. We compare now the PSD of the fluctuations observed for large $\Theta_{BV}$ and for small $\Theta_{BV}$ in the whole frequency range, to estimate the wave vector anisotropy in a large domain of wave vectors.
![\[fig:fig4\_I\] FGM/Cluster data on 19/12/2001, 02:00-04:00 UT. Average power spectral density of the transverse magnetic fluctuations (upper panel) and of the compressive fluctuations (lower panel). In each panel, the solid line is the average spectrum for large $\Theta_{BV}$ angles, and the dashed line for small $\Theta_{BV}$. The vertical dotted line gives the average $f_{ci}$, the diamonds indicate $kc/\omega_{pi}=0.01$, $0.1$ and $1$.](angeo-2008-0040-f03.pdf){width="8cm"}
The upper panel of Figure \[fig:fig4\_I\] displays the spectra of the compressive fluctuations $\delta B^2_{\| la}$ for the $10$% of the points of the sample with the largest $\Theta_{BV}$ ($la=$ large angles, solid line), and $\delta B^2_{\| sa}$ for the $10$% of the points with the smallest $\Theta_{BV}$ ($sa=$ small angles, dashed line). At frequencies below 0.06 Hz ($kc/\omega_{pi}=0.1$, indicated by a vertical solid line) the spectra $\delta B^2_{\| sa} \simeq \delta B^2_{\| la}$. At higher frequencies, $f>0.06$ Hz (i.e., at smaller scales, $kc/\omega_{pi} > 0.1$) we observe $\delta B^2_{\| la} > \delta B^2_{\| sa}$. This indicates that 2D turbulence dominates at such small scales. Close to $10$ Hz, i.e. at the vicinity of the FGM Nyquist frequency, we see that $\delta B^2_{\| la} \simeq \delta B^2_{\| sa}\simeq 10^{-4}$ nT$^2$/Hz, that is the sensitivity limit of the FGM instrument. Therefore, the observations at $f>5$ Hz are not physically reliable.
The lower panel of Figure \[fig:fig4\_I\] displays the spectra for the transverse fluctuations for large and small angles $\Theta_{BV}$, $\delta B^2_{\perp la}$ (solid line) and $\delta B^2_{\perp sa}$ (dashed line). We observe that $\delta B^2_{\perp la}$ becomes larger than $\delta B^2_{\perp sa}$ at about the same scale of $kc/\omega_{pi} \simeq 0.1$ as for compressive fluctuations. However, here within the spectral bump range, $\sim [0.1,0.3]$ Hz, we observe $\delta B^2_{\perp la} \simeq \delta B^2_{\perp sa}$. This is consistent with our previous results that in this short frequency range the 2D turbulence model is not valid (cf. Figure \[fig:fig2\]). A clear dominance of $\delta B^2_{\perp la}$ over $\delta B^2_{\perp sa}$ is then observed for $f > 0.3$ Hz ($kc/\omega_{pi} > 0.8$, see a vertical solid line).
These observations allow to conclude that, for $\beta_p \simeq 1$, there is a change in the nature of the wave-vector distribution of the magnetic fluctuations in the magnetosheath, in the vicinity of ion characteristic scale: if at MHD scales there is no clear evidence for a dominance of a slab or 2D geometry of the fluctuations, at ion scales ($kc/\omega_{pi} > 0.1$) the 2D turbulence dominates. This is valid for both the Alfvénic and compressive fluctuations. The large scale limit of the 2D turbulence is, however, different for Alfvénic and compressive fluctuations, and seems to depend on the presence of spectral features, as peaks or bumps. We analyse this point more in details by considering other cases.
Other case studies
------------------
The comparison between the spectra for large $\Theta_{BV}$ and for small $\Theta_{BV}$ has been made during four other one-hour intervals, with different average $\beta_p$ and different average shock angles $\theta_{BN}$. For the same intervals, Samsonov et al. (2007) display the observed proton temperature anisotropy and the corresponding thresholds for AIC and mirror instabilities.
![\[fig:fig5\_I\] FGM/Cluster data on 17/05/2002, 08:30-09:30 UT. (a) Average PSD of $\delta B_{\perp}$ (solid line), PSD of $\delta B_{\|}$ (dashed line), the vertical dotted line gives the average $f_{ci}$; (b) the average spectrum of $\delta B_{\|}$ for large angles $\Theta_{BV}$ (solid line) and for small angles (dashed line), diamonds indicate $kc/\omega_{pi}=0.01$, $0.1$ and $1$ ($kr_{gi} = kc/\omega_{pi}$ in this case); (c) same as (b), for $\delta B_{\perp}$. ](angeo-2008-0040-f04.pdf){width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\] gives the results of the analysis for an interval (day 17/05/2002, 08:30-09:30 UT) for which $\theta_{BN} \simeq 70^{\circ}$, $\beta_p = (1.6\pm 0.3)$, $B=(24\pm 3)$ nT, $V=(190\pm 10)$ km/s, $f_{ci}=(0.37\pm 0.04)$ Hz, $c/\omega_{pi}=(55\pm 2)$ km and $r_{gi}=(50\pm 5)$ km.
Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\]a gives the average PSD of transverse (solid line) and compressive fluctuations (dashed line). There is a spectral bump for the transverse fluctuations around $0.2$ Hz. Below the spectral bump, $\delta B^2_{\perp} (f) \sim f^{-5/3}$. For the compressive fluctuations there is a spectral bump around $0.07$ Hz, probably made of mirror modes. Below the bump, $\delta B^2_{\|} (f)$ is close to $f^{-1}$.
In the two other panels of Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\], we display the spectra for large and small $\Theta_{BV}$ for compressive and for transverse fluctuations, respectively. In Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\]b, at frequencies above the bump of $\delta B^2_{\|}$ ($f>0.1$ Hz, $k c/\omega_{pi} \geq$ 0.3) we observe $\delta B^2_{\| la} > \delta B^2_{\| sa}$. In Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\]c, we observe $\delta B^2_{\perp la} \simeq \delta B^2_{\perp sa}$ at large scales (observed at $f < 0.05$ Hz, i.e. $kc/\omega_{pi}<0.1$), but at frequencies above the bump of $\delta B^2_{\perp}$ ($k c/\omega_{pi} > 1$) we observe $\delta B^2_{\perp la} > \delta B^2_{\perp sa}$. So, the transverse and compressive fluctuations have $k_{\perp} \gg k_{\|}$ at scales smaller than their respective spectral bumps. This confirms the conclusions of section 3.1.
For an interval with $\beta_p \simeq 0.8$ and $\theta_{BN} \simeq 70^{\circ}$ (day 16/12/2001, 08:00-09:00 UT) the average spectrum $\delta B^2_{\perp} (f)$ displays a spectral bump around 0.5 Hz. The comparison between the spectra for large and small $\Theta_{BV}$ (not shown) indicates that above the bump, for $k c/\omega_{pi} > 1$, the transverse fluctuations can be described by the 2D–turbulence model. For the compressive fluctuations, this model is valid for a larger range of scales, $k c/\omega_{pi} > 0.3$. This confirms the results obtained for $\beta_p \simeq 1.6$, shown in Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\] as well as the conclusions of section 3.1.
In an interval with a larger value of $\beta_p$ (day 17/05/2002, 11:00-12:00 UT, $\beta_p \simeq$ 4.5, $\theta_{BN} \simeq 73^{\circ}$), the analysis of the spectra for large and small $\Theta_{BV}$ (not shown) shows that the 2D turbulence takes place for $k c/\omega_{pi} > 0.3$ for the transverse fluctuations, and for $k c/\omega_{pi} > 0.2$ for the compressive fluctuations. So, the 2D turbulence range of scales for the transverse fluctuations is wider in this case.
Figure \[fig:fig6\_I\] shows the results of the analysis for an interval (day 16/12/2001, 05:30-06:30 UT) downstream of an oblique bow shock ($\theta_{BN} \simeq 50^{\circ}$), when $\beta_p=(9\pm3)$, $B=(27\pm 6)$ nT, $V=(370\pm20)$ km/s, $f_{ci}=(0.4\pm0.1)$ Hz, $c/\omega_{pi}=(30 \pm 2)$ km and $r_{gi}=(60 \pm 20)$ km. The wavenumber $kc/\omega_{pi}=1$ appears in the spectrum at $f=(2.0 \pm 0.2)$ Hz and the wavenumber $kr_{gi}=1$ appears at $f=(1.1 \pm 0.3)$ Hz.
Figure 5b shows that at low frequencies (i.e., at large scales, $k c/\omega_{pi} < 0.1$) the spectrum for large angle $\delta B_{\| la}$ dominates slightly at every frequencies. At smaller scales, $k c/\omega_{pi} > 0.1$, this dominance is more clear. Figure 5c shows that $\delta B_{\perp la} > \delta B_{\perp sa}$ as far as $k c/\omega_{pi} > 0.01$ (wavelengths smaller than $10^4$ km), i.e., the $\delta B_{\perp}$ fluctuations can be described by the 2D–turbulence model at all the scales smaller than the Earth’s radius. In this case, with large value of plasma beta, the 2D turbulence range of scales increases again, but the lower limit of 2D turbulence is not related to any spectral features, as was observed for smaller $\beta_p$.
![\[fig:fig6\_I\] Same as Figure \[fig:fig5\_I\], but for FGM/Cluster data on 16/12/2001, 05:30-06:30 UT.](angeo-2008-0040-f05.pdf){width="8cm"}
We may therefore conclude that, at frequencies above the spectral break in the vicinity of $f_{ci}$, the $\delta B_{\perp}$ and $\delta B_{\|}$ fluctuations in the magnetosheath have ${\bf k}$ mostly perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, and this is independent on $\beta_p$ and on $\theta_{BN}$. In terms of spatial scales, this is valid for $kc/\omega_{pi} >0.1$ (or $>1$ when spectral features appear in the vicinity of $kc/\omega_{pi}=1$). For high values of $\beta_p$, the range of scales of the 2D turbulence seems to increase: for $\beta_p\sim 10$ the fluctuations have $k_{\perp} \gg k_{\|}$ for $kc/\omega_{pi} >0.01$. This small scale spectral anisotropy is also independent on the presence of transverse and/or compressive spectral features (peaks) at larger scales. Nevertheless, for the moderate values of beta ($\beta_p<3$), these spectral peaks appear as the lower limit of 2D turbulence.
Gyrotropy of the magnetic fluctuations
======================================
In this section we analyse the anisotropy of the amplitudes of magnetic fluctuations in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$. For this purpose, we use the coordinate frame based on ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf V}$, ${\bf (b,bv,bbv)}$, as explained in section 2.3.
For the same time interval as Figure \[fig:fig1\_I\], Figure \[fig:fig7\_I\] displays the ratio $R=\delta B_{bv}^2$/$\delta B_{bbv}^2$, amplitude of the fluctuations along ${\bf B\times V}$ over the amplitude along ${\bf B\times (B\times V)}$, in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, at four fixed frequencies, as a function of $\Theta_{BV}$.
In Figure 6a ($f=10$ Hz, $k c/\omega_{pi} = 23$) and Figure 6b ($f=3$ Hz, $k c/\omega_{pi} = 7$) the ratio $R$ is larger than 1 for $\Theta_{BV} \gtrsim 20^{\circ}$. The median value decreases and reaches $1$ or less for $\Theta_{BV} < 20^{\circ}$. A similar dependence was observed by Bieber et al. (1996) and Saur & Bieber (1999) at MHD scales in the solar wind, indicating the dominance of the 2D turbulence.
At larger scales (Figure 6c, $f=1$ Hz, $k c/\omega_{pi} = 2$), in spite of the strong dispersion of $R$, the median values are slightly larger than $1$ for any $\Theta_{BV}$: the 2D turbulence still dominates. At an even larger scale, the scale of the spectral break (Figure 6d, $f=0.3$ Hz, $k c/\omega_{pi} = 0.7$), the ratio $R$ is strongly dispersed. The variation of the median does not correspond to a slab or 2D turbulence. That is in agreement with the results obtained within the spectral break frequency range in section 3.1 (cf. Figure 2, lowest panel for $\delta B_{\perp}$).
![\[fig:fig7\_I\] FGM/Cluster data on 19/12/2001, 02:00-04:00 UT. Scatter plots of the ratio $R=\delta B_{bv}^2$/$\delta B_{bbv}^2$ averaged over 4 s, as a function of the angle $\Theta_{BV}$ at (a) $10$ Hz, (b) $3$ Hz, (c) $1$ Hz and (d) $0.3$ Hz. The thick lines give the median value for bins $10^{\circ}$ wide. ](angeo-2008-0040-f06.pdf){width="8cm"}
The anisotropy of the magnetic fluctuations for the $[10^{-3},10]$ Hz frequency range is shown in Figure \[fig:fig8\_I\] with average spectra in the three directions ${\bf b}$ (dashed line), ${\bf bv}$ (solid line) and ${\bf bbv}$ (dotted line). The panels (a) to (f) correspond to increasing values of $\beta_p$ for the six considered intervals. For each interval, the vertical solid bar indicates the scale $k c/\omega_{pi} = 1$ and the dotted bar shows $f_{ci}$.
In Figures \[fig:fig8\_I\]a, b and d, for $k c/\omega_{pi} \geq 1$ we observe that the spectra of the components along ${\bf b}$ and along ${\bf bbv}$ are nearly equal, $\delta B_{b}^2 \simeq \delta B_{bbv}^2$. In Figures \[fig:fig8\_I\]e and f, $\delta B_{b}^2$ is larger than $\delta B^2_{bv}$: the fluctuations are more compressive for the largest values of $\beta_p$. All the panels of Figure \[fig:fig8\_I\] show that $\delta B^2_{bv}> \delta B^2_{bbv}$ for $k c/\omega_{pi} \geq 1$. So, within the 2D turbulence range the PSD is not gyrotropic at a given frequency.
![\[fig:fig8\_I\] Average spectra of the magnetic fluctuations in the ${\bf (b,bv,bbv)}$–frame, ${\bf b}$ is parallel to the ${\bf B}$ field (dashed line), ${\bf bv}$ is parallel to ${\bf B \times V}$ (solid line), ${\bf bbv}$ is parallel to ${\bf B \times (B \times V)}$ (dotted line). For each of the 6 considered one-hour intervals a vertical dotted bar gives $f_{ci}$, a vertical solid bar gives the Doppler shifted wavenumber $k c /\omega_{pi}=1$. In each panel the shapes of the power laws $f^{-5/3}$, $f^{-1}$ are indicated; in the high frequency range we show the $f^{-s}$ spectral shape, with $s$ determined in section 5, see Figure 8. ](angeo-2008-0040-f07.pdf){width="8cm"}
As we have mentioned in section 1, the observed non-gyrotropy in the spacecraft frame can be due to the Doppler shift. Indeed, we have shown in section 3 that the wave vectors ${\bf k}$ are mainly perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, i.e ${\bf k}$ lies in plane spanned by ${\bf bv}$ and ${\bf bbv}$. Assuming plane 2D turbulence, the relation ${\bf k_{\perp}\cdot \delta B}=0$ holds and thus, the wave vectors along ${\bf bbv}$ (i.e., along the direction of the flow in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, we denote such wave vectors ${\bf k_{bbv}}$) contribute to the PSD of $\delta B_{bv}$ and the wave vectors along ${\bf bv}$ (${\bf k_{bv}}$) contribute to the PSD of $\delta B_{bbv}$. Even if $I({\bf k})$ is gyrotropic, the fluctuations $\delta B_{bv}$ with ${\bf k_{bbv}}$ suffer a Doppler shift stronger than the fluctuations $\delta B_{bbv}$ with ${\bf k_{bv}}$. For 2D turbulence, this Doppler shift effect is more pronounced when $\Theta_{BV}$ reaches $90^{\circ}$.
This implies that, for a gyrotropic energy distribution, $I(k_{bv}) \simeq I(k_{bbv})$, in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, and if the energy decreases with $k$, for example as a power law $I(k) \sim k^{-s}$, the observed frequency spectrum $\delta B^2_{bv}(f)$ will be more intense than $\delta B^2_{bbv}(f)$. In other words, at the same frequency $f$ in the spacecraft frame, we observe the fluctuations with $|{\bf k_{bv}}|>|{\bf k_{bbv}}|$. As the larger wave numbers correspond to a weaker intensity (for a monotone energy decrease with $k$), $\delta B_{bbv}^2$ will be smaller than $\delta B_{bv}^2$.
Therefore, the non-gyrotropy of $\delta B^2(f)$, observed here, could be due to the non-gyrotropy of the Doppler shift, and could be compatible with a gyrotropic distribution of $I({\bf k})$. This is confirmed by the upper panels of Figure \[fig:fig7\_I\]: as far as ${\bf k}$ is mainly perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, the Doppler shift is small and gyrotropic for small $\Theta_{BV}$ and we observe $R\sim 1$, i.e. the PSD is gyrotropic; but for large $\Theta_{BV}$, $R >1$.
On the other hand, the ratio $R(f)>1$, observed in Figures 6a and 6b for $\Theta_{BV} \simeq 90^{\circ}$, is also compatible with the non-gyrotropic ${\bf k}$–distribution observed by Sahraoui et al. (2006) near the magnetopause, for $\Theta_{BV} \simeq 90^{\circ}$. In this case study, the authors show that the turbulent cascade develops along ${\bf V}$, perpendicular to ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf n}$, where ${\bf n}$ is the normal to the magnetopause. In this geometry, the direction ${\bf V}$ is close to ${\bf bbv}$. Therefore, a non-gyrotropic $I({\bf k})$ distribution with $\delta B^2_{bv}(k) / \delta B^2_{bbv}(k) > 1$ is expected in the ${\bf k}$–domain. This non-gyrotropy of wave vectors is then reinforced by the Doppler shift, and would give $\delta B^2_{bv}(f) / \delta B^2_{bbv}(f) > 1$ in the $f$-domain.
Spectral shapes
===============
![\[fig:fig9\_I\] Compensated spectra $ f^{5/3} \delta B^2_{\perp}(f) $ (solid lines) and $ f^{s} \delta B^2_{\perp}(f) $ with $s$ indicated in each panel (dashed lines) for the same time periods as Figure 7. ](angeo-2008-0040-f08.pdf){width="8cm"}
We have mentionned in section 3 that, at frequencies $f<f_{ci}$, below the spectral break, the spectra of the transverse fluctuations $\delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ follow a power law close to $f^{-5/3}$ (see Figure 1 and 4a). For the six intervals of Figure 7, Figure 8 displays compensated plots of the transverse spectra $f^{5/3} \delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ (solid lines). On the low frequency side of these plots, we see that the compensated spectra oscillate around a horizontal line, in a frequency range which varies slightly from day to day: a power law $ f^{-5/3}$ is thus a good approximation for the observations in this frequency range. In Figures 8a to 8e, for which $\beta_p$ is between 0.8 and 4.5, the Kolmogoroff $ f^{-5/3}$ power law is observed below 0.06 or 0.1 Hz, corresponding to scales $kc/\omega_{pi }< 0.1$ (see the vertical solid bar).
In Figure 8f, for $\beta_p \simeq (9 \pm 3)$, the $ f^{-5/3}$ power law is only observed below $0.01$ Hz, i.e., below the 2D turbulence range of $\delta B_{\perp}$ (see Figure 5c). Above this frequency, as we see in Figure 7f, the spectra of all the components are close to an $f^{-1}$ power law and the three spectra have nearly the same intensity, $\delta B^2_{b}(f)\simeq \delta B^2_{bv}(f)\simeq \delta B^2_{bbv}(f) $. This isotropy of the amplitudes of the turbulent fluctuations is natural to observe in a high beta plasma, where the mean magnetic field does not play any important role. Within this frequency range the spectrum can be also formed by a superposition of AIC and mirror waves. For such high $\beta_p$, the mirror modes are more unstable than the AIC waves, but they have an important Alfvénic component (Génot et al., 2001), that can also contribute to make fluctuations more isotropic.
Above $f_{ci}$, the spectra $\delta B^2_{\|}(f)$ and $\delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ follow similar power laws, see Figure 7. The compensated spectra $f^{s} \delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ with $s$ between 2 and 3 are presented in Figure 8 by dashed lines. We see that the composed spectra $f^{2.5} \delta B^2_{\perp}(f)$ oscillate around a horizontal line in a few cases (Figures 7b, 7d and 7e), for different values of $\beta_p$. In Figure 8a, the power law is steeper, $s=3$. Actually, in this case the spectral bump is the most clearly pronounced of the six analyzed intervals. This bump is a signature of the Alfvén vortices, which have their own spectrum $\sim k^{-4}$ or $k^{-6}$, depending on the vortex topology (Alexandrova, 2008). The superposition of the background turbulence with the coherent structures, like magnetic vortices, can produce the observed steep spectrum. In Figure 8c we do not observe any clear evidence for a power law spectrum in this frequency range.
Summary and Discussion
======================
In the present paper, we have analysed six one-hour intervals in the middle of the terrestrial magnetosheath (at more than one hour from the crossing of the bow shock or of the magnetopause). Precisely, we considered intervals in the magnetosheath flanks: the local times for the three considered days are respectively 8, 17 and 18 h (Lacombe et al., 2006). The proton beta varies from one interval to another, $\beta_p \in [0.8,9]$, that allows us to study the plasma turbulence in a very large range of plasma conditions.
Spectral shape
--------------
The spectral shape of the magnetic fluctuations in the magnetosheath has been studied by several authors (see Alexandrova, 2008). Rezeau et al. (1999) find a power law $f^{-3.4}$ above $f_{ci}$ in an interval close to the magnetopause. For intervals close to the bow shock, Czaykowska et al. (2001) find power laws around $f^{-1}$ below $f_{ci}$, and $f^{-2.6}$ above $f_{ci}$. But in these studies, intervals of $4$ minutes have been analyzed, so the minimal resolved frequency is about $10^{-2}$ Hz. In the present paper, the length of the intervals allows to reach frequencies smaller than $10^{-3}$ Hz.
Here, we present, for the first time, the observations of a Kolmogorov-like inertial range for Alfvénic fluctuations $\delta B^{2}_{\perp}(f)\sim f^{-5/3}$ in the frequency range $f<f_{ci}$. It is clearly observed in five of the six studied intervals, those for which $\beta_p < 5$ and when Alfvénic fluctuations were dominant. Such a Kolmogorov power law is observed in the Alfvénic inertial range of the solar wind turbulence, below the spectral break in the vicinity of $f_{ci}$. The presence of such power law in the magnetosheath flanks is consistent with the estimations made by Alexandrova (2008): in the flanks, the transit time of the plasma is longer than in the subsolar regions, and it is much longer than the time of nonlinear interactions; therefore, the turbulence has enough time to become developed.
In the high frequency range, $f>f_{ci}$, we generally observe $\delta B_{\perp}^2(f)$ and $\delta B_{\|}^2(f)$ following similar power law $f^{-s}$ with a spectral index $s$ between $2$ and $3$, in agreement with previous studies.
Wave-vector anisotropy
----------------------
We analysed here the anisotropy of wave-vector distribution of the magnetic fluctuations from $10^{-3}$ to $10$ Hz. This frequency range corresponds to the spatial scales going from $\sim 10$ to $10^5$ km (from electron to MHD scales). For this analysis we used a statistical method, based on the dependence of the observed magnetic energy at a given frequency on the Doppler shift for different wave vectors [@bieber; @Horbury2005; @mangeney06].
Within the inertial range of the magnetosheath turbulence ($f<f_{ci}$, $k c/\omega_{pi} < 1$, $k r_{gi} < 1$), we do not observe a clear evidence of wave-vector anisotropy. It can be related to the fact that linearly unstable modes, such as AIC modes with ${\bf k}$ mainly parallel to ${\bf B}$ and mirror modes with ${\bf k}$ mainly perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, together with Alfvén vortices with $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$ co-exist in this frequency range.
However, above the spectral break in the vicinity of the ion characteristic scales ($f>f_{ci}$, $k c/\omega_{pi} > 1$, $k r_{gi} > 1$ and up to electron scales), we observe a clear evidence of 2D turbulence with $k_{\perp}\gg k_{\|}$ for both $\delta B_{\perp}$ and $\delta B_{\|}$, and independently on $\beta_p$, on the bow-shock geometry $\theta_{BN}$, and on the wave activity within the inertial range at larger scales. This wave vector anisotropy seems to be a general property of the small scale turbulence in the Earth’s magnetosheath.
The range of wavenumbers of this 2D turbulence sometimes goes down to $k c/\omega_{pi} \simeq 0.1$ (or even to $k c/\omega_{pi} \simeq 0.01$), but usually it is limited by $k c/\omega_{pi} \simeq 1$, while at $k c/\omega_{pi} < 1$ spectral features (peaks or bumps) appear. As we can conclude from the work of Mangeney et al. (2006), the largest wavenumbers of the 2D turbulence are observed around $k c/\omega_{pi} \sim 100$, where the dissipation of electromagnetic turbulence begins. This last conjecture must be verified by a deeper analysis.
Anisotropy of magnetic fluctuations
-----------------------------------
Analyzing the anisotropy of the amplitudes of turbulent fluctuations, we usually find that $\delta B^2_{\perp} > \delta B^2_{\|}$; but for the largest plasma $\beta_p$, the fluctuations are more isotropic $\delta B^2_{\perp} \sim \delta B^2_{\|}$. This is valid for both the large scale inertial range and the small scale 2D turbulence. The dominance of $\delta B^2_{\|}$ happens only locally in the turbulent spectrum, indicating the presence of an unstable mirror mode.
Concerning the gyrotropy of the amplitude of the magnetic fluctuations in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$, there is no universal behavior at large scales. At smaller scales, within the frequency range $[0.3-10]$ Hz and for any $\beta_p$, the 2D turbulence is observed to be non-gyrotropic: the energy $\delta B^2_{bv}$ along the direction perpendicular to ${\bf V}$ and ${\bf B}$ is larger than the energy $\delta B^2_{bbv}$ along the projection of ${\bf V}$ in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$. This non-gyrotropy might be a consequence of different Doppler shifts for fluctuations with ${\bf k}$ parallel and perpendicular to ${\bf V}$ in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf B}$. The non-gyrotropy at a fixed $f$ is compatible with gyrotropic fluctuations at a given ${\bf k}$. On the other hand such a non-gyrotropy will be also observed if the ${\bf k}$–distribution is not gyrotropic, but is aligned with the plasma flow, as was observed by Sahraoui et al (2006) in the vicinity of the magnetopause.
We thank Jean-Michel Bosqued for providing the CIS/HIA proton data, and Nicole Cornilleau-Wehrlin for the STAFF-SA data. We thank Joachim Saur for constructive comments on the paper. We are very grateful to the team of the Cluster Magnetic field investigation, to the team of the STAFF instrument, and to the Cluster Active Archive (CAA/ESA).
Alexandrova, O.: Solar wind vs magnetosheath turbulence and Alfvén vortices, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 15, 95-108, 2008.
Alexandrova, O., Mangeney, A., Maksimovic, M., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Bosqued, J.-M., André, M.: Alfvén vortex filaments observed in the magnetosheath downstream of a quasi-perpendicular bow shock, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A12208, 2006.
, O., [Mangeney]{}, A., [Maksimovic]{}, M., [Lacombe]{}, C., [Cornilleau-Wehrlin]{}, N., [Lucek]{}, E. A., [Décréau]{}, P. M. E., [Bosqued]{}, J.-M., [Travnicek]{}, P., and [Fazakerley]{}, A. N.: [Cluster observations of finite amplitude Alfvén waves and small-scale magnetic filaments downstream of a quasi-perpendicular shock]{}, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A05207, 2004
Balogh, A., et al.: The Cluster Magnetic Field Investigation: overview of in-flight performance and initial results, Ann. Geophys., 19, 1207, 2001
Bieber, J.W., Wanner, W., Matthaeus, W.H.: Dominant two-dimensional solar wind turbulence with implications for cosmic ray transport, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 2511-2522, 1996.
Constantinescu, O.D., Glassmeier, K.-H., Décréau, P.M.E., Fränz, M., Fornaçon, K.H.: Low frequency wave source in the outer magnetosphere, magnetosheath, and near Earth solar wind, Ann. Geophysicae, 25, 2217-2228, 2007.
Czaykowska, A., Bauer, T.M., Treumann, R.A., Baumjohann, W.: Magnetic fluctuations across the Earth’s bow shock, Ann. Geophysicae, 19, 275-287, 2001.
G[é]{}not, V., Schwartz, S. J., Mazelle, C., Balikhin, M., Dunlop, M., & Bauer, T. M.: Kinetic study of the mirror mode, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 21611, 2001
, T. S., [Forman]{}, M. A., and [Oughton]{}, S.: [Spacecraft observations of solar wind turbulence: an overview]{}, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47, B703–B717, 2005.
Lacombe, C., Samsonov, A.A., Mangeney, A., Maksimovic, M., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Harvey, C.C., Bosqued, J.-M., Trávníček, P.: Cluster observations in the magnetosheath: 2. Intensity of the turbulence at electron scales, Ann. Geophysicae, 24, 3523-3531, 2006.
Lucek, E.A., Constantinescu, D., Goldstein, M.L., Pickett, J.S., Pinçon, J.-L., Sahraoui, F., Treumann, R.A., Walker, S.N.: The Magnetosheath, Space Science Reviews, 118, 95-152, 2005
Mangeney, A., Lacombe, C., Maksimovic, M., Samsonov, A. A., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Harvey, C.C., Bosqued, J.-M., Trávníček, P.: Cluster observations in the magnetosheath: 1. Anisotropy of the wave vector distribution of the turbulence at electron scales, Ann. Geophysicae, 24, 3507-3521, 2006.
Narita, Y., Glassmeier, K.-H., Fornaçon, K.H., Richter, I., Schäfer, S., Motschmann, U., Dandouras, I., Rème, H., Georgescu, E.: Low-frequency wave characteristics in the upstream and downstream regime of the terrestrial bow shock, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A01203, 2006.
Narita, Y., Glassmeier, K.-H.: Propagation pattern of low frequency waves in the terrestrial magnetosheath, Ann. Geophysicae, 24, 2441-2444, 2006.
, H. and [et al.]{}: [First multispacecraft ion measurements in and near the Earth’s magnetosphere with the identical Cluster ion spectrometry (CIS) experiment]{}, Annales Geophysicae, 19, 1303–1354, 2001.
Rezeau, L., Belmont, G., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Reberac, F.: Spectral law and polarization properties of the low frequency waves at the magnetopause, Geophys. Res. Letters, 26, 651-654, 1999.
Sahraoui, F., Belmont, G., Pinçon, J.-L, Rezeau, L., Robert, P., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N.: Magnetic turbulent spectra in the magnetosheath: new insights, Ann. Geophysicae, 22, 2283-2288, 2004.
Sahraoui, F., Belmont, G., Rezeau, L., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Pinçon, J.L., Balogh, A.: Anisotropic turbulent spectra in the terrestrial magnetosheath as seen by the Cluster spacecraft, Phys. Rev. Letters, 96, 075002, 2006.
Samsonov, A.A., Alexandrova, O., Lacombe, C., Maksimovic, M., Gary, S.P.,: Proton temperature anisotropy in the magnetosheath: comparison of 3-D MHD modelling with Cluster data, Ann. Geophysicae, 25, 1157-1173, 2007.
Saur, J., & Bieber, J. W.,: Geometry of low-frequency solar wind magnetic turbulence: Evidence for radially aligned Alfénic fluctuations, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 9975, 1999
Schäfer, S., Glassmeier, K.-H., Narita, Y., Fornaçon, K.H., Dandouras, I., Fränz, M.: Statistical phase propagation and dispersion analysis of low frequency waves in the magnetosheath, Ann. Geophysicae, 23, 3339-3349, 2005.
Schwartz, S.J., Burgess, D., Moses, J.J.: Low-frequency waves in the Earth’s magnetosheath: present status, Ann. Geophysicae, 14, 1134-1150, 1996.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Inspired by the reconstituted similarity renormalization group method, the reconstituted Foldy-Wouthuysen (FW) transformation is proposed. Applied to the Dirac equation in the covariant density functional theory, the reconstituted FW transformation shows a fast convergence of the spectrum of the single-particle energy. The single-particle densities and the single-particle scalar densities obtained by this new method are also investigated. In particular, the relativistic corrections to the densities from the picture-change error between the Schrödinger and Dirac pictures are discussed in detail. Taking these relativistic corrections into account, both the single-particle densities and the single-particle scalar densities are almost identical to their exact values.'
author:
- Yixin Guo
- Haozhao Liang
title: 'Non-relativistic expansion of Dirac equation with spherical scalar and vector potentials by reconstituted Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation'
---
Introduction
============
Since the 1970s, the density functional theory (DFT) has played a crucial role in investigating the ground-state and excited-state properties of atomic nuclei in a microscopic way [@Serot1986; @Reinhard1989Rep.Prog.Phys.52.439--514; @Ring1996Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.37.193--263; @Bender2003Rev.Mod.Phys.75.121--180; @Vretenar2005Phys.Rep.409.101--259; @Meng2006Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.57.470--563; @Liang2015Phys.Rep.570.1--84; @Meng2015J.Phys.GNucl.Part.Phys.42.093101; @Nakatsukasa2016Rev.Mod.Phys.88.045004; @Meng2016]. Both the non-relativistic and the relativistic DFT have attracted a lot of attention in nuclear physics, while there still remain open questions on the connection between these two frameworks [@Reinhard1989Rep.Prog.Phys.52.439--514; @Bender2003Rev.Mod.Phys.75.121--180; @Meng2016].
The non-relativistic expansion of the Dirac equation is considered to be a potential bridge for making the connection. By following this direction, the Dirac equation was reduced to some non-relativistic Schrödinger-like equations [@Reinhard1989Rep.Prog.Phys.52.439--514; @Bender2003Rev.Mod.Phys.75.121--180; @Meng2016]. However, on the one hand, the convergence of these methods is rather slow. On the other hand, which is more important, the effective Hamiltonian thus obtained is not Hermitian, since the upper- or lower-component wave functions as the solutions of the Schrödinger-like equations alone are not orthogonal to each other.
In 2012, the similarity renormalization group (SRG) [@Wegner1994Ann.Phys.Berl.506.77--91; @Bylev1998Phys.Lett.B428.329--333] was first applied by Guo [@Guo2012Phys.Rev.C85.021302] to perform the non-relativistic expansion of the single-nucleon Dirac equation for investigating the nuclear pseudospin symmetry [@Ginocchio1997Phys.Rev.Lett.78.436--439; @Meng1999Phys.Rev.C59.154--163; @Chen2003Chin.Phys.Lett.20.358--361; @Zhou2003Phys.Rev.Lett.91.262501; @Liang2013Phys.Rev.C87.014334; @Shen2013Phys.Rev.C88.024311; @Liang2015Phys.Rep.570.1--84]. The non-relativistic expansion is carried out in the powers of ${1}/{M}$, and the results up to the ${1}/{M^3}$ order were obtained in Ref. [@Guo2012Phys.Rev.C85.021302] (with $M$ the bare mass of the particle). It is remarkable that the non-relativistic reduced Hamiltonian thus obtained is Hermitian. In order to achieve the convergence of such a conventional SRG method, we recently showed in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324] that the ${1}/{M^4}$-order terms are needed. As a step further, by using the technique of resummation, which is widely used in the studies such as the Brueckner theory [@Brueckner1954Phys.Rev.95.217--228; @Day1967Rev.Mod.Phys.39.719--744; @Shen2019Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.109.103713], we have developed the novel reconstituted SRG method [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], by replacing $M$ with $M^\ast$ in the non-relativistic expansion (with $M^\ast$ the Dirac mass of the particle). Consequently, the convergence of the reconstituted SRG method became much faster than that of the conventional one. It is worthwhile to mention that in parallel another work which started from the general operators and flow equation was carried out by Ren and Zhao [@Ren2019Phys.Rev.C100.044322], where the non-relativistic expansion was also carried out in the powers of ${1}/{M^\ast}$.
In addition to the improvement of the convergence, the single-particle densities $\rho_v(\bm{r})=\psi^\dag(\bm{r})\psi(\bm{r})$, which are also called the signle-particle vector or baryon densities, calculated by the novel reconstituted SRG are also more identical to the exact values than the conventional ones [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324]. In contrast, in order to calculate the single-particle scalar densities $\rho_s(\bm{r})=\psi^\dag(\bm{r})\gamma_0\psi(\bm{r})$, the $\gamma_0$ matrix should be transformed in the same way as the Dirac Hamiltonian. However, in both the conventional and reconstituted SRG methods, the original Dirac Hamiltonian is operated by infinite steps of unitary transformation, and it is also worthwhile to point out that a crucial superiority of the SRG technique is to avoid the treatment of the unitary transformations with specific forms. Therefore, the calculations of the single-particle scalar densities are not trivial at all in the SRG methods.
Alternatively, the Foldy-Wouthuysen (FW) transformation, also called the Pryce-Tani-Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation [@Pryce1948Proc.RoyalSoc.A195.62--81; @Foldy1950Phys.Rev.78.29--36; @Tani1951; @Foldy1952Phys.Rev.87.688--693], which was initially formulated around 1950 to describe the relativistic spin-$1/2$ particles such as electrons in the non-relativistic limit, is also an elegant method for the non-relativistic expansion of the Dirac equation [@Greiner1990.277--290].
The FW non-relativistic expansions of the Dirac equation have been carried out up to some higher orders for the selected families of potentials with specific properties, see, e.g., Refs. [@Chen2010Phys.Rev.A82.012115; @Chen2014Phys.Rev.A90.012112]. Very recently, with the consideration of the strong scalar potential, we further applied the FW transformation to the general cases in the covariant DFT, and the corresponding expansion was performed up to the $1/M^4$ order [@Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105]. Furthermore, we also investigated the difference between the results of the conventional SRG method and the corresponding ones of the FW transformation as well as the origin of such a difference in Ref. [@Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105]. As the same as the conventional SRG method, the FW transformation presents a systematic way to derive the non-relativistic expansion of the Dirac equation up to an arbitrary order. However, when the strong scalar potential is included, the convergence of the FW transformation also becomes rather slow. Therefore, inspired by the reconstituted SRG method, it is interesting and important to improve the FW transformation for a faster convergence.
In this paper, inspired by the reconstituted SRG method, we will propose the novel reconstituted FW transformation, where the non-relativistic expansion is performed in the powers of ${1}/{M^\ast}$. The results up to the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order will be shown explicitly, and the difference between these results and the corresponding ones obtained by the reconstituted SRG method will be investigated. Furthermore, by starting generally from the field operators, the relativistic corrections to the single-particle densities will be investigated. These corrections are originated from the so-called picture-change error between the Schrödinger and Dirac pictures, which was firstly applied in quantum chemistry and it was called the DKH method [@Douglas1974Ann.Phys.N.Y.82.89--155; @Hess1986Phys.Rev.A33.3742--3748; @Seino2010J.Chem.Phys.132.164108; @Nakajima2012Chem.Rev.112.385--402]. In this work, such relativistic corrections will be applied to the single-particle vector and scalar densities with the inclusion of the higher orders in a general case of the covariant DFT for the first time.
This paper is organized as follows. The theoretical framework for the novel reconstituted FW transformation will be introduced in Sec. \[sec:IIA\]. In Sec. \[sec:IIB\], the single-particle density will be investigated, and as a step further, the relativistic corrections will be also considered. The single-particle scalar density obtained by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding corrections will then be discussed in Sec. \[sec:IIC\]. The results for the single-particle energies and single-particle densities will be presented in Sec. \[sec:IIIA\] and Sec. \[sec:IIIB\], respectively. The single-particle scalar densities with the reconstituted FW transformation will be investigated in Sec. \[sec:IIIC\]. Finally, a summary and perspectives will be given in Sec. \[sec:IV\].
Theoretical Framework {#sec:II}
=====================
Reconstituted FW transformation {#sec:IIA}
-------------------------------
In the relativistic scheme, the Dirac Hamiltonian with the scalar $S$ and vector $V$ potentials for nucleons reads [@Long2004Phys.Rev.C69.034319; @Meng2006Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.57.470--563; @Zhao2010Phys.Rev.C82.054319; @Liang2015Phys.Rep.570.1--84] $$\label{Hamiltonian}
H=\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{p}+\beta(M+S)+V,$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the Dirac matrices, and $M$ is the mass of nucleon.
Inspired by the reconstituted SRG method [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], here we develop the reconstituted FW transformation. Replacing the bare mass $M$ with the Dirac mass $M^\ast = M + S$ and considering the Hermitian property of the Hamiltonian, the corresponding operators are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{O}=\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{p},\quad \tilde{\varepsilon}=V,\quad \tilde{\Lambda}=-\frac{i\beta}{4}(\frac{1}{M^\ast}\tilde{O}+\tilde{O}\frac{1}{M^\ast}),\end{aligned}$$ where the operators $\tilde{O}$ and $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ satisfy that $[\tilde{\varepsilon}, \beta] = 0$ and $\{\tilde{O}, \beta\}$ = 0, respectively. It is important to notice that $[1/{M^\ast}, \tilde{O}] \neq 0$ here. The Hamiltonian then reads $$\begin{aligned}
H&=\beta (M+S)+\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{p}+V\nonumber\\
&=\beta M^\ast+\tilde{O}+\tilde{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
In order to simplify later calculations, some notations are made as follows,
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} &\equiv [\tilde{O},M^\ast],\\
\mathcal{B} &\equiv [\tilde{O},\frac{1}{M^\ast}],\end{aligned}$$
and it is not difficult to derive that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{M^\ast}\mathcal{A}+M^\ast\mathcal{B}=0.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly to the operations in the conventional FW transforamtion [@Pryce1948Proc.RoyalSoc.A195.62--81; @Foldy1950Phys.Rev.78.29--36; @Tani1951; @Foldy1952Phys.Rev.87.688--693; @Greiner1990.277--290], the Dirac Hamiltonian is transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
H'=\,&e^{i\tilde{\Lambda}}He^{-i\tilde{\Lambda}}\nonumber\\
=\,&H+i[\tilde{\Lambda},H]+\frac{i^2}{2!}[\tilde{\Lambda},[\tilde{\Lambda},H]]+\cdots\nonumber\\
&+\frac{i^n}{n!}[\underbrace{\tilde{\Lambda},[\tilde{\Lambda},\cdots,[\tilde{\Lambda}}_n,H]\cdots]]+\cdots\nonumber\\
=\,&H'_0+H'_1+\cdots+H'_n+\cdots\end{aligned}$$ with its $n$-th component $$\begin{aligned}
H'_n
=\frac{i^n}{n!}[\underbrace{\tilde{\Lambda},[\tilde{\Lambda},\cdots,[\tilde{\Lambda}}_n,H]\cdots]].\end{aligned}$$
Keeping all the terms up to the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order, the unitary transformed Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{firstH}
H'
=\,&\beta M^\ast +\tilde{\varepsilon}+\frac{1}{2}\beta \tilde{O} \frac{1}{M^\ast}\tilde{O}+\frac{1}{8}\beta[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}] -\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]]
\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{8M^\ast}\mathcal{B}[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]
-\frac{1}{8}\beta \tilde{O}^2\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}\tilde{O}^2
+\frac{\beta}{2M^\ast}[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{24}(4\tilde{O}^2\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^2}\tilde{O}+4\tilde{O}\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^2}\tilde{O}^2 +3\tilde{O}\frac{1}{{M^\ast}}[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}]\nonumber\\
&+
3[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}]\frac{1}{{M^\ast}}\tilde{O}) -\frac{1}{48{M^\ast}^3}\beta[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]]].\end{aligned}$$
In this unitary transformed Hamiltonian (\[firstH\]), the off-diagonal parts are not zero but raised by one order from $\tilde{O}$ to $\frac{1}{2M^\ast}\beta[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]$. In order to make the off-diagonal parts higher than a given order (e.g., the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order), one should repeat the FW transformation until the accuracy is achieved [@Greiner1990.277--290; @Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105]. For that, the operators $\tilde{O}'$ and $\tilde{\varepsilon}'$ are redefined according to Eq. (\[firstH\]), and one has
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\varepsilon}' = \,&\tilde{\varepsilon}+\frac{1}{2}\beta \tilde{O} \frac{1}{M^\ast}\tilde{O}-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]] +\frac{1}{8}\beta[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}]\nonumber\\
&-\beta \tilde{O}^2\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^3}\tilde{O}^2
-\frac{1}{8M^\ast}\mathcal{B}[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}],\\
\tilde{O}' = \,&\frac{\beta}{2M^\ast}[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]-\frac{1}{24}\Big(4\tilde{O}^2\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^2}\tilde{O} +4\tilde{O}\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^2}\tilde{O}^2
\nonumber\\
&+3\tilde{O}\frac{1}{{M^\ast}}[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}]+
3[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}]\frac{1}{{M^\ast}}\tilde{O}\Big)\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{48{M^\ast}^3}\beta[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]]],\\
\tilde{\Lambda}' = \,&-\frac{i\beta}{4}\left(\frac{1}{M^\ast}\tilde{O}'+\tilde{O}'\frac{1}{M^\ast}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding reconstituted FW transformation reads $$\begin{aligned}
H''= e^{i\tilde{\Lambda}'} H' e^{-i\tilde{\Lambda}'}.\end{aligned}$$
With the recursions [@Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105], the Hamiltonian of the reconstituted FW transformation eventually reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FWH}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}=\,&
\beta M^\ast +\tilde{\varepsilon}
+\frac{1}{2}\beta \tilde{O} \frac{1}{M^\ast}\tilde{O}
+\frac{1}{8}\beta[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}]\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]]
-\frac{1}{8M^\ast}\mathcal{B}[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{8}\beta \tilde{O}^2\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}\tilde{O}^2
-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^3}\beta[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}][\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}],\end{aligned}$$ and its off-diagonal parts have been raised up to at least the $1/{M^\ast}^4$ order.
For the systems with the spherical symmetry, the corresponding radial single-nucleon Dirac equation reads [@Meng2006Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.57.470--563; @Liang2015Phys.Rep.570.1--84] $$\label{eq:Dirac1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Sigma(r)+M & -\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\\
\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\kappa}{r} & \Delta(r)-M
\end{array}
\right )
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
G(r) \\ F(r)
\end{array}
\right )
=E
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
G(r) \\ F(r)
\end{array}
\right ),$$ with the normalization condition $\int \mathrm{d}r\,[G^2(r) + F^2(r)] = 1$, where $\kappa$ is a good quantum number defined as $\kappa=\mp~(j+{1}/{2})$ for $j=l\pm{1}/{2}$, and $\Sigma(r) = V(r) + S(r)$ and $\Delta(r) = V(r) - S(r)$ are the sum of and the difference between the vector and scalar potentials, respectively. The single-particle energies $E = \varepsilon +M $ include the mass of nucleon. The initial conditions read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{initialnew}
\tilde{\varepsilon}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}
V(r) & 0\\
0 & V(r)
\end{array}
\right )}&,\quad
\tilde{O}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 &-\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\\
\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\kappa}{r}& 0
\end{array}
\right )},\nonumber\\
\mathcal{A}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & -{M^\ast}'\\
{M^\ast}' & 0
\end{array}
\right )}&,\quad
\mathcal{B}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{{M^\ast}'}{{M^\ast}^2}\\
-\frac{{M^\ast}'}{{M^\ast}^2} & 0
\end{array}
\right )}.\end{aligned}$$
According to Eq. (\[FWH\]), the Dirac Hamiltonian is transformed by the reconstituted FW transformation as $$\label{eq:HFW}
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{H}^{\rm (F)}_{\rm rFW} + M & O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^4}) \\
O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^4}) & \mathcal{H}^{\rm (D)}_{\rm rFW} - M
\end{array}
\right)}.$$
Hereafter, we will focus on the single-particle states in the Fermi sea, which correspond to their counterparts in the non-relativistic framework. Therefore, $\mathcal{H}^{\rm (F)}_{\rm rFW}$ will be investigated in detail, and its superscript will be omitted when there is no confusion.
The expansion of $\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}$ up to the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order is carefully worked out as
\[neq\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,0}=\,&\Sigma,\label{neq1}\\
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,1}=\,&-\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}\frac{1}{2M^\ast}\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{2M^\ast r^2},\label{neq2}\\
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,2}=\,&-\frac{\Delta'}{4{M^\ast}^2}\frac{\kappa}{r}+\frac{\Sigma''}{8{M^\ast}^2},\label{neq3}\\
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,3}=\,&-p^2\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^3}p^2 +\frac{\Sigma'^2}{8{M^\ast}^3}-\frac{3S'\Sigma'}{8{M^\ast}^3},\label{neq4}\end{aligned}$$
where $$p^2=-\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}+\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}.$$
It is noted that operators with higher-order derivatives appear from $\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,3}$, and thus the eigenequation containing up to the second derivatives reads $$\label{eq:Sch2}
\left[\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,0} + \mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,1} + \mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,2}\right] \varphi_k(r) = \varepsilon_k\varphi_k(r),$$ with the normalization condition $\int \mathrm{d}r\,\varphi^2(r) = 1$. Following the same way in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], the eigenequation (\[eq:Sch2\]) will be solved and the higher-order term $\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,3}$ will be calculated by the perturbation theory in the following discussions.
In Ref. [@Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105], the relation between the conventional SRG method and FW transformation has been investigated. Similarly, by comparing Eqs. (\[neq1\]), (\[neq2\]), (\[neq3\]) and (\[neq4\]) with the corresponding results obtained in the non-relativistic expansion by the reconstituted SRG method [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], one finds the differences as
\[eq:diff\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,0}-\mathcal{H}_{\rm rSRG,0}=\,&0\\
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,1}-\mathcal{H}_{\rm rSRG,1}=\,&0\\
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,2}-\mathcal{H}_{\rm rSRG,2}=\,&0\\
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,3}-\mathcal{H}_{\rm rSRG,3}=\,&\frac{\Delta'\Sigma'}{16{M^\ast}^3}.\label{neq5}\end{aligned}$$
It turns out that the differences shown in Eq. come from an additional unitary transformation, after the Dirac Hamiltonian is decoupled into the upper and lower parts. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi=\,&-\frac{i\beta}{64}\left(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}[\tilde{O}^2,\tilde{\varepsilon}-\beta{M^\ast}]+[\tilde{O}^2,\tilde{\varepsilon}-\beta{M^\ast}]
\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\cdots\end{aligned}$$ It is a Hermitian and diagonal operator, i.e., $\Xi^\dag = \Xi$ and $\beta\Xi = \Xi\beta$. Acting an additional unitary transformation on $\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}$, it reads $$\begin{aligned}
e^{i\Xi}\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}e^{-i\Xi}=\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}+i[\Xi,\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}]+\cdots\end{aligned}$$
Keeping all the terms up to the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order, the results are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{neq6}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW}+\frac{\beta}{64}\Big[\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}[\tilde{O}^2,\tilde{\varepsilon}-\beta{M^\ast}]
+[\tilde{O}^2,\tilde{\varepsilon}-\beta{M^\ast}]\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3},\beta M^\ast+\tilde{\varepsilon}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ As a step further, it is not complicated to obtain the upper-left component of Eq. as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,0}+\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,1}+\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,2}+\mathcal{H}_{\rm rFW,3}-\frac{\Delta'\Sigma'}{16{M^\ast}^3},\end{aligned}$$ which is nothing but $\mathcal{H}_{\rm rSRG}$.
Since $e^{-i\Xi}$ is a unitary operator acting on the already decoupled Hamiltonian, it does not affect the non-relativistic expansion of the Dirac equation, in the sense that the single-particle spectrum obtained by the reconstituted FW transformation is identical to that obtained by the reconstituted SRG method. At the same time, the above conclusions provide the foundation of the reconstituted SRG method proposed in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324].
Single-particle density {#sec:IIB}
-----------------------
The relativistic single-particle wave-function $|\psi\rangle$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
H|\psi\rangle=E|\psi\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ and the non-relativistic counterpart $|\varphi\rangle$ in the FW transformation satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm FW}|\varphi\rangle=E|\varphi\rangle\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm FW}=e^{i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}}He^{-i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\varphi\rangle=e^{i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}}|\psi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Since only the unitary transformations have been applied in the FW transformation, it seems naturally that the single-particle density $\rho_v(\bm{r})=\psi^\dag(\bm{r})\psi(\bm{r})$ will be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhov1}
\rho_{v, \textrm{non}}(r)
=\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}\varphi^\dag(r)\varphi(r).\end{aligned}$$ However, by checking the details, it can be found that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{v,\textrm{exact}}(r)=\rho_{v,\textrm{non}}(r)+\Delta\rho_v(r),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\rho_v$ actually comes from the so-called picture-change error [@Douglas1974Ann.Phys.N.Y.82.89--155; @Hess1986Phys.Rev.A33.3742--3748], i.e., the difference between the densities calculated in the Schrödinger picture and the ones obtained in the Dirac picture.
In order to investigate the correction to the single-particle density explicitly, we start from its strict definition, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_v(\bm{r})=\,&\langle\psi|\hat{c}^\dag(\bm{r})\hat{c}(\bm{r})|\psi\rangle\nonumber\\
=\,&\int\, \textrm{d}\bm{r}'\psi^\dag(\bm{r}')\delta(\bm{r}'-\bm{r})\psi(\bm{r}').\end{aligned}$$ Here $\hat{c}^\dag(\bm{r})$ and $\hat{c}(\bm{r})$ are the field operators (i.e., the particle creation and annihilation operators with the index of spatial coordinate). Therefore, the single-particle density reads $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_v(\bm{r})=\,&\langle\varphi|e^{i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}}\hat{c}^\dag(\bm{r})\hat{c}(\bm{r})e^{-i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}}|\varphi\rangle\nonumber\\
=\,&\int\,\textrm{d}\bm{r}'\varphi^\dag(\bm{r}')e^{i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}(\bm{r}')}\delta(\bm{r}'-\bm{r})e^{-i{\Lambda_{\rm FW}}(\bm{r}')}\varphi(\bm{r}').\end{aligned}$$ Hereafter, the delta function $\delta(\bm{r}'-\bm{r})$ will be denoted as $\boldsymbol{\Delta}(\bm{r}',\bm{r})$ (with a bold font in order to distinguish from $\Delta=V-S$).
In the present scheme, all operators should be transformed in the same way as the Dirac Hamiltonian. Therefore, the delta function in the FW formalism is transformed as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}'=e^{i\tilde{\Lambda}}\boldsymbol{\Delta}e^{-i\tilde{\Lambda}}.\end{aligned}$$ The expansion of $\boldsymbol{\Delta}'$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}'
=\,&\boldsymbol{\Delta}+i[\tilde{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{\Delta}]+\frac{i^2}{2!}[\tilde{\Lambda},[\tilde{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{\Delta}]]\nonumber\\
&+\cdots+\frac{i^n}{n!}[\underbrace{\tilde{\Lambda},
[\tilde{\Lambda},\cdots,[\tilde{\Lambda}}_n,\boldsymbol{\Delta}]\cdots]]+\cdots\end{aligned}$$ with its $n$-th component $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}'_n
=\frac{i^n}{n!}[\underbrace{\tilde{\Lambda},[\tilde{\Lambda},\cdots,[\tilde{\Lambda}}_n,\boldsymbol{\Delta}]\cdots]].\end{aligned}$$ As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}'=\,&\boldsymbol{\Delta}-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(2)}-\frac{1}{8M^\ast}\mathcal{B}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}+\frac{\beta}{2M^\ast}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{\beta}{48{M^\ast}^3}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(3)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the relevant notations are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)} &\equiv [\tilde{O},\boldsymbol{\Delta}],\\
\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(2)} &\equiv [\tilde{O},\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}],\\
\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(3)} &\equiv [\tilde{O},\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(2)}].\end{aligned}$$
Following the recursion relation in the reconstituted FW transformation, the result up to the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order reads $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\rm rFW}
=\,&\boldsymbol{\Delta}-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(2)}-\frac{1}{8M^\ast}\mathcal{B}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}-\frac{\beta}{4{M^\ast}^3}[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}\nonumber\\
\,&+\frac{\beta}{2M^\ast}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}-\frac{\beta}{2{M^\ast}^3}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}\tilde{O}^2-\frac{\beta}{2{M^\ast}^3}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(2)}\tilde{O}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{9\beta}{48{M^\ast}^3}\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(3)}.\end{aligned}$$
The delta function can be expanded in terms of spherical harmonics, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(\bm{r}'-\bm{r})=\frac{1}{r^2}\delta(r'-r)\sum_{L=0}^{\infty}\bm{Y}_L(\hat{\bm{r}}')\cdot\bm{Y}_L(\hat{\bm{r}}).\end{aligned}$$ When the spherical symmetry is taken into account, it reads $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(\bm{r}'-\bm{r})=\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}\delta(r'-r).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}(r',r)=
\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\delta(r'-r) & 0\\
0 & \delta(r'-r)
\end{array}
\right ).\end{aligned}$$
In addition, one has
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(1)}(r',r)=\,&
\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\delta'\\
\delta' & 0
\end{array}
\right ),\\
\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(2)}(r',r)=\,&
\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-\delta''+\frac{2\kappa}{r'}\delta' & 0\\
0 & -\delta''-\frac{2\kappa}{r'}\delta'
\end{array}
\right ),\\
\boldsymbol{\Delta}^{(3)}(r',r)=\,&
\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0& \delta'''-\frac{2\kappa}{r'}\delta''+ \frac{2\kappa}{r'^2}\delta'\\
-\delta'''-\frac{2\kappa}{r'}\delta''+ \frac{2\kappa}{r'^2}\delta' & 0
\end{array}
\right ).\end{aligned}$$
Here the short-hand writings mean $$\begin{aligned}
\delta' =\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r'}\delta(r'-r),\qquad
\delta'' =\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r'^2}\delta(r'-r),\qquad
\delta''' =\frac{\textrm{d}^3}{\textrm{d}r'^3}\delta(r'-r).\end{aligned}$$
The meanings of the derivatives of delta function are related to the integrals by part. In detail, for arbitrary wave functions $\eta(r')$ and $\xi(r')$, the integral $$\begin{aligned}
I(r)= \int\,\eta^\dag(r')\frac{\textrm{d}\delta(r'-r)}{\textrm{d}r'}\xi(r')\textrm{d}r'
= \left.-\eta^\dag(r') \left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r'}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r'}}\right)\xi(r')\right|_{r'=r}
= -\eta^\dag(r) \left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right)\xi(r),\end{aligned}$$ where the arrow $\leftarrow$ ($\rightarrow$) means the operator acts only on the functions on its left-hand (right-hand) side. It is important to point out that the action of taking $r'=r$ should be performed after the derivatives in order to avoid the mistakes which may be caused by the confusion of $r$ and $r'$ during the calculations. This indicates that the first derivative of delta function can be formally expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\int\,\textrm{d}r'\cdots\frac{\textrm{d}\delta(r'-r)}{\textrm{d}r'}\cdots
\quad = \quad -\cdots\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}+\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right)\cdots\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the second and third derivatives of delta function correspond to $$\begin{aligned}
\int\,\textrm{d}r'\cdots\frac{\textrm{d}^2\delta(r'-r)}{\textrm{d}r'^2}\cdots
\quad = \quad
\cdots\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}+2\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}
\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}+\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}\right)\cdots\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int\,\textrm{d}r'\cdots\frac{\textrm{d}^3\delta(r'-r)}{\textrm{d}r'^3}\cdots
\quad = \quad
-\cdots\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^3}{\textrm{d}r^3}}+3\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}
\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}+3\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}
+\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^3}{\textrm{d}r^3}}\right)\cdots\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
Finally, the delta function with the reconstituted FW transformation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deltaFW}
4\pi r^2\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\rm rFW}(r,r)=\,&
1 + \frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}} +2\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}\right)
+\frac{\beta}{4{M^\ast}^2}\frac{\kappa}{r}\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{S'}{8{M^\ast}^3}\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right)
-\frac{\beta V'}{4{M^\ast}^3}\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\gamma_5}{2M^\ast}\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} +\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right)
+\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0& O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3})\\
O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}) & 0
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_5$ is the Dirac matrix.
Consequently, after considering these corrections from the FW transformation, which we call the relativistic corrections, the single-particle density for the systems with the spherical symmetry reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhov2}
4\pi r^2\rho_v(r)
=\,&
\left.\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\varphi^\dag(r')& 0
\end{array}
\right )
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\rm rFW}(r',r)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\varphi(r')\\ 0
\end{array}
\right )\right|_{r'=r}\nonumber\\
=\,&\varphi^\dag(r)\left[1-\left(-\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}
+\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}\right)\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}
-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}\left(-\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}} +\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}\right)
+\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}
+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)\frac{1}{4{M^\ast}^2}\left(\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}
{\textrm{d}r}}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\left.+\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\left(\frac{-3S'-2V'}{8{M^\ast}^3}\right) +\left(-\frac{S'}{2{M^\ast}^3}\frac{\kappa}{r}
-\frac{S''+2V''}{8{M^\ast}^3}\right)
+\left(\frac{-3S'-2V'}{8{M^\ast}^3}\right)\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right]\varphi(r).\end{aligned}$$
Single-particle scalar density {#sec:IIC}
------------------------------
For the single-particle scalar density $\rho_s(\bm{r})=\psi^\dag(\bm{r})\gamma_0\psi(\bm{r})$, we need to consider the FW transformations of not only the delta function as shown in Eq. but also the Dirac matrix $\gamma_0$. By following the procedures in the previous sections, the Dirac matrix $\gamma_0$ with the reconstituted FW transformation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\gamma}=\,&
\gamma_0-\frac{1}{4M^\ast} \beta[\tilde{O},\mathcal{B}] -\frac{1}{2}\beta\tilde{O}\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^2}\tilde{O} +\frac{1}{4{M^\ast}^3}[\tilde{O},[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]]\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{M^\ast}\tilde{O} +\tilde{O}\frac{1}{M^\ast}\right) -\frac{1}{2{M^\ast}^2}\beta[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}]\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{4}\left(\tilde{O}^2\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}\tilde{O} +\tilde{O}\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}\tilde{O}^2\right) -\frac{1}{4{M^\ast}^3}[[\tilde{O},\tilde{\varepsilon}],\tilde{\varepsilon}],\end{aligned}$$ up to the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order. It can be expressed as a two-by-two matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\gamma}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{\gamma}_{11} & \tilde{\gamma}_{12}\\
\tilde{\gamma}_{21} & \tilde{\gamma}_{22}
\end{array}
\right ),\end{aligned}$$ and with the spherical symmetry its matrix elements read
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\gamma}_{11}=\,&1+\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}\frac{1}{2{M^\ast}^2}\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{2{M^\ast}^2 r^2}
+\frac{\Delta'}{2{M^\ast}^3}\frac{\kappa}{r}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{\Sigma''}{4{M^\ast}^3}+O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^4}),\label{gamma11}\\
\tilde{\gamma}_{12}=\,&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{M^\ast}\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}\frac{1}{M^\ast}\right)-\frac{1}{M^\ast}\frac{\kappa}{r}+\frac{V'}{2{M^\ast}^2}\nonumber\\
&+O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}),\\
\tilde{\gamma}_{21}=\,&-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{M^\ast}\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}+\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}\frac{1}{M^\ast}\right)-\frac{1}{M^\ast}\frac{\kappa}{r}+\frac{V'}{2{M^\ast}^2}\nonumber\\
&+O(\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^3}).\end{aligned}$$
Up to here, with the reconstituted FW transformation, the scalar densities in the Schrödinger picture are in the forms of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhos1}
4\pi r^2\rho_{s,\textrm{non}}(r)
=\varphi^\dag(r)
\left(1+\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}\frac{1}{2{M^\ast}^2}\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{2{M^\ast}^2 r^2}
+\frac{\Delta'}{2{M^\ast}^3}\frac{\kappa}{r}-\frac{\Sigma''}{4{M^\ast}^3}\right)\varphi(r).\end{aligned}$$
As a step further, similarly to the single-particle density, the single-particle scalar density can be modified with the consideration of the relativistic corrections originated from the picture-change error between the Schrödinger and Dirac pictures, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{s,\textrm{exact}}(r)=\rho_{s,\textrm{non}}(r)+ \Delta \rho_s(r).\end{aligned}$$ It is important to point out that the difference between $\rho_{v,\textrm{non}}$ and $\rho_{s,\textrm{non}}$ appears from the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ order, and the relativistic correction $\Delta \rho_s$ also appears from the same order. Therefore, the relativistic corrections will also play a crucial role in the difference between the vector and scalar densities.
For the systems with the spherical symmetry, the single-particle scalar density reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhos2}
4\pi r^2\rho_s(r)
=\,&
\left.\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\varphi^\dag(r')& 0
\end{array}
\right)
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\rm rFW}(r',r)\,\tilde{\gamma}\,
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\varphi(r')\\ 0
\end{array}
\right )\right|_{r'=r}\nonumber\\
=\,&
\varphi^\dag(r)\left[
1-\left(-\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}}+\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}\right)\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}
-\frac{1}{8{M^\ast}^2}\left(-\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}^2}{\textrm{d}r^2}} +\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}\right)
-\left(\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)\frac{1}{4{M^\ast}^2}
\left(\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\left.-\overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\frac{S'}{8{M^\ast}^3} +\frac{V'}{2{M^\ast}^3}\frac{\kappa}{r} -\frac{S''+2V''}{8{M^\ast}^3}
-\frac{S'}{8{M^\ast}^3}\overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}}\right]\varphi(r).\end{aligned}$$ In this expression, there are also contributions from the off-diagonal parts of $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{\rm rFW}(r,r)$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$.
Results and Discussion {#sec:III}
======================
In order to make the comparisons and discussions with the corresponding results obtained by the SRG methods in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], we use the Woods-Saxon forms for the scalar and vector potentials, $\Sigma(r)=\Sigma_0f(a_0,r_0,r)$ and $\Delta(r)=\Delta_0f(a_0,r_0,r)$, with $$f(a_0,r_0,r)=\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{r-r_0}{a_0}}},$$ where the parameters are the same as those in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], i.e., $\Sigma_0=-66.0$ MeV, $\Delta_0 = 650.0$ MeV, $r_0= 7.0$ fm, and $a_0= 0.6$ fm, which are the typical values for neutrons in the nucleus $^{208}\textrm{Pb}$. The mass of nucleon is taken as $M=939.0$ MeV.
The Dirac equation (\[eq:Dirac1\]) is solved in coordinate space by the shooting method [@Meng1998Nucl.Phys.A635.3--42] within a spherical box with radius $R_{\rm box}= 20$ fm and mesh size $\textrm{d}r = 0.05$ fm. The single-particle energies and densities thus obtained will serve as benchmarks, labelled as Exact in the tables and figures. The non-relativistic equation (\[eq:Sch2\]) is also solved in coordinate space by the shooting method with the same box and mesh sizes.
Single-particle spectrum {#sec:IIIA}
------------------------
![(Color online) (a) Discrepancy between the neutron single-particle energies obtained by the reconstituted FW transformation and the exact ones as a function of the single-particle energy. The squares, circles, and triangles represent the energy discrepancy at the $1/M^\ast$, $1/{M^\ast}^2$, and $1/{M^\ast}^3$ orders for the reconstituted FW transformation, respectively. (b) Discrepancy at the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order on a smaller scale.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig1\], the discrepancy between the neutron single-particle energies obtained by the reconstituted FW transformation and the exact ones is shown as a function of the single-particle energy. In the present case of $^{208}$Pb, the last occupied orbital is the $3p_{1/2}$ state, whose energy is $-6.999$ MeV. It can be seen that the non-relativistic expansion with the reconstituted FW transformation achieves a fast convergence. Shown in a smaller scale in Panel (b) of Fig. \[fig1\], the differences between the single-particle energies obtained at the $1/{M^\ast}^3$ order and the exact ones are less than $0.1$ MeV for the deeply bound states, and become slightly larger to around $0.2$ MeV for the weakly bound states. The three orbitals that show the biggest negative differences are the $1g_{9/2}$ state at $-28.072$ MeV, $1h_{11/2}$ state at $-18.784$ MeV, and $1i_{13/2}$ state at $-9.267$ MeV. Their deviations from the corresponding exact values are $-152$, $-239$, and $-325$ keV, respectively. In contrast, the orbital that shows the biggest positive difference is the $1h_{9/2}$ state at $-14.027$ MeV, whose deviation from the corresponding exact value is $89$ keV.
In order to understand these energy differences for the states with large angular momenta $l$, we recall that, although a discrepancy between the results of the conventional SRG method [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324] and FW transformation [@Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105] appears starting from the $1/M^3$ order, their spectrum of the single-particle energies are identical to each other [@Guo2019Chin.Phys.C43.114105]. Thus the detailed $1/M^4$-order results of the conventional SRG method derived in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324] can help us investigate the results in Fig. \[fig1\] more deeply here. It can be seen that except the terms that have already included so far with the replacement of $M$ by $M^\ast$, the three biggest contributions in the $1/M^4$ order are $-\frac{3S'}{4M^4}p^2\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}$, $-\frac{9S''}{16M^4}p^2$, and $\frac{3\Delta'}{16M^4}\frac{\kappa}{r}p^2$ shown in Table. VIII in Ref. [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324]. It is found that the sum of the contributions from these three terms are positive (negative) for the spin-up states with $\kappa<0$ (the spin-down states with $\kappa>0$), and the absolute value becomes bigger with the increase of $l$ (or $\kappa$). Consequently, the large $l$ (or $\kappa$) states show the biggest discrepancy here, and the $\kappa<0$ ($\kappa>0$) states show negative (positive) discrepancy from the corresponding exact values here. A possible way to improve the results further is to derive the $1/{M^\ast}^4$ order in the reconstituted FW transformation, and pay attention to the terms proportional to $\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^4}p^2\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}$, $\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^4}p^2$, and $\frac{1}{{M^\ast}^4}\frac{\kappa}{r}p^2$.
By summing up all the single-particle energies of the occupied states for $126$ neutrons in $^{208}$Pb, the exact value is $-3045.501$ MeV, while the result obtained by the $1/{M^\ast}^3$-order reconstituted FW transformation is $-3055.767$ MeV. The corresponding relative discrepancy is only about $0.34\%$.
Single-particle and total densities {#sec:IIIB}
-----------------------------------
![(Color online) (a) Single-particle density for the neutron $2d_{5/2}$ state. The solution of the Dirac equation is shown with the black solid line, while the result by Eq. is shown with the olive dashed line. The results by Eq. with the corrections up to the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ and $1/{M^\ast}^3$ orders are shown with the blue dotted and red dash-dotted lines, respectively. (b) Details around the node of wave function in a smaller scale.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="45.00000%"}
For the discussion on the single-particle density, let us first take the neutron $2d_{5/2}$ state as an example, which has one-node structure and is neither deeply nor weakly bound. The exact single-particle density for the $2d_{5/2}$ state is shown with the black solid line in Fig. \[fig2\]. For comparison, the single-particle density calculated by Eq. without any relativistic correction (i.e., picture-change-error correction) is shown with the olive dashed line. In contrast, the results calculated by Eq. with the relativistic corrections up to the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ and $1/{M^\ast}^3$ orders are shown with the blue dotted and red dash-dotted lines, respectively.
For the result without correction, on the one hand, a deviation from the exact density is visible around the first peak of the wave function. On the other hand, it is even more important to point out its deviation from the exact density around the node of the wave function, which is shown in Panel (b) of Fig. \[fig2\] in a smaller scale. Because of the existence of the small component of Dirac spinor, i.e., $F(r)$ in Eq. , the single-particle density in the Dirac picture, $\rho_v(r) = [G^2(r)+F^2(r)]/(4\pi r^2)$, will never become exactly zero at any finite radius $r$. However, the corresponding single-particle density in the Schrödinger picture (Eq. ) becomes exactly zero at the nodes of the single-particle wave function $\varphi(r)$. This is one of the explicit reasons why the relativistic corrections to the densities are indispensable. In other words, the picture-change error belongs to the systematic error, instead of the matter of truncation or numerical accuracy.
By taking into account the relativistic corrections, the results obtained by Eq. are almost identical to the exact density in the whole region, including the node region as shown in Panel (b) of Fig. \[fig2\]. Indeed, in Eq. , the terms such as $$\varphi^\dag(r) \overleftarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}r}} \frac{1}{4{M^\ast}^2} \overrightarrow{\frac{\textrm{d}}
{\textrm{d}r}} \varphi(r)$$ prevent the single-particle density from becoming exactly zero at any finite radius $r$.
![(Color online) Difference between the single-particle density of the $2d_{5/2}$ state calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density. The choice of legends follows that in Fig. \[fig2\]. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In order to examine the details, the differences between the single-particle density of the $2d_{5/2}$ state calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. It can be seen clearly that the results without the corrections show dramatic differences from the exact ones, and the discrepancy $\rho_v - \rho_{v,{\rm exact}}$ reaches $6.6 \times 10^{-5}$ fm$^{-3}$ around the first peak of the wave function, which corresponds to a relative discrepancy $3.2\%$. In contrast, after considering the picture-change-error corrections, the discrepancies $\rho_v - \rho_{v,{\rm exact}}$ are smaller than $0.97 \times 10^{-5}$ fm$^{-3}$ in the whole region.
![(Color online) Neutron density of $^{208}$Pb calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density. []{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Since the non-relativistic expansion is regarded as a crucial candidate for the connection between the relativistic and non-relativistic DFT, it is meaningful to further examine the total density of neutron by summing up the single-particle densities of the lowest $126$ single-particle orbitals as shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. In the center area with $r<6$ fm, the total neutron density lies between $0.08$ fm$^{-3}$ and $0.10$ fm$^{-3}$. As seen in the figure, all the results calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation are in good agreements with the exact result.
![(Color online) Difference between the neutron density of $^{208}$Pb calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In order to investigate the results in Fig. \[fig4\] in detail, the differences between each calculated result and the exact neutron density are shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. It can be seen that the results calculated with the consideration of the relativistic corrections show quite different behaviors from the one without corrections. In general, the relative discrepancy between the results with corrections and the exact one is within $0.5\%$. It is also interesting to point out that, compared with the result with the corrections up to the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ order, the neutron density is further improved by the $1/{M^\ast}^3$-order corrections in the nuclear surface region, since the $1/{M^\ast}^3$-order corrections are proportional to the derivatives of the potentials as shown in Eq. .
Single-particle and total scalar densities {#sec:IIIC}
------------------------------------------
![(Color online) Difference between the single-particle density and the single-particle scalar density for the neutron $2d_{5/2}$ state. The solution of the Dirac equation is shown with the black solid line, while the result by Eq. is shown with the olive dashed line. The results by Eq. with the corrections up to the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ and $1/{M^\ast}^3$ orders are shown with the blue dotted and red dash-dotted lines, respectively.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Fig6.eps){width="45.00000%"}
For the discussions on the single-particle scalar density, let us first focus on the difference between the single-particle density and the single-particle scalar density. In the Dirac picture, such a difference comes from the small component of Dirac spinor, i.e., $\rho_v(r) - \rho_s(r) = 2F^2(r)/(4\pi r^2)$ in the present case, which is in general tiny. This tiny difference is shown with the black solid line in Fig. \[fig6\], by taking the $2d_{5/2}$ state as an example. The peak of the black solid line is only around $0.10 \times 10^{-3}$ fm$^{-3}$ at $r=3.75$ fm.
For comparison, the corresponding result by Eq. without any relativistic (picture-change-error correction) correction is shown with the olive dashed line in Fig. \[fig6\]. In contrast, the results calculated by Eq. with the relativistic corrections up to the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ and $1/{M^\ast}^3$ orders are shown with the blue dotted and red dash-dotted lines, respectively.
![(Color online) Difference between the single-particle scalar density of the $2d_{5/2}$ state calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density. The choice of legends follows that in Fig. \[fig6\].[]{data-label="fig7"}](Fig7.eps){width="45.00000%"}
It can be seen in Fig. \[fig6\] that the differences between the results without the relativistic corrections and the exact one are systematic. There are differences in the positions of peaks and nodes as well as the amplitudes. In contrast, the results with the relativistic corrections reproduce remarkably the behavior of the exact result, in particular the positions of peaks and nodes. The remaining discrepancies are rather small (notice the small scale used here).
As a result, the exact single-particle scalar density for the $2d_{5/2}$ state can be well reproduced, with a relative discrepancy less than $0.2\%$, by the reconstituted FW transformation including the relativistic corrections, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig7\].
Comparing the dashed lines to the others in Figs. \[fig6\] and \[fig7\], one can confirm the critical role of the relativistic corrections playing in the difference between the vector and scalar densities, because they both start from the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ order.
![(Color online) Neutron scalar density of $^{208}$Pb calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Fig8.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![(Color online) Difference between the neutron scalar density of $^{208}$Pb calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the corresponding exact density.[]{data-label="fig9"}](Fig9.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The total neutron scalar density of $^{208}$Pb is shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. It is smaller than the total neutron density shown in Fig. \[fig4\] by $3\sim8\%$ in general. For the details, the differences between the neutron scalar densities calculated by the reconstituted FW transformation and the exact result are shown in Fig. \[fig9\]. The results with the relativistic corrections can well reproduce the exact values, with a relative discrepancy less than $1\%$. The same as the total density, the $1/{M^\ast}^3$-order corrections can further improve the agreement with the exact result in the nuclear surface region.
Summary and Perspectives {#sec:IV}
========================
With the inspiration of the reconstituted SRG method [@Guo2019Phys.Rev.C99.054324], the reconstituted FW transformation has been proposed.
In the covariant DFT, since the inclusion of the strong scalar potentials, the conventional FW transformation shows a quite slow convergence for the spectrum of the single-particle energies. By replacing the bare mass $M$ with the Dirac mass $M^\ast$ and defining the corresponding new operators, the contributions that come from the products of the terms that already appear in the lower orders and $\left(\frac{S}{M}\right)^n$ ($n=1, 2, \cdots$) are absorbed into the lower orders. As a result, the convergence of the spectrum obtained by the reconstituted FW transformation becomes much faster than the conventional one. In addition, since the reconstituted FW transformation starts from the general operators, it provides the foundation of the reconstituted SRG method and leads to a more promising future of application.
Besides the single-particle energies, the single-particle and total vector and scalar densities by the reconstituted FW transformation also reproduce the exact result well. In particular, the relativistic corrections to the densities have been investigated in detail. The corrections actually come from the picture-change error between the Schrödinger and Dirac pictures. The corrections to the single-particle densities start appearing from the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ order, and they prevent the single-particle density from becoming exactly zero at any finite radius r. Moreover, the derivations between $\rho_{v,\textrm{non}}$ and $\rho_{s,\textrm{non}}$ appears from the $1/{M^\ast}^2$ order, and the relativistic correction $\Delta \rho_s$ also appears from the same order. Therefore, the relativistic corrections play a crucial role in the difference between the vector and scalar densities. The results thus obtained with the consideration of the corrections are almost identical to the exact results.
Based on the above discussions, the reconstituted FW transformation paves a promising way for the connection between the relativistic and non-relativistic density functional theories for the future studies.
The authors are grateful to Mr. Tomoya Naito, Dr. Zhengxue Ren, and Professor Pengwei Zhao for the helpful discussions on the relativistic corrections to the single-particle densities. This work was partially supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists under Grant No. 18K13549, the JSPS-NSFC Bilateral Program for Joint Research Project on Nuclear mass and life for unravelling mysteries of the $r$-process, and RIKEN Pioneering Project: Evolution of Matter in the Universe. Y.G. also acknowledges the scholarship from Asian Future Leaders Scholarship Program funded by Bai Xian Asia Institute.
[39]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{}, edited by and (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885/52/4/002) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6410(96)00054-3) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.121) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.10.001) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.06.001) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.12.005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0954-3899/42/9/093101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.045004) , ed., @noop [**]{}, , Vol. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.19945060203) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00417-1) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.021302) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.436) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.154) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0256-307x/20/3/312) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262501) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014334) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024311) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.054324) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.95.217) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.39.719) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103713) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.044322) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspa.1948.0103) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.78.29) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/ptp/6.3.267) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.87.688) [**](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-88082-7) (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.012115) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.012112) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1674-1137/43/11/114105) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(74)90333-9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.33.3742) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3397070) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/cr200040s) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.69.034319) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054319) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00178-X)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There are three main thrusts to this article: a new proof of Levi’s Enlargement Lemma for pseudoline arrangements in the real projective plane; a new characterization of pseudolinear drawings of the complete graph; and proofs that pseudolinear and convex drawings of $K_n$ have $n^2+{}$O$(n\log n)$ and O$(n^2)$, respectively, empty triangles. All the arguments are elementary, algorithmic, and self-contained.'
author:
- |
Alan Arroyo[^1] ${}^+$, Dan McQuillan${}^\pm$,\
R. Bruce Richter[^2] ${}^+$, and Gelasio Salazar${}^*$${}^\times$
date: 'LaTeX-ed: '
title: |
Levi’s Lemma, pseudolinear drawings of $K_n$,\
and empty triangles
---
AMS Subject Classification Primary 52C30; Secondary 05C10, 68R10
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Harary-Hill Conjecture asserts that the crossing number of the complete graph $K_n$ is equal to $$H(n) := \frac 14\left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor
\left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n-1}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor
\left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n-2}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor
\left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n-3}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor \,.$$ The work of Ábrego et al [@abrego] verifies this conjecture for “shellable" drawings of $K_n$; this is one of the first works that identifies a topological, as opposed to geometric, criterion for a drawing to have at least $H(n)$ crossings.
Throughout this work, all drawings of graphs are [*good drawings*]{}: no two edges incident with a common vertex cross; no three edges cross at a common point; and no two edges cross each other more than once.
It is well-known that the [*rectilinear*]{} crossing number (all edges are required to be straight-line segments) of $K_n$ is, for $n\ge 10$, strictly larger than $H(n)$. In fact, this applies to the more general [*pseudolinear*]{} crossing number.
An [*arrangement of pseudolines*]{} $\Sigma$ is a finite set of simple open arcs in the plane $\rtwo$ such that: for each $\sigma\in\Sigma$, $\rtwo\setminus \sigma$ is not connected; and for distinct $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ in $\Sigma$, $\sigma\cap \sigma'$ consists of a single point, which is a crossing.
A drawing of $K_n$ is [*pseudolinear*]{} if there is an arrangement of $\Sigma$ of pseudolines such that each edge of $K_n$ is contained in one of the pseudolines and each pseudoline contains just one edge. It is clear that a rectilinear drawing (chosen so no two lines are parallel) is pseudolinear.
The arguments (originally due to Lovász et al [@lovasz] and, independently, Ábrego and Fernández-Merchant [@af-m]) that show every rectilinear drawing of $K_n$ has at least $H(n)$ crossings apply equally well to pseudolinear drawings.
The proof that every optimal pseudolinear drawing of $K_n$ has its outer face bounded by a triangle [@optTriang] uses the “allowable sequence" characterization of pseudoline arrangements of Goodman and Pollack [@goodPoll]. Our principal result is that there is another, topological, characterization of pseudolinear drawings of $K_n$.
Let $D$ be a drawing of $K_n$ in the sphere. For any three distinct vertices $u,v,w$ of $K_n$, the triangle $T$ induced by $u,v,w$ is such that $D[T]$ [[(the subdrawing of $D$ induced by the subgraph $T$)]{}]{} is a simple closed curve in the sphere.
[[This simple observation leads to the natural ideas of a convex drawing of $K_n$ and a face-convex drawing of $K_n$, which capture at different levels of generality the notion of a convex set in Euclidean space.]{}]{}
\[df:convex\] [ Let $D$ be a drawing of $K_n$ in the sphere. ]{}
1. [Let $T$ be a 3-cycle in $K_n$. Then a closed disc $\Delta$ bounded by $D[T]$ is [*convex*]{} if, for any distinct vertices $u$ and $v$ of $K_n$ such that both $D[u]$ and $D[v]$ are in $\Delta$, then $D[uv]\subseteq \Delta$.]{}
2. [The drawing $D$ is [*convex*]{} if, for every 3-cycle $T$ in $K_n$, at least one of the closed discs bounded by $D[T]$ is convex.]{}
3. [[A [*face*]{} of $D$ is a component of $\mathbb R^2\setminus D[K_n]$.]{}]{}
4. \[it:faceConvex\] [ The drawing $D$ is [*face-convex*]{} if there is a face $F$ of $D$ such that, for every triangle $T$ of $D$, the closed disc bounded by $D[T]$ and not containing $F$ is convex. The face $F$ is the [*outer face*]{} of $D$.]{}
There seem to be interesting connections between convexity and Knuth’s CC systems [@knuth], but we have not yet formalized this.
In Definition \[df:convex\] \[it:faceConvex\], there is necessarily at least one outer face that shows the drawing to be face-convex. The unique drawing of $K_6$ with three crossings has two such faces. (See Figure \[fg:TkS\].)
It is convenient for the definition of convexity to use drawings in the sphere: every simple closed curve is the boundary of two closed discs. [[Every drawing in the plane is converted by the standard 1-point compactification into a spherical drawing. Keeping track of the infinite face $F$ in a pseudolinear drawing in the plane results in a face-convex drawing in the sphere with outer face $F$. The interesting point is the converse: if we convert the face $F$ in the definition of face-convex to be the unbounded face, then the resulting drawing in the plane is pseudolinear.]{}]{}
![The two faces bounded by 3-cycles can each be the outer face.[]{data-label="fg:TkS"}](3K6.pdf)
\[th:strongConvex\] A drawing of $K_n$ in the plane is face-convex if and only if it is pseudolinear.
This theorem is proved in Section \[sec:pseudolinear\]. An independent recent proof has been found by Aichholzer et al [@ahpsv]; their proof uses Knuth’s CC systems [@knuth] (reinforcing the interest in the connection with convexity), the duals of which are realizable as pseudolinear arrangements of lines. Moreover, their statement is in terms of a forbidden configuration. Properly speaking, their result is of the form, “there exists a face relative to which the forbidden configuration does not occur". Their face and our face are the same. However, our proof is completely different, yielding directly a polynomial time algorithm for finding the pseudolines.
Aichholzer et al show that the there is a pseudolinear drawing of $K_n$ having the same crossing pairs of edges as the given drawing of $K_n$. Gioan’s Theorem [@gioan] that any two drawings of $K_n$ with the same crossing pairs of edges are equivalent up to Reidemeister III moves is then invoked to show that the original drawing is also pseudolinear. Our proof is completely self-contained; in particular, it does not involve CC-systems and does not invoke Gioan’s Theorem.
The ideas we use are elementary and derive from a simple, direct proof of Levi’s Enlargement Lemma given in Section \[sec:levy\]. In a separate paper [@usGioan], we give a proof of Gioan’s Theorem in the same spirit.
In Section \[sec:emptyTriangles\], we extend the Bárány and Füredi [@barany] theorem that a rectilinear drawing of $K_n$ has at least $n^2+O(n\log n)$ empty triangles to pseudolinear drawings of $K_n$. Moreover, we show that a convex drawing of $K_n$ has at least $n^2/3 + O(n)$ empty triangles.
Proof of Levi’s Enlargement Lemma {#sec:levy}
=================================
In this section, we prove Levi’s Enlargement Lemma [@levy]. This important fact seems to have only one proof by direct geometric methods in English [@grunbaum]. The proof in [@grunbaum] includes a simple step that Grünbaum admits seems clumsy. Our proof avoids this technicality. (There is another proof by Sturmfels and Ziegler via oriented matroids [@sturmfels].)
One fact we do use is that there is an alternative definition of an arrangement of pseudolines. Equivalent to the definition given in the introduction, a [*pseudoline*]{} is a non-contractible simple closed curve in the real projective plane, and an arrangement of pseudolines is a set of pseudolines, any two intersecting in exactly one point; the intersection is necessarily a crossing point. This perspective will be used in the proof of Levi’s Enlargement Lemma.
\[th:levy\] Let $\Sigma$ be an arrangement of pseudolines and let $a,b$ be any two points in the plane not both in the same pseudoline in $\Sigma$. Then there is a pseudoline $\sigma$ that contains both $a$ and $b$ and such that $\Sigma\cup\{\sigma\}$ is an arrangement of pseudolines.
The principal ingredients in all our arguments are two considerations of the facial structure of an arrangement of pseudolines. In fact, we need something slightly more general. An [*arrangement of arcs*]{} is a finite set $\Sigma$ of open arcs in the plane $\mathbb R^2$ such that, for every $\sigma\in\Sigma$, $\rtwo\setminus \sigma$ is not connected and any two elements of $\Sigma$ have at most one point in common, which must be a crossing. Thus, two arcs in an arrangement of arcs may have no intersection and so be “parallel".
Let $\Sigma$ be an arrangement of arcs. Set $\mathcal P(\Sigma)$ to be the set $\bigcup_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma$ of points in the plane. A [*face*]{} of $\Sigma$ is a component of $\mathbb R^2\setminus \mathcal P(\Sigma)$. Since $\Sigma$ is finite, there are only finitely many faces of $\Sigma$.
The [*dual*]{} $\Sigma^*$ of $\Sigma$ is the finite graph whose vertices are the faces of $\Sigma$ and there is one edge for each segment $\alpha$ of each $\sigma\in \Sigma$ such that $\alpha$ is one of the components of $\sigma\setminus \mathcal P(\Sigma\setminus\{\sigma\})$. The dual edge corresponding to $\alpha$ joins the faces of $\Sigma$ on either side of $\alpha$.
Levi’s Lemma is a consequence of our first consideration of the facial structure of an arrangement of arcs.
\[lm:dualPaths\] Let $\Sigma$ be an arrangement of arcs and let $a,b$ be points of the plane not in any line in $\Sigma$. Then there is an $ab$-path in $\Sigma^*$ crossing each arc in $\Sigma$ at most once.
We proceed by induction on the number of curves in $\Sigma$ that separate $a$ from $b$, the result being trivial if there are none. Otherwise, for $x\in \{a,b\}$, let $F_x$ be the face of $\Sigma$ containing $x$ and let $\sigma\in\Sigma$ be incident with $F_a$ and separate $a$ from $b$. Then $\Sigma^*$ has an edge $F_aF$ that crosses $\sigma$.
Let $R$ be the region of $\rtwo\setminus \sigma$ that contains $F_b$ and let $\Sigma'$ be the set $\{\sigma'\cap R\mid \sigma'\in \Sigma,\ \sigma'\cap R\ne\varnothing\}$. The induction implies there is an $FF_b$-path in $\Sigma'{}^*$. Together with $F_aF$, we have an $F_aF_b$-path in $\Sigma^*$, as required.
We now turn to the proof of Levi’s Lemma.
[Theorem \[th:levy\]]{} In this proof, we view the pseudoline arrangement $\Sigma$ as non-contractible simple closed curves in the real projective plane, any two intersecting exactly once.
If $a$ is not in any arc in $\Sigma$, then let $F$ be the face of $\Sigma$ containing $a$; replace $a$ with any point in the boundary of $F$ and not in the intersection of two arcs in $\Sigma$. Likewise, for $b$. In all cases, the points representing $a$ and $b$ are chosen to be in different arcs in $\Sigma$.
If we find the required $ab$-arc $\sigma$ to extend $\Sigma$ using one or two replacement points, then $\sigma$ goes through the face(s) of $\Sigma$ containing the original point(s), and so we may reroute $\sigma$ to go through the original points, as required. Thus, we may assume $a$ and $b$ are both in arcs in $\Sigma$.
Let $\Sigma_a$ consist of the arcs in $\Sigma$ containing $a$ and let $F^{(a)}_b$ be the face of $\mathcal P(\Sigma_a)$ containing $b$. Up to spherical homeomorphisms, there is a unique small arc $\alpha$ through $a$ that has one end in $F^{(a)}_b$ and crosses all the arcs in $\Sigma_a$ at $a$. The ends of this arc are the two points $a',a''$. In a similar way, we get the small arc $\beta$ through $b$ joining the two points $b',b''$.
The choices for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ show that we may label $a',a''$ and $b',b''$ so that $a'$ and $b'$ are in the same face $F'$ of $\Sigma_a\cup \Sigma_b$. We apply Lemma \[lm:dualPaths\] to this component to obtain an $a'b'$-arc $\gamma'$ contained in $F'$.
The arc composed of $\gamma'$ together with the little arcs $\alpha$ and $\beta$ crosses every arc in $\Sigma_a\cup \Sigma_b$ exactly once. This shows that $a''$ and $b''$ are in the same face $F''$ of $\Sigma_a\cup \Sigma_b$.
Let $\Sigma''$ be the set $\{\sigma\cap F''\mid \sigma\in \Sigma\, \sigma\cap F''\ne\varnothing\}$. Lemma \[lm:dualPaths\] implies there is an $a''b''$-arc $\gamma''$ in $F''$ crossing each element of $\Sigma''$ at most once.
Let $\gamma$ be the closed curve $\gamma'\cup \alpha\cup\gamma''\cup \beta$, adjusted as necessary near $a'$, $a''$, $b'$, and $b''$ so that $\gamma$ is a simple closed curve. It is clear that $\gamma$ crosses each arc in $\Sigma_a\cup \Sigma_b$ exactly once and, therefore, is non-contractible. By construction, $\gamma$ crosses any arc in $\Sigma$ at most twice; both being non-contractible implies this is in fact at most once. Therefore, $\Sigma\cup \{\gamma\}$ is the desired arrangement of pseudolines.
Proof of Theorem \[th:strongConvex\] {#sec:pseudolinear}
====================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[th:strongConvex\]: a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ in the sphere with outer face $F$ is a pseudolinear drawing in the plane by making $F$ the infinite face.
It is evident that face-convexity is inherited in the sense that if $D$ is a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ and $v$ is any vertex of $K_n$, then $D[K_n-v]$ is a face-convex drawing of $K_n-v$. We begin with a simple observation.
\[lm:noBadK4\] Let $D$ be a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ with outer face $F$. If $J$ is any $K_4$ in $K_n$ such that $D[J]$ has a crossing, then $F$ is in the face of $D[J]$ bounded by a 4-cycle of $J$. In particular, no crossing of $D$ is incident with $F$, so $F$ is bounded by a cycle in $K_n$.
Let $v,w,x,y$ be the four vertices of $J$ labelled so that $vw$ crosses $xy$ in $D$. Consider, for example, the triangle $T=(v,w,x,v)$. [The vertex $y$ is in a closed face $F_y$ of $D[T]$. Since $xy$ crosses $vw$, $D[xy]$ is not contained in $F_y$, so $F_y$ is not convex. Since $D$ is face-convex, it follows that $F\subseteq F_y$.]{}
Thus, none of $v,w,x,y$ is on the convex side of the triangle containing the other three vertices. It follows that $F$ is contained in the face of $D[J]$ bounded by the 4-cycle $(v,x,w,y,v)$, as required.
Inserting a vertex at every crossing point of $D$ produces a 2-connected planar embedding of the resulting graph having $F$ as a face. This face is bounded by a cycle; since no inserted vertex is incident with $F$, this cycle is a cycle of $K_n$.
We remark that Lemma \[lm:noBadK4\] shows that a face-convex drawing does not have the forbidden configuration of Aichholzer et al [@ahpsv]. The converse is no harder.
[[For a face-convex drawing $D$ of $K_n$ with outer face $F$, let $C_F$ denote the cycle of $K_n$ bounding $F$]{}]{} and let $\Delta_F$ denote the closed disc bounded by $C_F$ and disjoint from $F$. For any subset $W$ of vertices of $K_n$, let $D[W]$ denote the subdrawing of $D$ induced by the complete subgraph having precisely the vertices in $W$. Since $D[W]$ is a face-convex drawing, if $|W|\ge 3$, then its face $F_W$ containing $F$ is bounded by a cycle $C_W$. The closed disc $\Delta_W$ bounded by $D[C_W]$ and disjoint from $F$ is the [*convex hull of $W$*]{}.
For each edge $uv$ of $G$, $D[uv]$ is a simple arc in the sphere. Arbitrarily giving $D[uv]$ a direction distinguishes a left and right side to the arc $D[uv]$. We prefer not to use the labels ‘left’ and ‘right’, as we find them somewhat confusing. For now, we shall arbitrarily label them as [*side 1*]{} and [*side 2*]{} of $uv$.
For each vertex $w$ different from $u$ and $v$, [*$w$ is on side $i$ of $uv$*]{} if the face of $D[\{u,v,w\}]$ disjoint from $F$ is on side $i$ of $uv$. We set $\Side{uv}i$ to be the set of vertices on side $i$ of $uv$; [[for convenience, we]{}]{} include $u$ and $v$ in $\Side{uv}i$.
It is clear that $\Side{uv}1\cap \Side{uv}2=\{u,v\}$. What is less clear is that $D[\Side{uv}1]\cap D[\Side{uv}2]$ consists just of $u$, $v$, and $uv$. The next lemma is a useful step in proving this.
\[lm:K4K5sameSides\] Let $D$ be a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ [[with outer face $F$]{}]{} and let $u,v,x,y$ be distinct vertices of $K_n$.
1. \[it:K4sameSide\] Then $x$ and $y$ are on the same side of $uv$ if and only if $uv$ is incident with $F_{\{u,v,x,y\}}$.
2. \[it:differentSidesNoCrossing\] In particular, if $x$ and $y$ are on different sides of $uv$, then $D[\{u,v,x,y\}]-xy$ has no crossing.
3. \[it:interiorDifferentSides\] If $z$ is any vertex such that $u$ is in the interior of $\Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$, then some two of $x$, $y$, and $z$ are on different sides of $uv$.
Ultimately, the easiest way to understand \[it:K4sameSide\] is to draw the two possible drawings of $K_4$ and[, in both cases,]{} check the two possibilities: $uv$ is incident with $F_{\{u,v,x,y\}}$ and $uv$ is not incident with $F_{\{u,v,x,y\}}$. In the case the $K_4$ has a crossing, $F_{\{u,v,x,y\}}$ is the face bounded by the 4-cycle.
For \[it:differentSidesNoCrossing\], let $J$ be the $K_4$ induced by $u,v,x,y$. Since $x$ and $y$ are on different sides of $uv$, the preceding conclusion shows that either $D[J]$ has no crossing, in which case we are done, or $uv$ is crossed in $D[J]$ and it crosses $xy$. As this is the only crossing in $D[J]$, $D[J]-xy$ has no crossing.
Finally, we consider \[it:interiorDifferentSides\]. If $D[v]\notin \Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$, then $D[uv]$ crosses the 3-cycle $xyz$. Now \[it:K4sameSide\] shows that the ends of the edge crossing $D[uv]$ are on different sides of $uv$. Thus, we may assume $D[v]\in \Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$.
Since $D[u]\subseteq \Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$, $D[\{ux,uy,uz\}]\subseteq \Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$. If $v=z$, then $D[uv]$ is not incident with $F_{\{u,v,x,y\}}$. Therefore, \[it:K4sameSide\] shows $x$ and $y$ are on different sides of $uv$ and consequently, we may assume $v\ne z$.
By definition, $\Delta_{\{u,x,y\}}\subseteq \Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$, and likewise for $\Delta_{\{u,x,z\}}$ and $\Delta_{\{u,y,z\}}$. We may choose the labelling of $x$, $y$, and $z$ so that $D[v]\in \Delta_{\{u,x,y\}}$. But now $uv$ is not in the boundary of $D[\{u,v,x,y\}]$. Again, \[it:K4sameSide\] shows $x$ and $y$ are on different sides of $uv$.
We are now ready for the first significant step, which is Item \[it:noDiscIntersection\] in our next result.
\[lm:basicProperties\] Let $D$ be a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ [[with outer face $F$]{}]{}, let $W\subseteq V(K_n)$, and let $uv$ be any edge of $K_n$.
1. \[it:emptySide\] Both $(W\cap \Side{uv}1)\setminus\{u,v\}$ and $(W\cap \Side{uv}2)\setminus\{u,v\}$ are not empty if and only if $uv$ is not incident with $F_{W\cup \{u,v\}}$.
2. \[it:oppSideNotInDelta\] For $\{i,j\}=\{1,2\}$, no vertex of $ \Side{uv}i\setminus\{u,v\}$ is in $\Delta_{(W\cup \{u,v\})\cap \Side{uv}j}$.
3. \[it:noSidesCrossings\] If, for $i=1,2$, $x_i,y_i\in\Side{uv}i$, then $x_1y_1$ does not cross $x_2y_2$ in $D$.
4. \[it:noDiscIntersection\] $\Delta_{\Side{uv}1}\cap \Delta_{\Side{uv}2}=D[\{u,v\}]$.
Suppose $uv$ is incident with $F_{W\cup\{u,v\}}$. For any $x,y\in W\setminus\{u,v\}$, it follows that $uv$ is incident with $F_{\{u,v,x,y\}}$, so Lemma \[it:K4sameSide\] shows $x$ and $y$ are on the same side of $uv$.
Conversely, suppose all vertices in $W\setminus\{u,v\}$ are on the same side of $uv$. The closed disc $\Delta_{W\cup\{u,v\}}$ is the union of all the convex sides $\Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$, for $x,y,z\in W\cup \{u,v\}$. If $u$ is in the interior of some $\Delta_{\{x,y,z\}}$, then Lemma \[it:interiorDifferentSides\] shows some two of $x$ and $y$ are on different sides of $uv$. Thus, both $u$ and $v$ are in $C_{W\cup \{u,v\}}$. If $uv\notin E(C_{W\cup \{u,v\}})$, then $C_{W\cup \{u,v\}}-\{u,v\}$ is not connected; let $x$ and $y$ be in different components of $C_{W\cup \{u,v\}}-\{u,v\}$. Then $D[xy]$ crosses $D[uv]$, showing $x$ and $y$ are on different sides of $uv$. This contradiction completes the proof of \[it:emptySide\].
For $i=1,2$, let $W_i=(W\cup \{u,v\})\cap \Side{uv}i$.
For \[it:oppSideNotInDelta\], suppose $x\in \Side{uv}i\setminus\{u,v\}$ is in $\Delta_{W_j}$. Since $W_j\subseteq W_j\cup \{x\}$, $\Delta_{W_j}\subseteq \Delta_{W_j\cup \{x\}}$. Since $C_{W_j\cup \{x\}}$ either contains $x$, in which case $D[x]\notin \Delta_{W_j}$, or is $C_{W_j}$, in which case $D[x]$ is in the interior of $\Delta_{W_j}$.
Assume by way of contradiction that it is the latter case. Then $C_{W_j\cup \{x\}}=C_{W_j}$. Therefore, $\Delta_{W_j\cup \{x\}}=\Delta_{W_j}$. Since $uv$ is in $C_{W_j}$ by \[it:emptySide\], the other direction of \[it:emptySide\] implies the contradiction that $x\in \Side{uv}j$.
For \[it:noSidesCrossings\], we suppose $x_1y_1$ and $x_2y_2$ cross in $D$. From \[it:differentSidesNoCrossing\], not both $\{x_1,y_1\}$ and $\{x_2,y_2\}$ can contain an element of $\{u,v\}$. We may choose the labelling so that $\{x_1,y_1\}\cap \{u,v\}=\varnothing$ and let $J_1$ be the $K_4$ induced by $u,v,x_1,y_1$. Since $\{x_2,y_2\}\ne \{u,v\}$, we may assume $x_2\notin\{u,v\}$.
\[cl:y2NotUOrV\] $y_2\notin \{u,v\}$.
Suppose $y_2\in \{u,v\}$. Apply \[it:differentSidesNoCrossing\] to each of the $K_4$’s induced by $u,v,x_2,x_1$ and $u,v,x_2,y_1$. The conclusion is that $x_2y_2$ does not cross $D[J_1]-x_1y_1$. Thus, as we follow $D[x_2y_2]$ from $D[x_2]$, its first and only intersection with $D[J_1]$ is with $D[x_1y_1]$, showing $x_1y_1$ is incident with the face $F_{J_1}$. Since $uv$ is also incident with $F_{J_1}$, we deduce that $D[J_1]$ is a crossing $K_4$.
However, continuing on to the end $y_2\in\{u,v\}$, $D[x_2y_2]$ must cross $C_{J_1}$ without crossing any edge of $J_1$, which is impossible, as required.
Let $J_2$ be the $K_4$ induced by $u,v,x_2,y_2$. Lemma \[it:differentSidesNoCrossing\] and Claim 1 show that the only possible crossing between $D[J_1]$ and $D[J_2]$ is the crossing of $x_1y_1$ with $x_2y_2$. However, both $x_2$ and $y_2$ are in $F_{J_1}$, showing that $x_2y_2$ must cross $C_{J_1}$ an even number of times. As there is at least one crossing and all the crossings are with $x_1y_1$, we violate the requirement that, in a drawing, no two edges cross more than once.
Now for \[it:noDiscIntersection\]. From \[it:emptySide\], no vertex of one side is inside the convex hull of the other side. Going one step further, suppose $x,y\in (W\cup \{u,v\})\cap \Side{uv} 2$ is such that $D[xy]$ has a point that is in $\Delta_{(W\cup \{u,v\})\cap \Side{uv}1}$. Then $xy$ crosses some edge of $C_{\Side{uv}1}$, contradicting \[it:noSidesCrossings\].
Finally, we show that $\Delta_{\Side{uv}1}\cap \Delta_{\Side{uv}2}=D[\{u,v\}]$. The cycles $C_{\Side{uv}1}$ and $C_{\Side{uv}2}$ are disjoint except for $uv$. If there is some point $a$ of the sphere in $\Delta_{\Side{uv}1}\cap \Delta_{\Side{uv}2}$ that is not in $uv$, then $a$ is in the convex hull of both $C_{\Side{uv}1}$ and $C_{\Side{uv}2}$. This implies that either $\Delta_{\Side{uv}1}\subseteq \Delta_{\Side{uv}2}$ or $\Delta_{\Side{uv}2}\subseteq \Delta_{\Side{uv}1}$, contradicting \[it:emptySide\].
It follows from the above that, for every edge $uv$, $\Delta_{\Side{uv}1}\cup \Delta_{\Side{uv}2}$ includes all the vertices of $K_n$ and all edges that have both ends in the same one of $\Side{uv}1$ and $\Side{uv}2$. We obtain a more refined understanding of the relationship of this subdrawing with the entire drawing in the following.
\[lm:noneOrTwo\] Let $D$ be a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ [[with outer face $F$]{}]{} and let $uv$ be any edge of $K_n$. Let $W$ be any subset of $V(K_n)$. Then there are not four distinct vertices $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$ of $C_W$ appearing in this cyclic order in $C_W$ such that, for $i=1,2$, $x_i,y_i\in \Side{uv}i$.
If such vertices exist, then the edges $x_1y_1$ and $x_2y_2$ are both in $\Delta_{W}$ and they cross, contradicting Lemma \[it:noSidesCrossings\].
It follows from Lemma \[lm:noneOrTwo\] that, for a face-convex drawing of $K_n$ with outer face $F$, $C_F$ has, for $i=1,2$, a path (possibly with no vertices; this happens only when $uv$ is in $C_F$) contained in $\Side{uv}i\setminus\{u,v\}$. The ends of these paths are connected in $C_F$ either by an edge or by a path of length 2, the middle vertex being one of $u$ and $v$.
Henceforth, we assume $uv\notin E(C_F)$; that is, we assume both $\Side{uv}1\setminus\{u,v\}$ and $\Side{uv}2\setminus\{u,v\}$ are both non-empty. In this case, $C_F\cup C_{\Side{uv}1}\cup C_{\Side{uv}2}$ is a planar embedding of a 2-connected graph. Three of its faces are $F$, $\Delta_{\Side{uv}1}$, and $\Delta_{\Side{uv}2}$. [ The other faces, if any, are determined by whether or not $u$ or $v$ is in $C_F$. ]{}
Let $A_{uv}$ consist of the ones of $u$ and $v$ not in $C_F$. For each $a\in A_{uv}$, there is a face $F_{uv}^a$ of $C_F\cup C_{\Side{uv}1}\cup C_{\Side{uv}2}$ incident with $a$ and an edge $f_{uv}^a$ of $C_F$; the edge $f_{uv}^a$ is incident with a vertex in $\Side{uv}1$ and a vertex in $\Side{uv}2$. Let $Q_{uv}^a$ be the cycle bounding $F_{uv}^a$. See Figure \[fg:definitionOfA\].
For $j=1,2$, $C_{\Side{uv}j}$ is the union of two internally disjoint paths, namely $C_F\cap C_{\Side{uv}j}$ and the path $P_{uv}^j$ in $C_{\Side{uv}j}$ having its ends in $C_F$ but otherwise disjoint from $C_F$. If $a$ is in $\{u,v\}\setminus A_{uv}$, then $a$ is in $C_F$ and, therefore, is an end of both $P_{uv}^1$ and $P_{uv}^2$. If $a\in A_{uv}$, then one end of $f_{uv}^a$ is an end of $P_{uv}^1$ and the other end of $f_{uv}^a$ is an end of $P_{uv}^2$.
We are now prepared to prove our characterization of pseudolinear drawings. Recall that $\Delta_F$ is the closed disc bounded by $C_F$ that is disjoint from $F$.
[Theorem \[th:strongConvex\]]{} We begin by finding, for each edge $e$ that is not in $C_F$, an arc $\alpha_{e}$ such that:
1. \[it:defAlpha\] $\alpha_{e}$ consists of three parts, namely $D[e]$, and, for each vertex $u$ incident with $e$, a subarc $\alpha_e^u$, which is either just $u$, if $u\in V(C_F)$, or an arc in $F_e^u$ joining $u$ to a point in $f_e^a$ and otherwise disjoint from $Q_e^u$;
2. \[it:edgeCrossings\] if $\alpha_{e}$ crosses an edge $e'$ (including possibly $e'\in E(C_F)$), then $e'$ has an incident vertex in each of $\Side{e}1$ and $\Side{e}2$; and
3. \[it:twoAlpha\] for any other edge $e'$ not in $C_F$, $\alpha_{e}$ and $\alpha_{e'}$ intersect at most once, and if they intersect, the intersection is a crossing point.
Arbitrarily order the edges of $K_n$ not in $C_F$ as $e_1,\dots,e_r$. We suppose $i\ge 1$ and we have $\alpha_{e_1},\dots,\alpha_{e_{i-1}}$ satisfying Items \[it:defAlpha\] – \[it:twoAlpha\]. We show there is an arc $\alpha_{e_i}$ such that $\alpha_{e_1},\dots,\alpha_{e_{i}}$ also satisfy Items \[it:defAlpha\] – \[it:twoAlpha\]. Let $e_i=uv$.
Since $e_i$ is not in $C_F$, $D[e_i]$ is inside $\Delta_F$. In $C_F$ there are vertices on each side of $e_i$.
[**Useful Fact:**]{} [ *Let $j\in \{1,2,\dots,i-1\}$. By \[it:edgeCrossings\] and Lemma \[lm:noneOrTwo\], $\alpha_{e_j}$ crosses each of $P_{e_i}^1$ and $P_{e_i}^2$ at most twice.*]{}
Since part of the extension of $D[e_i]$ to $\alpha_{e_i}$ is trivial if either $u$ or $v$ is in $C_F$, we will generally proceed below as though neither $u$ nor $v$ is in $C_F$. When there is a subtlety in the event $u$ or $v$ is in $C_F$, we will specifically mention it.
We can apply Lemma \[lm:dualPaths\] in the interior of $F_{e_i}^{u}$ and $F_{e_i}^{v}$ to extend $e_i$ in both directions to points on (actually very near) $f_{e_i}^{u}$ and $f_{e_i}^{v}$ to create a possible $\alpha_{e_i}$. These are all equivalent up to Reidemeister moves and any one is a potential solution. We let $\Lambda_i$ denote the set of these dual path solutions.
For $j=1,2,\dots,i-1$, the segment $\alpha_{e_j}$ is [*unavoidable for $e_i$*]{} if $\alpha_{e_j}$ crosses both the paths $P_{e_i}^1$ and $P_{e_i}^2$. In particular, $\alpha_{e_j}$ is unavoidable if it crosses $e_i$.
It may be that $e_j$ is incident with one of $u$ and $v$, for example. As this forces a crossing of $\alpha_{e_j}$ with $\alpha_{e_i}$, we take this as a crossing of both $P_{e_i}^1$ or $P_{e_i}^2$. On the other hand, if $e_j$ is incident with an end $w$ of $f_{e_i}^u$, then this constitutes a crossing of $\alpha_{e_j}$ with the one of $P_{e_i}^1$ and $P_{e_i}^2$ that contains $w$.
\[cl:unavoidable\] For $j\in \{1,2,\dots,i-1\}$, $\alpha_{e_j}$ is unavoidable for $e_i$ if and only if every arc in $\Lambda_i$ crosses $\alpha_{e_j}$.
Suppose first that $\alpha_{e_j}$ is unavoidable for $e_i$. If $\alpha_{e_j}$ has a point in $D[e_i]$, then evidently $\alpha_{e_j}$ crosses every solution in $\Lambda_i$.
In the case $\alpha_{e_j}$ is disjoint from the closed arc $D[e_i]$, there is some subarc of $\alpha_{e_j}$ with an end in each of $P_{e_i}^1$ and $P_{e_i}^2$, but otherwise disjoint from $P_{e_i}^1\cup P_{e_i}^2$. This arc must join two points in either $Q_{e_i}^u$ or $Q_{e_i}^v$. It is clear that every solution in $\Lambda_i$ must cross this arc, as required.
Conversely, if $\alpha_{e_j}$ is not unavoidable, then it does not cross, say, $P_{e_i}^1$. In this case, there is a solution in $\Lambda_i$ whose extensions of $e_i$ go just inside $F_{e_i}^{u}$ and $F_{e_i}^{v}$, in both cases very close to $P_{e_i}^1$. This solution does not cross $\alpha_{e_j}$.
Suppose that $\alpha_{e_j}$ is unavoidable for $e_i$ and suppose there is an end $a_j$ of $\alpha_{e_j}$ in $f_{e_i}^{u}$. Following $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $a_j$, we come to a crossing of, say $P_{e_i}^1\cap Q_{e_i}^u$. The segment of $f_{e_i}^{u}$ from its end $u_{e_i}^1$ in $P_{e_i}^1$ to $a_j$ is [*restricted for $\alpha_{e_i}$*]{}. We do not want $\alpha_{e_i}$ to cross $\alpha_{e_j}$ on this end segment of $\alpha_{e_j}$, since they must cross elsewhere.
It may be that the portion of $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $a_j$ to its first intersection in $P_{e_i}^1\cup P_{e_i}^2$ meets $P_{e_i}^1\cup P_{e_i}^2$ at $u$. In particular, $u$ is an end of $e_j$. In this case, it is not immediately clear what the restriction should be. The other end of $e_j$ is either in $\Side{e_i}1$ or $\Side{e_i}2$, so, correspondingly, $D[e_j]\subseteq \Delta_{\Side{e_i}1}$ or $D[e_j]\subseteq \Delta_{\Side{e_i}2}$. As $\alpha_{e_i}$ must be made to cross $\alpha_{e_j}$ at their intersection $u$, only in the case $D[e_j]\subseteq \Delta_{\Side{e_i}2}$ do we get a restriction between $u_{e_i}^1$ and $a_j$. (In the other case, as in the next paragraph, the restriction is between $u_{e_i}^2$ and $a_j$.)
There is a completely analogous restriction from $a_j$ to the other end $u_{e_i}^2$ of $f_{e_i}^{u}$ in $P_{e_i}^2$ if, traversing $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $a_j$, $\alpha_{e_j}$ first meets $P_{e_i}^2$.
Let $R_{u}^1$ be the union of all the $e_j$-restricted portions, $j=1,2,\dots,i-1$, of $f_{e_i}^{u}$ that contain the end $u_{e_i}^1$ of $f_{e_i}^{u}$ and let $R_{u}^2$ be the union of all the restricted portions of $f_{e_i}^{u}$ that contain the other end $u_{e_i}^2$ of $f_{e_i}^{u}$.
If $u$ is in $C_F$, then the $u$ portion of $\alpha_{e_i}$ is just $u$ and no extension at this end is required. The restrictions are required in the case $u$ is not in $C_F$, the subject of the next claim.
If $u$ is not in $C_F$, then $R_{u}^1\cap R_{u}^2=\varnothing$.
If the intersection is not empty, then there exist $j,j'\in \{1,2,\dots,i-1\}$ such that:
1. $\alpha_{e_j}$ proceeds from $a_j$ in $f_{e_i}^u$ to $P_{e_i}^1$;
2. $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ proceeds from $a_{j'}$ in $F_{e_i}^u$ to $P_{e_i}^2$; and,
3. in $f_{e_i}^u$, $a_{j'}$ is not further from $u_{e_i}^1$ than $a_j$ is.
In particular, $\sigma_{u,j}^1$ and $\sigma_{u,j'}^2$ must cross in $F_{e_i}^{u}$, so they never cross again. (This is true even if the crossing is $a_j=a_{j'}$. It turns out that $a_j=a_{j'}$ does not occur in our construction, but we do not need this fact, so we do not use it.)
As we traverse $\alpha_{e_j}$ beginning at $a_j$, we first cross $P_{e_i}^1$ at $\times_{j,1}^1$ in $P_{e_i}^1\cap Q_{e_i}^u$. Since $\alpha_j$ is unavoidable, it must cross $P_{e_i}^2$ for the first time at the point $\times_{j,1}^2$. Between $\times_{j,1}^1$ and $\times_{j,1}^2$, there is a second crossing $\times_{j,2}^1$ with $P_{e_i}^1$; possibly $\times_{j,2}^1=\times_{j,1}^2$. The Useful Fact implies these are no other crossings of $\alpha_{e_j}$ with $P_{e_i}^1$. (In $\times^k_{(r,s)}$, the exponent $k$ refers to which $P_{e_i}^k$ is being crossed; the subscripts $(r,s)$ are indicating which arc $\alpha_{e_r}$ is under consideration and, for $s\in\{1,2\}$, it is the $s^{\textrm{th}}$ crossing of $\alpha_{e_r}$ with $P_{e_i}^k$ as we traverse $\alpha_{e_r}$ from $a_r$.)
We claim that the second crossing $\times_{j,2}^1$ of $\alpha_j$ with $P_{e_i}^1$ cannot be in the segment of $P_{e_i}^1$ between $u_{e_i}^1$ and $\times_{j,1}^1$. To see this, suppose $\times_{j,2}^1$ is in this segment; let $\sigma_j$ be the segment of $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $\times_{j,2}^1$ to the other end $a'_j$. The Useful Fact and the non-self-crossing of $\alpha_{e_j}$ imply that $\sigma_j$ is trapped inside the subregion of $F_{e_i}^u$ incident with $u_{e_i}^1$ and the segment of $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $a_j$ to $\times_{j,1}^1$. The only place $a'_j$ can be is in $f_{e_i}^u$, contradicting \[it:defAlpha\].
A very similar argument shows that $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ cannot cross that same segment of $P_{e_i}^2$. (Such a crossing would be the second of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ with $P_{e_i}^2$. Thus, the other end $a'_{j'}$ of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ would also be in $f_{e_i}^u$.)
We conclude that $\times_{j,2}^1$ is in $P_{e_i}^1$ between $\times_{j,1}^1$ and the other end $v_{e_i}^1$ of $P_{e_i}^1$.
Since $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ is unavoidable, as we traverse it from $a_{j'}$ in $f_{e_i}^u$, there is a first crossing $\times_{j',1}^1$ of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ with $P_{e_i}^1$. Between $a_{j'}$ and $\times_{j',1}^1$, there are the two crossings $\times_{j',1}^2$ and $\times_{j',2}^2$ of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ with $P_{e_i}^2$; possibly $\times_{j',2}^2=\times_{j',1}^1$. Note that the Useful Fact implies $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ is disjoint from $C_F\cap C_{\Side{e_i}2}$.
Let $\gamma$ be the simple closed curve consisting of the portion of $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $a_j$ to $\times_{j,1}^2$, and then the portion of $C_{\Side{uv}2}$ from $\times_{j,1}^2$ to $v_{e_i}^2$ and along $C_F\cap C_{\Side{uv}2}$ to $u_{e_i}^2$, and then the portion of $f_{e_i}^u$ from $u_{e_i}^2$ back to $a_j$.
From $\times_{j',1}^2$ to the other end $a_{j'}$, $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ must cross $\gamma$. The only segment it can cross is the portion of $P_{e_i}^2$ between $\times_{j,1}^2$ and $v_{e_i}^2$. This implies that $\times_{j',2}^2$ is between $\times_{j,1}^2$ and $v_{e_i}^2$ in $P_{e_i}^2$.
Reversing the roles of $j$ and $j'$ and of sides 1 and 2, we conclude that the preceding argument shows that $\times_{j,2}^1$ is between $\times_{j',1}^1$ and $v_{e_i}^1$ in $P_{e_i}^1$.
The simple closed curve $\gamma$ above is crossed by $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ at the point $\times_{j',2}^2$ in the segment of $P_{e_i}^2$ between $\times_{j,1}^2$ and $v_{e_i}^2$. See Figure \[fg:overlapRestrictions\]. On the other hand, $\times_{j',1}^1$ is on the segment of $P_{e_i}^1$ between the two points $\times_{j,1}^1$ and $\times_{j,2}^1$ and so is on the other side of $\gamma$. This shows that $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ must cross $\gamma$ again and this is impossible.
If $f_{e_i}^{u}$ does not exist, then set $\eta_{u}=u$. Otherwise, let $\rho_{u}$ be either $u_{e_i}^1$ or the point of $R_{u}^1$ furthest from $u_{e_i}^1$. Then $\eta_{u}$ is any point between $\rho_{u}$ and the next point between $\rho_{u}$ and $u_{e_i}^2$ that is an end of some $\alpha_{j}$, for $j\in \{1,2,\dots,i-1\}$. Likewise, $\eta_{v}$ is any point of $f_{e_i}^v$ between the last point $\rho_v$ of $R_v^2$ and the next point between $\rho_u$ and $v_{e_1}^1$ that is an end of some $\alpha_j$, for $j\in \{1,2,\dots,i-1\}$. (Notice that we use the $P_{e_i}^1$-side restrictions at the “$u$-end" and the $P_{e_i}^2$-side restrictions at the $v$-end. We could have equally well used the $P_{e_i}^2$-side restrictions at the $u$-end and the $P_{e_i}^1$-restrictions at the $v$-end.)
We now apply Lemma \[lm:dualPaths\] to the region $F_{e_i}^{u}$ (if it exists) using $u$ and $\eta_{u}$ as ends to be connected. We do the same thing in $F_{e_i}^{v}$ joining $v$ and $\eta_{v}$. These arcs together with $D[e_i]$ give us $\alpha_{e_i}$, as described in \[it:defAlpha\]. (See Figure \[fg:alphaEi\].)
The construction of $\alpha_{e_i}$ makes it clear that $\alpha_{e_i}$ meets each of $\Delta_{\Side{e_i}1}$ and $\Delta_{\Side{e_i}2}$ in $e_i$. Therefore, $\alpha_{e_i}$ satisfies \[it:edgeCrossings\].
\[cl:unavoidableOnce\] For any $j\in \{1,2,\dots,i-1\}$ for which $\alpha_{e_j}$ is unavoidable, $\alpha_{e_i}$ crosses $\alpha_{e_j}$ exactly once.
Because of the restrictions, $\alpha_{e_i}$ does not cross the portions (if either or both of these exist) of $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $f_{e_i}^u$ to its first intersection with $P_{e_i}^1\cup P_{e_i}^2$ and the analogous segment from $f_{e_i}^v$. It is enough to show that $\alpha_{e_j}$ does not have two completely disjoint segments that have one end in $P_{e_i}^1$ and one end in $P_{e_i}^2$, but otherwise disjoint from $P_{e_i}^1\cup P_{e_i}^2$; this includes the possibility of one segment consisting of just one point in $e_i$.
Suppose $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are two such segments of $\alpha_j$. Since each involves a crossing of each of $P_{e_i}^1$ and $P_{e_i}^2$, the Useful Fact implies that these are the only crossings of $\alpha_j$ with $P_{e_i}^1\cup P_{e_i}^2$. We may assume that, in traversing $\alpha_j$ from one end to the other, we first traverse $\tau_1$ from its end in $P_{e_i}^1$ to its end $\times_{2,1}$ in $P_{e_i}^2$. As we continue along $\alpha_j$ from $\times_{2,1}$, we are inside $\Delta_{\Side{e_i}2}$ until we meet the second crossing $\times_{2,2}$ of $\alpha_j$ and $P_{e_i}^2$.
The earlier “Useful Fact" asserts that $\times_{2,1}$ and $\times_{2,2}$ are the only crossings of $\alpha_j$ with $P_{e_i}^2$. It follows that $\times_{2,2}$ is an end of $\tau_2$ and, continuing along $\alpha_{e_j}$ from $\times_{2,2}$ we are traversing $\tau_2$ up to its other end, which is in $P_{e_i}^1$.
In summary, $\alpha_{e_j}$ crosses $P_{e_i}^1$ at one end of $\tau_1$, crosses $P_{e_i}^2$ at the other end of $\tau_1$, then goes through $\Delta_{\Side{e_i}2}$ until it crosses $P_{e_i}^2$ a second (and final) time, beginning its traversal of $\tau_2$ up to the second (and final) crossing of $P_{e_i}^1$. The rest of $\alpha_{e_j}$ is inside $\Delta_{\Side{e_i}1}$ and so its terminus must be in $C_{\Side{e_i}1}$.
However, Lemma \[lm:noneOrTwo\] and \[it:edgeCrossings\] imply $\alpha_j$ crosses $C_{\Side{e_i}1}$ only twice, and we have three crossings: $\tau_1\cap P_{e_i}^1$, $\tau_2\cap P_{e_i}^1$, and the terminus of $\alpha_{e_j}$, a contradiction.
The verification that $\alpha_{e_1},\dots,\alpha_{e_i}$ satisfy Conditions \[it:defAlpha\] – \[it:twoAlpha\] is completed by showing that $\alpha_{e_i}$ does not cross any avoidable $\alpha_{e_j}$ more than once. By way of contradiction, we assume that $\alpha_{e_i}$ crosses the avoidable $\alpha_{e_j}$ more than once. Since $\alpha_{e_j}$ is avoidable, either it does not cross $P_{e_i}^1$ or it does not cross $P_{e_i}^2$; for the sake of definiteness, we assume the latter. In particular, $\alpha_{e_j}$ does not cross $e_i$ and, therefore, must cross each of the subarcs $\alpha_{e_i}^{u}$ and $\alpha_{e_i}^{v}$ (see Figure \[fg:2crossingExtension\]).
![One instance of $\alpha_{e_i}$ crossing an avoidable $\alpha_{e_j}$ twice.[]{data-label="fg:2crossingExtension"}](2-crossingExtendsions)
By the choice of $\eta_{v}$, there is an unavoidable $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ that crosses $f_{e_i}^{v}$ between the intersections of $\alpha_{e_j}$ and $\alpha_{e_i}$ on $f_{e_i}^{v}$. Moreover, from its intersection with $f_{e_i}^{v}$, $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ crosses $P_{e_i}^2\cap Q_{e_i}^{v}$ and, in going to that crossing, it must also cross the segment of $\alpha_{e_j}$ inside $Q_{e_i}^{v}$. Thus, \[it:twoAlpha\] implies that $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ and $\alpha_{e_j}$ cannot cross again.
As we follow $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ from its end in $f_{e_i}^v$, we come first to the crossing with $\alpha_{e_j}$, and then to a crossing with $P_{e_i}^2$. Continuing from this point, we cross $P_{e_i}^2$ again at $\times_{2,2}$ followed by the first crossing $\times_{1,1}$ with $P_{e_i}^1$. Some point $\times_{e_i}$ of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ in the closed subarc between $\times_{2,2}$ and $\times_{1,1}$ is in $\alpha_{e_i}$. Claim \[cl:unavoidableOnce\] asserts that $\times_{e_i}$ is the unique crossing of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ with $\alpha_{e_i}$.
The point $\times_{e_i}$ must lie on the segment of $\alpha_{e_i}$ between the two crossings of $\alpha_{e_i}$ with $\alpha_{e_j}$, as otherwise $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ must cross $\alpha_{e_j}$ a second time. It follows that, as we continue a short distance along $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ beyond $\times_{e_i}$, there is a point of $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ that is inside the simple closed curve bounded by the segments of each of $\alpha_{e_i}$ and $\alpha_{e_j}$ between their two intersection points. But $\alpha_{e_{j'}}$ must get to $C_F$ from here without crossing $\alpha_{e_i}\cup \alpha_{e_j}$, which is impossible, showing that $\alpha_{e_1},\dots,\alpha_{e_i}$ satisfy all of \[it:defAlpha\]–\[it:twoAlpha\].
What remains is to deal with the portions of the pseudolines that are in $F$. We begin by letting $\gamma$ be a circle so that $D[K_n]$ is contained in the interior of $\gamma$. We label $C_F$ as $(v_0,f_1,v_1,\dots,f_k,v_0)$. Our first step is to extend one at a time each $D[f_i]$ to an arc $\beta_{f_i}$ in $F\cup D[f_i]$ that, except for its endpoints, is contained in the open, bounded side of $\gamma$ joining antipodal points $a_i$ and $b_i$ on $\gamma$. Pick arbitrarily two antipodal points $a_1$ and $b_1$ on $\gamma$ and extend $D[f_1]$ in $F$ to an arc $\beta_{f_1}$ joining $a_1$ and $b_1$.
Suppose we have $\beta_{f_1},\dots,\beta_{f_{i-1}}$. The arc $\beta_{f_i}$ will have to cross $\beta_{f_{i-1}}$ at $v_{i-1}$. (If $i=k$, then $\beta_{f_i}$ will also have to cross $\beta_{f_1}$ at $v_0$.) Extend $D[f_i]$ slightly so that it actually crosses $\beta_{f_{i-1}}$ at $v_{i-1}$ (and $\beta_{f_1}$ at $v_0$ when $i=k$). If $i<k$, then pick arbitrarily antipodal points $a_{i}$ and $b_i$ on $\gamma$ distinct from $a_1,\dots,a_{i-1},b_1,\dots,b_{i-1}$ and join the endpoints of $f_i$ to these points, making sure to cross $\beta_{f_{i-1}}$ at $v_{i-1}$.
If $i=k$, then $\beta_{f_1}$ and $\beta_{f_{k-1}}$ both constrain $\beta_{f_k}$. In this case, $f_k$ is in precisely one of the four regions inside $\gamma$ created by $\beta_{f_1}$ and $\beta_{f_{k-1}}$. The arc in $\gamma$ contained in the boundary of this region and its antipodal mate are to be avoided. The endpoints $a_k$ and $b_k$ of $\beta_{f_k}$ are in the other antipodal pair of arcs in $\gamma$. We extend $D[f_k]$ slightly into each of these two regions.
In every case, we apply Lemma \[lm:dualPaths\] to the two regions of $F\setminus \beta_{f_{i-1}}$. In particular, both slight extensions of $D[f_i]$ are constrained not to cross $\beta_{f_{i-1}}$ except at $v_{i-1}$. (For $f_k$, we restrict to the two of the four regions of $F\setminus (\beta_{f_{k-1}}\cup\beta_{f_1})$ that contain the slight extensions of $D[f_k]$.)
These restrictions guarantee that $\beta_{f_{i}}$ does not cross $\beta_{f_{i-1}}$ more than once. Furthermore, $\beta_{f_i}$ does not cross any of $\beta_{f_1},\dots,\beta_{f_{i-2}}$ more than once in each of the subregions of $F$. For $j=1,2,\dots,i-2$, $\beta_{f_i}$ and $\beta_{f_j}$ have interlaced ends in $\gamma$ and, therefore, they cross an odd number of times. It follows that they cross at most once.
We use a similar process to extend the arcs $\alpha_{e_i}$ that join points in $C_F$. Again, extend each one slightly into $F$ in such a way that, every time two $\alpha_{e_i}$’s meet at a common vertex in $C_F$, they cross at that vertex. The slightly extended $\alpha_{e_i}$ crosses some of the $\beta_{f_j}$’s: at least 2 (with equality if both endpoints of $\alpha_{e_i}$ are in the interiors of $f_j$’s) and at most 4 (with equality if both endpoints of $e_i$ are in $C_F$).
We will be proceeding with the $\alpha_{e_i}$ one by one, so that, when extending $\alpha_{e_i}$, we already have extended $\alpha_{e_1},\dots,\alpha_{e_{i-1}}$, to arcs $\alpha^*_{e_1},\dots,\alpha^*_{e_{i-1}}$. Let $\Lambda$ be the set consisting of those $\beta_{f_j}$ and $\alpha^*_{e_k}$ that cross the slightly extended $\alpha_{e_i}$. Since $\alpha_{e_i}$ crosses each arc in $\Lambda$ exactly once, the two ends of $\alpha_{e_i}$ are in two regions of $F\setminus (\bigcup_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\lambda)$ that are incident with antipodal segments of $\gamma$. Choose arbitrarily an antipodal pair, one from each of these antipodal segments. Apply Lemma \[lm:dualPaths\] to these two regions to extend the ends of $\alpha_{e_i}$ to these chosen antipodal points, yielding the arc $\alpha^*_{e_i}$.
Evidently, $\alpha^*_{e_i}$ crosses every arc in $\Lambda$ exactly once. None of the other $\beta_{f_j}$ and $\alpha^*_{e_k}$ crosses $\alpha_{e_i}$. Therefore, $\alpha^*_{e_i}$ crosses each of these at most twice, once in each of the two regions in which $\alpha^*_{e_i}$ completes $\alpha_{e_i}$. Since $\alpha^*_{e_i}$ and any $\beta_{f_j}$ or $\alpha^*_{e_k}$ have interlaced ends in $\gamma$, they cross an odd number of times; thus, they cross exactly once.
Empty triangles in face-convex drawings {#sec:emptyTriangles}
=======================================
Let $D$ be a drawing of $K_n$, let $xyz$ be a 3-cycle in $K_n$ and let $\Delta$ be an open disc bounded by $D[xyz]$. Then $\Delta$ is an [*empty triangle*]{} if $D[V(K_n)]\cap \Delta=\varnothing$. The classic theorem of Bárány and Füredi [@barany] asserts that, in any rectilinear drawing of $K_n$, there are $n^2+{}$O$(n\log n)$ empty triangles.
[[In Corollary \[co:BarFurFaceCon\], we extend the]{}]{} Bárány and Füredi theorem to pseudolinear drawings by proving the same theorem as theirs for face-convex drawings. Their proof adapts perfectly, as long as one has an appropriate “intermediate value" property. [[ The other main result of this section is that]{}]{} any convex (not necessarily face-convex) drawing of $K_n$ has at least $n^2/3+{}$O$(n)$ empty triangles.
Let $D$ be a convex drawing of $K_n$ and suppose that $T$ is a transitive orientation of $K_n$ with the additional property that, for each convex region $\Delta$ bounded by a triangle $(u,v,w,u)$, if $x$ is inside $\Delta$, then $x$ is neither a source nor a sink in the inherited orientation of the $K_4$ induced by $u,v,w,x$. A convex drawing of $K_n$ with such a transitive orientation is [*a convex intermediate value drawing*]{}.
Convexity is not quite enough for our proof. A convex drawing $D$ of $K_n$ is [*hereditarily convex*]{} if, for each triangle $T$ there is a specified side $\Delta_T$ of $D[T]$ that is convex and, moreover, for every triangle $T'\subseteq \Delta_T$, $\Delta_{T'}\subseteq \Delta_T$. Every pseudolinear drawing is trivially hereditarily convex, but so also is the “tin can" drawing of $K_n$ that has $H(n)$ crossings. More generally, any drawing of $K_n$ in which arcs are drawn as geodesics in the sphere is hereditarily convex.
\[th:generalBarFur\] A hereditarily convex intermediate value drawing of $K_n$ has $n^2+\textrm{\em O}(n\log n)$ empty triangles.
Label $V(K_n)$ with $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n$ to match the intermediate value orientation, so $\overrightarrow{v_iv_j}$ is the orientation precisely when $i<j$. We henceforth ignore the arrow and use $v_iv_j$ for an edge only when $i<j$.
Bárány and Füredi [@barany Lemma 8.1] prove the following fact.
\[lm:barany\] Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Suppose that there are no four vertices $i<j<k<\ell$ such that $ik$, $i\ell$, and $j\ell$ are all edges of $G$. Then $|E(G)|\le 3n\lceil \log n\rceil$.
We will apply this lemma exactly as is done in [@barany]. For distinct $i,j,k$ with $i<j$, say that $v_k$ is [*to the left of $v_iv_j$*]{} if the face of the triangle $v_iv_jv_k$ containing the left side (as we traverse $v_iv_j$) of $v_iv_j$ is convex.
\[cl:existEmpty\] If $v_k$ is to the left of $v_iv_j$, then the face of the triangle $v_iv_jv_k$ containing the left side of $v_iv_j$ contains an empty triangle incident with $v_iv_j$.
If $v_{\ell}$ is inside the convex triangle $\Delta$, then $v_{\ell}$ is joined within $\Delta$ to the 3 corners of $\Delta$ and the triangle incident with $v_\ell$ contained in $\Delta$, and incident with $v_iv_j$ is convex by heredity. Since $\Delta$ contains a minimal convex triangle incident with $v_iv_j$, this one is necessarily empty.
It follows that, as long as $v_iv_j$ has a vertex to the left and a vertex to the right, then $v_iv_j$ is in two empty triangles. The main point is to show that there are not many pairs $(i,j)$ such that $i<j$ and $v_iv_j$ is in only one empty triangle $v_iv_jv_k$ with $i<k<j$. We count those that have all intermediate vertices on the left.
\[cl:noFour\] There do not exist $i<j<k<\ell$ such that: $v_j$ and $v_k$ are on the left of $v_iv_{\ell}$; $v_j$ is on the left of $v_iv_k$; $v_k$ is on the left of $v_jv_\ell$; and each of $v_iv_\ell$, $v_iv_k$, and $v_jv_\ell$ is in at most one empty triangle.
Suppose by way of contradiction that: $i<j<k<\ell$; $v_j$ and $v_k$ are on the left of $v_iv_{\ell}$; $v_j$ is on the left of $v_iv_k$; $v_k$ is on the left of $v_jv_\ell$; and each of $v_iv_\ell$, $v_iv_k$, and $v_jv_\ell$ is in at most one empty triangle.
Let $J$ be the complete subgraph induced by $v_i,v_j,v_k,v_\ell$. Suppose first that $D[J]$ were a planar $K_4$. In order for both $v_j$ and $v_k$ to be on the left of $v_iv_\ell$, one of $v_j$ and $v_k$ is inside the convex triangle $\Delta$ bounded by $v_i$, $v_\ell$, and the other of $v_j$ and $v_k$; let $v_{j'}$ be the one inside. Thus, the edges $v_iv_{j'}$ and $v_{j'}v_\ell$ are both inside $\Delta$. (See Figure \[fg:planarK4\].)
The nested condition implies that the three smaller triangular regions inside $\Delta$ and incident with $v_{j'}$ are all convex. If $j'=j$, then $v_j$ is to the right of $vv_k$, a contradiction. If $j'=k$, then $v_k$ is to the right of $v_jv_\ell$, a contradiction. Therefore, $D[J]$ is not a planar $K_4$.
In a crossing $K_4$, the convex sides of any of the triangles in the $K_4$ are the unions of two regions incident with the crossing. For each 3-cycle $T$ in this $K_4$, the fourth vertex shows that it is on the non-convex side of $T$, so it is the bounded regions in the figure that are convex. With the assumption that $v_j$ and $v_k$ are both to the left of $v_iv_\ell$, we see that $v_iv_\ell$ is in the 4-cycle that bounds a face of $D[J]$. Let $v_{j'}$ be the one of $v_j$ and $v_k$ that is the neighbour of $v_i$ in this 4-cycle. (See Figure \[fg:nonPlanarK4\].)
If $v_{j'}=v_k$, then $v_j$ is to the right of $v_iv_k$, a contradiction. Therefore, $v_{j'}=v_j$. Consider the quarter of the inside of the 4-cycle that is incident with $v_i$, $v_\ell$, and the crossing. We claim that there is no vertex of $K_n$ in the interior of this region.
If $v_r$ were in this region, then $r<i$ or $r>\ell$ violates the intermediate value property. If $i<r<k$, then heredity implies that we have the contradiction that $v_r$ is to the right of $v_iv_k$. If $j<r<\ell$, then $v_r$ is to the right of $v_jv_\ell$, an analogous contradiction. It follows that the convex triangles bounded by both $(v_i,v_\ell,v_j,v_i)$ and $(v_i,v_\ell,v_k,v_i)$ contain empty triangles and these empty triangles are different, the final contradiction.
It follows from Claim \[cl:noFour\] and Lemma \[lm:barany\] that only O$(n\log n)$ pairs $i<j$ have the property that there is at most one $k$ such that $i<k<j$ and $v_iv_kv_j$ is an empty triangle.
Since there are $\binom n2$ pairs $i<j$, there are $\binom n2-\textrm{O}(n\log n)$ pairs with two empty triangles $v_iv_kv_j$ and $v_iv_{k'}v_j$, with $i<k,k'<j$. Thus, there are $n^2-\textrm{O}(n\log n)$ empty triangles, as required.
The proof that the Bárány-Füredi result holds for pseudolinear drawings comes from showing that every face-convex drawing has a transitive ordering with the intermediate value property.
\[th:faceConvTransOrd\] If $D$ is a face-convex drawing of $K_n$, then there is a transitive ordering with the intermediate value property.
Let $v_1$ be any vertex incident with a face $F$ witnessing face-convexity. Let $v_2,v_3,\dots,v_n$ be the cyclic rotation at $v_1$ induced by $D$, labelled so that $v_1v_2$ and $v_1v_n$ are incident with $F$.
We claim that this transitive ordering has the intermediate value property. Let $J$ be an isomorph of $K_4$ such that $D[J]$ is planar; let $i<j<k<\ell$ be such that the four vertices of $J$ are $v_i,v_j,v_k,v_\ell$. Deleting $v_1,\dots,v_{i-1}$ and $v_{\ell+1},\dots,v_n$ shows that $v_i$ and $v_\ell$ are incident with the face of $D[J]$ that contains $F$. The convex side of the triangle of $J$ bounding this face is, therefore, the side containing one of $v_j$ and $v_k$. Evidently, this one is neither a sink nor a source of $J$.
Theorems \[th:generalBarFur\] and \[th:faceConvTransOrd\] immediately imply the generalization of Bárány and Füredi to face-convex drawings.
\[co:BarFurFaceCon\] Let $D$ be a face-convex drawing of $K_n$. Then $D$ has at least $n^2+\textrm{\em O}(n\log n)$ empty triangles.
We conclude this work by showing that convexity is enough to guarantee O$(n^2)$ empty triangles. This is somewhat surprising, since it is known that general drawings of $K_n$ can have as few as $2n-4$ empty triangles [@fewEmpties].
\[th:convexEmptyTriangles\] Let $D$ be a convex drawing of $K_n$. Then $D$ has $n^2/3 -{}$[*O*]{}$(n)$ empty triangles.
Let $U$ be the subgraph of $K_n$ induced by the edges not crossed in $D$. Then $D[U]$ is a planar embedding of the simple graph $U$, so $U$ has at most $3n-6$ edges. Thus, there are $n^2/2-{}$O$(n)$ edges that are crossed in $D$.
For each edge $e$ that is crossed in $D$, let $f$ be one of the edges that crosses $e$. Let $J_{e,f}$ be the $K_4$ induced by the vertices of $K_n$ incident with $e$ and $f$. Because $D[J_{e,f}]$ is a crossing $K_4$, each of the four triangles in $J_{e,f}$ has a unique convex side; it is the side not containing the fourth vertex. Let $\Delta_{e,f}$ be the closed disc that is the union of these four convex triangles.
It follows that, for any other vertex $x$ that is on the convex side of any of these four triangles, $x$ is joined inside $\Delta_{e,f}$ to the four corners of $\Delta_{e,f}$, implying one of the edges $f'$ incident with $x$ crosses $e$. Now $\Delta_{e,f'}$ is strictly contained in $\Delta_{e,f}$, proving that there is a minimal $\Delta_{e,f}$ that does not contain any vertex of $K_n$ in its interior.
The two convex triangles incident with $e$ and contained in such a minimal $\Delta_{e,f}$ are both empty. Thus, every crossed edge is in at least two empty triangles. Since every empty triangle contains precisely three edges, there are at least $$\frac 132\left(\frac {n^2}2-\textrm{O}(n)\right) = \frac{n^2}3 - \textrm{O}(n)$$ empty triangles, as required.
[9]{}
B.M. Ábrego and S. Fernández-Merchant, A lower bound for the rectilinear crossing number, Graphs Combin. [**21**]{} (2005), 293–300.
B.M. Ábrego, O. Aichholzer, S. Fernández-Merchant, P. Ramos, and G. Salazar, Shellable drawings and the cylindrical crossing number of $K_n$, Discrete Comput. Geom. [**52**]{} (2014), no. 4, 743–753.
O. Aichholzer, T. Hackl, A. Pilz, G. Salazar, and B. Vogtenhuber, Deciding monotonicity of good drawings of the complete graph, preprint, April 2015.
A. Arroyo, D. McQuillan, G. Salazar, and R.B. Richter, A proof of Gioan’s Theorem, preprint.
J. Balogh, J. Leaños, S. Pan, R.B. Richter, and G. Salazar, The convex hull of every optimal pseudolinear drawing of $K_n$ is a triangle, Australas. J. Combin. [**38**]{} (2007), 155–162.
I. Bárány and Z. Füredi, Empty simplices in Euclidean space, Canad. Math. Bull. [**30**]{} (1987), no. 4, 436–445.
E. Gioan, Complete graph drawings up to triangle mutations, D. Kratsch (Ed.): WG 2005, LNCS 3787, pp. 139–150, 2005, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.
J.E. Goodman and R. Pollack, On the combinatorial classification of non-degenerate configurations in the plane, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A. [**29**]{} (1980), 220–235.
B. Grünbaum, Arrangements and Spreads, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, No. 10. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1972.
H. Harborth, Empty triangles in drawings of the complete graph, Discrete Math. [**191**]{} (1998), no. 1-3, 109–111.
D. Knuth, Axioms and Hulls, Vol. 606, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., Springer, Berlin, 1992.
F. Levi, Die Teilung der projektiven Ebene durch Gerade oder Pseudogerade, Ber. Math-Phys. Kl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. [**78**]{} (1926), 256–267.
L. Lovász, K. Vesztergombi, U. Wagner, and E. Welzl, Convex quadrilaterals and $k$-sets, in [*Towards a theory of geometric graphs*]{}, 139–148, Contemp. Math. [**342**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004.
B. Sturmfels and G.M. Ziegler, Extension spaces of oriented matroids, Discrete Comput. Geom. [**10**]{} (1993), no. 1, 23–45.
[^1]: Supported by CONACYT.
[^2]: Supported by NSERC. ${}^+$University of Waterloo, ${}^\pm$Norwich University, and ${}^\times$UASLP
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a symmetrization technique which can be used as an extra step in some continuous-variable quantum key distribution protocols. By randomizing the data in phase space, one can dramatically simplify the security analysis of the protocols, in particular in the case of collective attacks. The main application of this procedure concerns protocols with postselection, for which security was established only against Gaussian attacks until now. Here, we prove that under some experimentally verifiable conditions, Gaussian attacks are optimal among all collective attacks.'
author:
- Anthony Leverrier
title: 'A symmetrization technique for continuous-variable quantum key distribution'
---
Quantum key distribution (QKD) is the art of distilling a secret key among distant parties, Alice and Bob, in an untrusted environment. The remarkable feature of QKD is that it is secure in an information theoretic sense [@SBC08]. QKD protocols come in two flavors depending on the type of quantum measurement they use: either a photon counting measurement for *discrete-variable* protocols or a homodyne detection for *continuous-variable* (CV) QKD. While the security of the former is now rather well understood (with the notable exceptions of the differential phase shift [@IWY02] and coherent one-way [@SBG05] protocols), security of CV protocols has been more elusive (see [@WPG11] for a recent review). This is mainly due to the fact that the infinite dimensional Hilbert space required to describe these protocols makes the analysis quite challenging.
Among all CVQKD schemes, the protocol GG02 is certainly the easiest one to analyze [@GG02]. In this protocol, Alice sends $n$ coherent states $|\alpha_k\rangle = |x_{2k} + i x_{2k+1}\rangle$ to Bob who measures the states he receives either with a homodyne detection (thus randomly choosing one quadrature to measure for each state) or a heterodyne detection (in which case, Bob measures both quadratures at the same time). Alice’s modulation is Gaussian, meaning that $x_k$ is a centered normal random variable with a given variance. In the case of a heterodyne detection for instance [@WLB04], Bob obtains a classical vector ${\bf y} = [y_1,\cdots, y_{2n}]$ which is correlated to Alice’s vector ${\bf x}= [x_1,\cdots, x_{2n}]$. In this paper, we use bold font to refer to vectors. Then, using parameter estimation, reconciliation and privacy amplification, they can extract a secret key. For this specific protocol, Gaussian attacks (where the action of the eavesdropper can be modeled by a Gaussian quantum channel between Alice and Bob) are known to be optimal among collective attacks [@GC06; @NGA06; @PBL08]. Using de Finetti theorem and conditioned upon an extra verification step [@RC09], these collective attacks are actually optimal in general in the asymptotic limit. The only step which is currently missing in this security analysis is a tight reduction from coherent to collective attacks in the finite-size regime [@LGG10].
The security status of other CVQKD protocols is far less advanced. In particular, not much is known for protocols using postselection [@SRL02; @LKL04; @LSS05]. In these protocols, the idea is that Alice and Bob will only use some data to distill the secret key and discard the rest. More precisely, they only keep the data compatible with a positive key rate. This method, inspired by advantage distillation techniques, certainly makes the protocol more robust against imperfections such as losses or noise in the channel, and potentially gives the best practical CVQKD protocol (see Refs. [@LSS05; @LRH06] for experimental implementations). It is therefore of considerable importance to be able to assess its security. Unfortunately, there are currently no full security proof for this scheme, not even against collective attacks. In fact, the only result available so far is an analysis in the case of Gaussian attacks [@HL07; @SAA07]. This is, however, far from being sufficient for two reasons: first, Gaussian attacks are not believed to be optimal against this protocol; second, one can never prove in practice that a given quantum channel is indeed Gaussian. The problem is that the only tool currently available to establish the security of a CV protocol against collective attacks, namely Gaussian optimality [@WGC06] does not seem to help much for protocols with postselection (see, however, a recent approach along those lines in Ref. [@WSR11]).
In this paper, we introduce a new proof technique based on a symmetrization procedure that allows us to make some progress concerning the security analysis of CVQKD with postselection. In particular, we will show how this symmetrization allows us, under some verifiable conditions, to consider that the quantum channel is indeed Gaussian, even though the physical channel may actually be non-Gaussian. This then means that checking the security against Gaussian attacks (which can be done with present tools) is indeed sufficient to get full security against collective attacks, and in fact against arbitrary attacks in the asymptotic limit thanks to de Finetti theorem [@RC09].
A symmetrized protocol
======================
The usual technique to prove the security of a Prepare and Measure (PM) protocol such as GG02 where Alice sends coherent states to Bob who measures them, is to consider an equivalent Entanglement-Based (EB) protocol. In the latter, Alice prepares two-mode squeezed vacuum states of which she measures one mode with a heterodyne detection and sends the second mode to Bob. Interestingly, before Alice and Bob measure their respective modes, their share a bipartite state $\rho_{AB}$. In this paper, we will restrict our attention to collective attacks, meaning that at the end of the protocol, Alice and Bob share $n$ copies of that state, that is, $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$.
In general, one cannot perform a perfect tomography of this state, simply because it lives in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. In the case of protocols without postselection, this is not a problem since the secret key rate can be safely computed from the the Gaussian state with the same first two moments as $\rho_{AB}$ [@GC06; @NGA06]. This is remarkable because one only needs to compute the covariance matrix of the state instead of its whole density matrix.
Unfortunately, this approach fails in the case of protocols with postselection. Indeed, one would then need to compute the covariance matrix of the state *given it was postselected*. In principle, one could do this analysis with the experimental data obtained from the EB version of the protocol; but one cannot directly reconstruct this covariance matrix from the data observed in the actual PM version of the protocol. Indeed, the probabilistic map corresponding to a successful postselection is too complicated and one cannot expect to analyze its effect on general non-Gaussian states. For this reason, our only hope for a security proof seems to be to somehow enforce the Gaussianity of the state $\rho_{AB}$ Alice and Bob will use in their protocol. The idea is therefore to add an extra step to the usual protocol, that will make the state $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$ more Gaussian. Let us note $\mathcal{S}$ the quantum map induced by this symmetrization.
It is now clear that if one had $\mathcal{S}\left(\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}\right) = \rho_G^{\otimes n}$ where $\rho_G$ is the bipartite Gaussian state with the same covariance matrix as $\rho_{AB}$, then the security of the symmetrized protocol against general collective attacks would be identical to the security of the original protocol against Gaussian attacks. One could then compute the secret key rate, simply from the transmission and excess noise of the quantum channel, exactly as in the case of protocols without postselection. The symmetrization we introduce below will not induce an exact Gaussification, but only an approximate one. However, the quality of the Gaussification, characterized by the fidelity between $\mathcal{S}\left(\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}\right)$ and $\rho_G^{\otimes n}$ will increase with $n$, and tend to 1 if some experimentally verifiable conditions (on the moment of order 4 of $\rho_{AB}$) are met.
The symmetrization we consider here was introduced in [@LKG09] where it was argued that it corresponds to the natural symmetry for protocols using a Gaussian modulation of coherent states. In the EB scenario, before they both perform their heterodyne measurements, Alice and Bob would apply random conjugate passive linear transformations over their $n$ modes. Once this is done, they apply the usual postselection protocol. This symmetrization can also be used in the PM scenario, and crucially, one can simply apply it to the *classical* data ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$ of Alice and Bob. More concretely, in the PM scenario, Alice and Bob follow the standard scenario of sending coherent states and performing a heterodyne detection for Bob. Then, Alice draws a random transformation with the Haar measure on the group $K(n):=O(2n,\mathbb{R}) \cap Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ (isomorphic to the unitary group $U(n)$), that is the transformations corresponding to linear passive transformations in phase-space. She informs Bob of her choice of transformation (over the authenticated classical channel), and both parties apply this transformation to their respective $2n$-vectors ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$.
Equivalence between the EB and PM symmetrized protocols
=======================================================
In order to study the security of the symmetrized PM protocol, one needs to show that its equivalent EB protocol corresponds to the one symmetrized through the application of random conjugate passive transformations in phase-space. It is useful to introduce three different distributions that can be used to describe the two scenarios. In order to simplify the exposition, let us first consider the analysis of a generic CVQKD protocol in the case of collective attacks, meaning that the protocol is entirely described by a single use of the quantum channel. First, the PM protocol is naturally described by a joint probability distribution $P(x_1, x_{2}, y_1, y_{2})$ where $x_1,x_2$ (resp. $y_1,y_2$) refers to Alice’s (resp. Bob’s) measurement results. The EB scenario is characterized by the bipartite state $\rho$ shared by Alice and Bob before their respective measurements. In the context of a CV protocol, it is natural to describe this state by its Wigner function $W(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)$ where index 1 (resp. 2) refers to the first (resp. second) quadrature of Alice or Bob’s mode. Alternatively, since we restrict ourselves to protocols where both Alice and Bob perform a heterodyne detection, we can also consider the convenient characterization in terms of the $Q$-function $Q(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)$ of the state $\rho$. This $Q$-function corresponds to the probability distribution sampled from when measuring the state with heterodyne detection [@leo97] and is given by: $$Q(x_1, x_2, y_1,y_2) = \frac{1}{\pi^2} \langle \alpha_A, \alpha_B |\rho|\alpha_A, \alpha_B \rangle,$$ where $|\alpha_{A (B)}\rangle$ is a coherent state centered on $\alpha_{A(B)} = x_{A (B)} + i p_{A (B)}$ in Alice’s (Bob’s) phase space. Interestingly, if we denote $W_0$ the Wigner function of the vacuum, then $Q$ simply corresponds to the convolution of $W$ and $W_0$: $Q= W \star W_0$.
The relation between the two probability distributions $P$ and $Q$ can also be made explicit: if Alice measures one mode of the two-mode squeezed vacuum with a heterodyne detection and obtains outcomes $x_1$, $x_2$, she projects the second mode on the coherent state $|\gamma (x_1 - i x_2)\rangle$ where the factor $\gamma=\sqrt{2(V-1)/(V+1)}$ depends on the variance $V$ of the two-mode squeezed vacuum [@GCW03][^1]. This means that we have the one-to-one relation: $$Q(x_1, x_2, y_1,y_2) = P(\gamma x_1, -\gamma x_2, y_1, y_2).$$
We now consider general $n$-mode states. Because of the correspondence above, applying a random transformation $R\otimes R$ with $R$ drawn with the Haar measure on $K(n)$ on the classical data represented by the distribution $P$ is equivalent to a symmetrization in phase-space corresponding to the application of random conjugate passive linear transformations over the $n$ modes of Alice and Bob. Noting $\mathcal{G}$ the group of passive linear transformations in phase-space, the state obtained after the symmetrization of $n$ copies of the state $\rho$ (i.e., for a collective attack) is: $$\label{symm_state}
\mathcal{S}(\rho^{\otimes n}) := \int_{U \in \mathcal{G}} (U \otimes U^*) \, \rho^{\otimes n} \, (U \otimes U^*)^\dagger \mathrm{d}U,$$ where $\mathrm{d} U$ is the Haar measure over the group $\mathcal{G}$.
Sketch of the security proof
============================
The rest of the paper consists in analyzing the state $\mathcal{S}(\rho^{\otimes n})$, and in particular proving that it becomes approximately Gaussian under conditions on the second and fourth moment of $P(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)$ which are usually met in practical implementations of a CVQKD protocol. Since the three distributions $W$, $Q$ and $P$, equivalently describe the protocol, we choose here to work with $P$, which is the one directly observable in the practical implementation of the protocol.
Our proof will consist of two steps. First, we show that the distribution $P$ describing the state after the symmetrization tends to an explicit limiting function, where the convergence speed is $O(1/\sqrt{n})$. While one could in principle stop at this point and directly compute the secret key rate that can be extracted from this state, we will focus on the experimentally relevant scenario where the quantum channel behaves approximately as a Gaussian channel. In this case, we can bound the distance between the limiting distribution describing the whole protocol and a Gaussian identically and independently distributed (i.i.d.) function (thus corresponding to a collective Gaussian attack for which the key rate is already known) with an error term of order $O(1/\sqrt{n})$. In such a practical scenario, one can therefore bound the distance between the actual state and the state corresponding to a Gaussian attack by an arbitrary small quantity. Taking $n$ large enough, the secret key rate of the symmetrized protocol is therefore identical to the secret key rate against collective Gaussian attacks.
Convergence to a limiting distribution
======================================
To simplify the notations, we write $\tilde{P}$ the distribution corresponding to the state $\mathcal{S}(\rho^{\otimes n})$. The following lemma from [@LG10b] (proven in Appendix \[proof-three-variables\] for completeness) shows that this function only depends on 3 variables, instead of $4n$ for the non-symmetrized scenario.
\[three-variables\] For $n \geq 2$, the symmetrized distribution $$\tilde{P}({\bf x}, {\bf y}) = \int_{K(n)} P(R{\bf x}, R{\bf y}) \mathrm{d} R,$$ where $\mathrm{d}R$ refers to the Haar measure on $K(n)$, only depends on $||{\bf x}||^2, ||{\bf y}||^2, {\bf x} \cdot {\bf y}$.
Let us note $X_i = x_i^2, Y_i = y_i^2, Z_i = x_i y_i$ and $X^n = \sum_{i=1}^n X_i, Y^n = \sum_{i=1}^n Y_i, Z^n = \sum_{i=1}^n Z_i$. Because $\tilde{P}({\bf x}, {\bf y})$ only depends on $X^n=||{\bf x}||^2$, $Y^n=||{\bf y}||^2$ and $Z^n={\bf x} \cdot {\bf y}$, it actually corresponds to the probability distribution $P_v$ of the vector $V^n=[X^n, Y^n, Z^n]$: $$\tilde{P}({\bf x}, {\bf y}) \mathrm{d}{\bf x} \mathrm{d}{\bf y} = P_v(V^n) \mathrm{d} V^n.$$
According to the central limit theorem, since the vectors $V_i$ are i.i.d. (which follows from the collective attack assumption), the distribution $P_v$ converges to a Gaussian distribution as $n$ tends to infinity, and one can use a multidimensional version of Berry-Esseen theorem to bound the distance between the two distributions. Noting $P_G$ the Gaussian distribution with the same first two moments as $P_v$, one can prove that the variational distance $\Delta$ between the two distributions is of the form (see Appendix \[BE\] for a more precise bound): $$\Delta := \iiint_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left|P_v(V)-P_G(V)) \right| \mathrm{d}V= O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right).$$ The scaling law in $O(1/\sqrt{n})$ is generic for Berry-Esseen theorem and the constant factor depends on the covariance matrix of $[X,Y,Z]$, that is, on the moment of order 4 of the measurement results $(x,y)$.
In general, one could compute the secret key rate corresponding to a state described by the distribution $P_G$. Here, we will restrict ourselves to a very concrete scenario, that of a quantum channel acting like a Gaussian channel (like an optical fiber typically [^2]). We insist that this is not a new assumption since one can always compute the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ of the distribution $P_G$ above. However, in general, the quantum channel will be such that $\Sigma$ will be close (up to sampling errors) to the covariance matrix obtained for a Gaussian channel.
The limiting distribution $P_G$ is close to an i.i.d. Gaussian distribution in typical implementations
======================================================================================================
In practice, the coherent states are sent through an optical fiber acting as a Gaussian quantum channel, meaning that the data obtained by Alice and Bob follow a Gaussian distribution. In general, this does not simplify the security analysis since observing variables that *look* Gaussian does not mean that they indeed *are* Gaussian. Here, we will show that *looking* Gaussian is sufficient for the bound obtained through Berry-Esseen theorem to be useful. Let us consider the case where $$(x_i, y_i) \sim \mathcal{N}\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
0\\
0\\
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
\langle x_i^2 \rangle & \langle x_i y_i \rangle \\
\langle x_i y_i \rangle & \langle y_i^2 \rangle \\
\end{bmatrix}
\right).$$ Then, applying the symmetrization and using the results of Berry-Esseen theorem, one obtains that the symmetrized (normalized) distribution $P_v$ tends to a Gaussian distribution with covariance matrix $\Sigma_G$: $$\Sigma_G = \left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
3\langle x_i^2 \rangle^2 & \langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle y_i^2 \rangle + 2 \langle x_i y_i \rangle^2 & 3 \langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle \\
\langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle y_i^2 \rangle + 2 \langle x_i y_i \rangle^2 & 3\langle y_i^2 \rangle^2& 3 \langle y_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle\\
3 \langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle & 3 \langle y_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle & \langle x_i^2 y_i^2 \rangle\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right].$$ Unfortunately, however, in a practical protocol, Alice and Bob only have access to a finite-precision estimation of the covariance matrix, and the one they measure, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{est}}$, and that they use in Berry-Esseen theorem will slightly differ from the ideal one above $\Sigma_G$. The typical estimation error is of the order of $1/\sqrt{m}$ if $m$ samples are used in the procedure. Assuming that the estimation is performed with a (small) constant fraction of the total samples $n$, the typical error will be on the order of $1/\sqrt{n}$, which is comparable to the error term of the Berry-Esseen theorem. This then implies that the variational distance between the two final distributions is also of that order (see Appendix \[finite\] for details).
Security analysis of a CV QKD protocol with postselection
=========================================================
Using the results above, the distribution $P$ (or equivalently the $Q$-function) of the state describing the symmetrized version of the QKD protocol is $1/\sqrt{n}$-close in variational distance to a Gaussian distribution. Moreover, in a practical scenario, this Gaussian distribution corresponds to that of an i.i.d. Gaussian state. If one can make the error $1/\sqrt{n}$ small enough, then the security of the symmetrized protocol against collective attacks is equivalent to that of the usual (non-symmetrized) protocol against Gaussian attacks. In particular, the secret key rate for the symmetrized protocol is equal to the secret key rate against Gaussian attacks [@HL07; @SAA07].
Although the variational distance between the $Q$-functions is a weaker criterion than the usual trace distance between the states, one can argue that this distance makes sense when considering CV QKD protocols. Indeed, if two states have $2\epsilon$-close $Q$-functions (for the variational distance), it means that the probability to successfully distinguish them using heterodyne detection is bounded by $1/2+\epsilon$.
Sampling from the Haar measure on $K(n)$ for $n$ large might be quite unpractical. Methods to achieve it in complexity $O(n^2)$ are known [@LG11; @JKL11]. Fortunately, for our purpose, it is sufficient to sample from the different measure on $K(n)$ provided that the symmetrized state can be made arbitrary close to the state $\mathcal{S}\left( \rho^{\otimes n}\right)$ of Eq. \[symm\_state\]. This can be achieved by means of quantum $k$-designs as presented in Appendix \[design\]. In particular, it is reasonable to conjecture that this can be done in complexity $O(n \log n)$, which would be compatible with a practical implementation.
One could wonder why the symmetrization has to be *active* here in contrast to protocols such as GG02. The difference is that the postselection, performed along the quadrature axes, introduces some privileged directions in phase space. Consequently one needs to actively symmetrize the protocol to make it invariant under rotations in phase space.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we provided a first step towards a general security proof of CVQKD protocols with postselection. Until now, its security was only established in the very restricted case of Gaussian attacks, which are very unlikely to be optimal. Thanks to an active symmetrization of the protocol (performed on the classical data of Alice and Bob), one can show that collective attacks and actually arbitrary attacks in the asymptotic limit basically reduce to Gaussian attacks. The present solution is still not very practical since one would need to randomly sample from the unitary group in a very large dimension. Two possible approaches should be considered: either looking at a much smaller set of transformations for which the sampling can be performed efficiently, or improving the bounds derived here, possibly combining the symmetrization technique with some de Finetti-type arguments. It seems almost clear, at any rate, that the symmetrization technique introduced here will be required for any further advance in the study of the security of CV QKD with postselection.
Acknowledgments
===============
I thank Antonio Acín, Frédéric Grosshans and Philippe Grangier for fruitful discussions. I acknowledge support from the European Union under the ERC Starting grant PERCENT.
Proof of Lemma $[1]$ (Lemma \[1\] from [@LG10b]) {#proof-three-variables}
================================================
Since the probability distribution $P$ is being randomized under the action of the group $K(n) = O(2n,\mathbb{R}) \cap Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ to give $\tilde{P}$ defined as $$\tilde{P}({\bf x}, {\bf y}) = \int_{K(n)} P(R{\bf x}, R{\bf y}) \mathrm{d} R$$ where $\mathrm{d}R$ refers to the Haar measure on $K(n)$, one has: $$\tilde{P}(R{\bf x}, R{\bf y}) = \tilde{P}({\bf x}, {\bf y})$$ for any ${\bf x}, {\bf y} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ and $R \in K(n)$.
We want to show that any function $\tilde{P}: \mathbb{R}^{2n} \times \mathbb{R}^{2n}$, such that $\tilde{P}(R{\bf x}, R{\bf y}) = \tilde{P}({\bf x}, {\bf y})$ for any transformation $R \in K(n)$ only depends on the three following parameters: $||{\bf x}||^2, ||{\bf y}||^2, {\bf x} \cdot {\bf y}$.
Given any four vectors ${\bf x}, {\bf x'}, {\bf y}, {\bf y'} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such that $||{\bf x}||^2=||{\bf x'}||^2, ||{\bf y}||^2=||{\bf y'}||^2, {\bf x} \cdot {\bf y}={\bf x'} \cdot {\bf y'}$, it is sufficient to exhibit a transformation $R\in K(n)$ such that ${\bf x'}=R {\bf x}$ and ${\bf y'}= R {\bf y}$ to prove Lemma $[1]$.
A transformation $R \in K(n)$ can be described as a symplectic map: $$\label{symplectic}
R = R(X,Y) \equiv
\begin{bmatrix}
X & Y \\
-Y & X \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ where the matrices $X$ and $Y$ are such that [@ADMS95]: $$\begin{aligned}
X^T X+Y^T Y &=& X X^T + Y Y^T =1\\
X^T Y &,& X Y^T \quad \mathrm{symmetric}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this matrix is written for reordered vectors of the form $[x_1, x_3, \cdots, x_{2n-1},x_2, x_4, \cdots, x_{2n}]$, that is, one first writes the $n$ $q$-quadratures then the $n$ $p$-quadratures for all the vectors.
Let us introduce the following vectors ${\bf a}, {\bf a'}, {\bf b}, {\bf b'} \in \mathbb{C}^n$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
a_k = x_{2k-1} + i x_{2k} &,& a'_k = x'_{2k-1}+ i x'_{2k}\\
b_k = y_{2k-1} + i y_{2k} &,& b'_k = y'_{2k-1}+ i y'_{2k}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the conditions read: $$\label{condition2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
||{\bf a}||^2=||{\bf a'}||^2\\
||{\bf b}||^2=||{\bf b'}||^2\\
\mathrm{Re}\langle {\bf a} | {\bf b} \rangle = \mathrm{Re}\langle {\bf a'} | {\bf b'} \rangle
\end{array}
\right. ,$$ where $\mathrm{Re}(x)$ refers to the real part of $x$.
For our purpose, it is therefore sufficient to prove that there exists an unitary transformation $U \in U(n)$ such that $U {\bf a} ={\bf a'}$ and $U {\bf b} = {\bf b'}$. Indeed, one can split $U$ into real and imaginary parts: $U = X - iY$, and it is easy to check that $R=R(X,Y)$ is such that $R{\bf x} ={\bf x'}$ and $R{\bf y} = {\bf y'}$.
Let us introduce the following notations: $A \equiv ||{\bf a}||^2=||{\bf a'}||^2, B \equiv ||{\bf b}||^2=||{\bf b'}||^2$ and $C \equiv \mathrm{Re}\langle {\bf a}| {\bf b} \rangle = \mathrm{Re}\langle {\bf a'}| {\bf b'} \rangle$.
Consider first the case where ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ are colinear. This means that ${\bf b} = C/A {\bf a}$ and $C = \pm \sqrt{AB}$. Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $|C| = |{\bf a'} \cdot {\bf b'}| \leq ||{\bf a'}|| \cdot||{\bf b'}|| = \sqrt{AB}$ with equality if and only if ${\bf a'}$ and ${\bf b'}$ are colinear. This means that ${\bf a'}$ and ${\bf b'}$ are colinear and that ${\bf b'} = (C/A) \, {\bf a'}$. Because $||{\bf a}|| = ||{\bf a'}||$, the reflexion $U$ across the mediator hyperplane of ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf a'}$ is a unitary transformation that maps ${\bf a}$ to ${\bf a'}$. This reflexion also maps ${\bf b}$ to ${\bf b'}$. This ends the proof in the case where ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ are colinear.
Let us now consider the general case where ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ are not colinear. It is clear that ${\bf a'}$ and ${\bf b'}$ cannot be colinear either. We take two bases $({\bf a}, {\bf b}, {\bf f_3}, \cdots, {\bf f_n})$ and $({\bf a'}, {\bf b'}, {\bf f_3'}, \cdots, {\bf f_n'})$ of $\mathbbm{C}^n$ and use the Gram-Schmidt process to obtain two orthonormal bases $\mathcal{B}=({\bf e_1}, \cdots, {\bf e_n})$ and $\mathcal{B}'=({\bf e_1'}, \cdots, {\bf e_n'})$. Note that vectors ${\bf e_1}, {\bf e_2}, {\bf e_1'}$ and $e{\bf _2'}$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf e_1} = \frac{{\bf a}}{\sqrt{A}} &,& {\bf e_2} = \frac{{\bf b} - \langle {\bf e_1}|{\bf b}\rangle {\bf e_1}}{||{\bf b} - \langle {\bf e_1}|{\bf b}\rangle {\bf e_1} ||}\\
{\bf e_1'} = \frac{{\bf a'}}{\sqrt{A}} &,& {\bf e_2'} = \frac{{\bf b'} - \langle {\bf e_1'}|{\bf b'}\rangle {\bf e_1'}}{||{\bf b'} - \langle {\bf e_1'}|{\bf b}\rangle {\bf e_1'} ||}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us call $U$ the unitary operator mapping $\mathcal{B}$ to $\mathcal{B}'$. It is easy to see that $U$ maps ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ to ${\bf a'}$ and ${\bf b'}$, respectively. This concludes our proof.
Distance between the symmetrized distribution and a Gaussian distribution: Berry-Esseen theorem {#BE}
===============================================================================================
We use a multidimensional local version of the Berry-Esseen theorem due to Zitikis. More precisely, Theorem 1.2 of [@Zit93] reads:
\[berry-esseen\] Let $V_1, \cdots, V_n$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed $d$-variate random vectors, let $S_n = \tfrac1n \sum_{i=1}^n V_i$. Let ${\bf \mu}$ and $\Sigma$ be the first two moments of $V_1$, and let $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ be the least eigenvalue of $\Sigma$. Let $G$ be a Gaussian random vector with zero mean and covariance matrix $\mathbbm{1}_d$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the class of all convex Borel sets. Then there exists a universal constant $c\geq 0$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{C \in \mathcal{C}} \left|P(\sqrt{n} (S_n-\mu)\Sigma^{-1/2}\in \mathcal{C}) - P(G \in \mathcal{C}) \right|\\
\leq c \sqrt{d} \lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^{-3/2}\mathbb{E}\left(||V_1||^3\right)/\sqrt{n},\end{gathered}$$ where $L_n(1)=1/n \sum_i V_i$, $V_i$ is a $d$-dimensional vector and $||.||$ refers to the Euclidean norm.
First, we note that the quantity $$\sup_{C \in \mathcal{C}} \left|P({\bf x} \in \mathcal{C}) - P({\bf y} \in \mathcal{C}) \right|$$ corresponds to the variational distance between the distributions of ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$.
In the case of CVQKD, we need to consider tridimensional random vectors $V_i=[X_i,Y_i,Z_i]$ and one can immediately estimate ${\bf \mu}$ and $\Sigma$ from the experimental data. Using the notations of the main text and applying Theorem \[berry-esseen\] gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bound}
\iiint_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left|P_v(V)-P_G(V)) \right| \mathrm{d}V\\
\leq c \sqrt{3} \lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^{-3/2}\mathbb{E}\left(||X_1^2+Y_1^2+Z_1^2||^{3/2}\right)/\sqrt{n},\end{gathered}$$ where $P_G$ corresponds to the multivariate Gaussian distribution with the same first two moments as $P_v$.
Error due to the finite estimation sample {#finite}
=========================================
Let us assume that the variables $(x_k,y_k)$ follow a centered bivariate normal distribution, as typical in experimental implementations of CVQKD.
During the parameter estimation, Alice and Bob need to estimate the fourth moments of $(x_k,y_k)$ given by the covariance matrix $\Sigma$: $$\Sigma = \left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\langle x_i^4 \rangle & \langle x_i^2 y_i^2 \rangle & \langle x_i^3 y_i \rangle \\
\langle x_i^2 y_i^2 \rangle & \langle y_i^4 \rangle & \langle x_i y_i^3 \rangle\\
\langle x_i^3 y_i \rangle & \langle x_i y_i^3 \rangle & \langle x_i^2 y_i^2 \rangle\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right]$$ Alternatively, one can describe this matrix by the vector $V_i = [\langle x_i^4 \rangle, \langle x_i^3 y_i \rangle, \langle x_i^2 y_i^2 \rangle, \langle x_i y_i^3 \rangle, \langle y_i^4 \rangle]$. In order to estimate this vector, one uses the estimator $\bar{V}^m$ defined as $$\bar{V}^m:= \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \sum_{i_1,\cdots, i_m} V_i,$$ where $i_1,\cdots, i_m$ are $m$ randomly chosen indices among $\{1,\cdots,n\}$. Using the mutlivariate version of the Central Limit Theorem, one obtains that the estimator $\bar{V}^m$ converges to the true value and that the error follows a normal distribution.
More precisely, let us note $\Sigma_G$ the true covariance matrix and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{est}}$ the estimated matrix, i.e., $$\Sigma_G = \left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
3\langle x_i^2 \rangle^2 & \langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle y_i^2 \rangle + 2 \langle x_i y_i \rangle^2 & 3 \langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle \\
\langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle y_i^2 \rangle + 2 \langle x_i y_i \rangle^2 & 3\langle y_i^2 \rangle^2& 3 \langle y_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle\\
3 \langle x_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle & 3 \langle y_i^2 \rangle \langle x_i y_i \rangle & \langle x_i^2 y_i^2 \rangle\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right],$$ and $$\Sigma_\mathrm{est} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i_1, \cdots, i_m}\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
x_i^4 & x_i^2 y_i^2 & x_i^3 y_i \\
x_i^2 y_i^2 & y_i^4 & x_i y_i^3 \\
x_i^3 y_i & x_i y_i^3 & x_i^2 y_i^2\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right].$$ Then, the Central Limit Theorem asserts that the random matrix $\sqrt{m} (\Sigma_\mathrm{est}-\Sigma_G)$ converges in distribution to a centered multivariate normal distribution with a covariance matrix depending on moments of order 8 of $(x_k,y_k)$. We do not explicitate this matrix here as it is rather cumbersome, but it is straightforward to compute it.
The result of this analysis is that the error in estimating the correct covariance matrix $\Sigma_g$ scales as $1/\sqrt{m}$ where $m$ is the number of samples used. In order to obtain an error of the same order of magnitude as the one due to Berry-Esseen theorem, one should use a constant fraction of the data for the parameter estimation. In that case, the covariance matrix would be estimated with a precision $1/\sqrt{n}$.
We now prove that this error for the covariance matrices translates into an error (computed with respect to the variational distance) of the same magnitude for the probability distributions.
Let us first consider the case of univariate normal distributions, that is two normal distributions $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_1^2)$ and $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_2^2)$ with $\sigma_2 > \sigma_1$. Let us note $g_1$ and $g_2$ their respective density function. One has: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |g_1(x) - g_2(x)| \mathrm{d}x \nonumber \\
&&= 2 \mathrm{erf} \left(\sigma_2 \sqrt{\frac{\ln (\sigma_2/\sigma_1)}{\sigma_2^2-\sigma_1^2}} \right)-2 \mathrm{erf} \left(\sigma_1 \sqrt{\frac{\ln (\sigma_2/\sigma_1)}{\sigma_2^2-\sigma_1^2}} \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{erf}(x) = 2/\sqrt{\pi} \int_0^x e^{-t^2}\mathrm{d}t$ is the error function. In particular, if one has $\sigma_2 = \sigma_1 + \delta$ where $\delta=O(1/\sqrt{n})$ is a small error, then a first order expansion of the expression above gives $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |g_1(x) - g_2(x)| \mathrm{d}x = \delta \sqrt{\frac{8}{e \pi \sigma_1^2}} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right).$$
One can extend this analysis to the case of multivariate normal distributions with covariance matrices differing by an error of the order of $1/\sqrt{n}$, and one would get that the variational distance between the two distributions is also of the order of $1/\sqrt{n}$. For lisibility, we omit the precise bound here but it can be computed in a straightforward manner.
Approximate symmetrization using efficient construction of quantum $k$-designs {#design}
==============================================================================
Sampling from the group $K(n)$ is equivalent to sampling from the unitary group $U(n)$. Indeed, any map in $K(n)$ can be described by its action on the annihilation operators on the $n$ modes. Let us note $a_i$ (resp. $b_i$) the annihilation operator on the $i^\mathrm{th}$ mode of Alice (resp. Bob). A map $U \in K(n)$ is described by the unitary $u_{i,j}$ that transforms $a_i$ into $\sum_{j=1}^n u_{i,j} a_j$. Let us consider a general state $\rho \in \left(\mathcal{H}_A\otimes \mathcal{H}_B\right)^{\otimes n}$, $$\rho = \sum_{{\bf i}^a, {\bf i}^b, {\bf j}^a,{\bf j}^b} \lambda_{{\bf i}^a{\bf i}^b {\bf j}^a {\bf j}^b} |{\bf i}^a, {\bf i}^b\rangle \!\langle {\bf j}^a, {\bf j}^b|,$$ where ${\bf i}^a = (i_1^a, i_2^a, \cdots, i_n^a)$ describes the photon distribution in Alice’s $n$ modes (and similarly for Bob with ${\bf i}^b$).
The state $ |{\bf i}^a, {\bf i}^b\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\bf i}^a! {\bf i}^b !}} \prod_{k=1^n} \left( a_k^{\dagger}\right)^{i_k^a} \left( b_k^{\dagger}\right)^{i_k^b} |00\rangle$ is transformed under the action of $U\otimes U^*$ into $$\begin{gathered}
U\otimes U^* |{\bf i}^a, {\bf i}^b\rangle= \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\bf i}^a! {\bf i}^b !}} \prod_{k=1^n} \left( \sum_{l=1}^n u_{k,l} a_l^{\dagger}\right)^{i_k^a} \left(\sum_{l=1}^n u_{k,l}^* b_l^{\dagger}\right)^{i_k^b} |00\rangle.\end{gathered}$$
Let us fix a maximal photon number $N$ together with the projector $\Pi_{N}$ on the subspace of $\mathcal{H}_A\otimes \mathcal{H}_B$ spanned by Fock states $ |{\bf i}^a, {\bf i}^b\rangle$ with a total photon number less or equal to $N$. For some given first four moments of $\rho$, there exists a constant $c_\epsilon$ such that taking $N= c_\epsilon n$ leads to $$\left\| \rho - \Pi_{N} \rho \Pi_{N}^\dagger \right\|_\mathrm{tr} \leq \epsilon.$$ Noting $\rho_{N} =\Pi_{N} \rho \Pi_{N}^\dagger$, one observes that $(U \otimes U^*) \rho_{N} (U \otimes U^*)^\dagger$ is a polynomial of degree $N$ in $u_{i,j}$. Consider an approximate $N$-design $\nu$, then for any $k \leq N$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\left\| \int_{\mathrm{Haar}} (U \otimes U^*) \, \rho^{\otimes n} \, (U \otimes U^*)^\dagger \mathrm{d}U \right. \\
\left. - \sum_\nu (U(\nu) \otimes U^*(\nu) ) \, \rho^{\otimes n} \, (U(\nu) \otimes U^*(\nu) )^\dagger \right\|_\mathrm{tr} \leq \epsilon_\mathrm{design}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, it is sufficient to use an approximate $N$-design instead of the Haar measure on the unitary group $U(n)$ in order to symmetrize the state $\rho_{N}$, up to some arbitrary small error $\epsilon_\mathrm{design}$. Interestingly, efficient constructions of such approximate $N$-designs are known [@HL09]. In these constructions, the number of unitaries in the design scales as $n^{O(N)}$ which means that one needs $O( n \log n)$ bits of randomness to draw one such unitary (since $N$ is proportional to the number of modes). Unfortunately, the construction provided in [@HL09] only works in the regime where $N= O(n/ \log n)$, which is close to, but not exactly the regime of interest here. Nevertheless, the existence of this construction gives hope that one could construct an approximate $N$-design also in the regime where $N = O(n)$. If this were true, then one could efficiently (in time $O(n \log n)$) perform the symmetrization studied in the main text.
[29]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, (pages ) ().
, , , , , , , ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ().
, , , , ****, ().
, **, vol. (, ).
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, in ** (, , ), vol. of **, pp. .
, pp. ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
[^1]: In the PM scenario, Alice’s modulation has a variance $V-1$.
[^2]: Other experimental setups can be considered in practice, for instance free-space CVQKD [@HEB10]. In that case, it would be interesting to see whether the quantum channel behaves approximately like a Gaussian channel.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using a compilation of measurements of the stellar mass density as a function of redshift we can infer the cosmic star formation history. For $z < 0.7$ there is good agreement between the two star formation histories. At higher redshifts the instantaneous indicators suggest star formation rates larger than that implied by the evolution of the stellar mass density. This discrepancy peaks at $z = 3$ where instantaneous indicators suggest a star formation rate around 0.6 dex higher than those of the best fit to the stellar mass history. We discuss a variety of explanations for this inconsistency, such as inaccurate dust extinction corrections, incorrect measurements of stellar masses and a possible evolution of the stellar initial mass function.'
author:
- 'S. M. Wilkins, N. Trentham'
- 'A. M. Hopkins'
title: The Evolution of Stellar Mass Density and its Implied Star Formation History
---
Introduction
============
Much contemporary research in extragalactic astronomy has revolved around the determination of the instantaneous cosmic star formation history [SFH, @Lil:96; @Mad:96]. Measuring this quantity from observations requires a number of assumptions, with the form of the dust obscuration corrections and stellar initial mass function [IMF, e.g., @Kro:07] being among the most important. Integration of the instantaneous SFH over redshift, making appropriate corrections for stellar evolution processes, yields the current stellar mass density. This quantity can be independently measured, and numerous studies have attempted comparisons of these quantities [e.g., @MPD:98; @Col:01; @Fon:04; @Arn:07]. A number of studies [@Eke:05; @HB:06 HB06 hereafter] also claim the instantaneous SFH overpredicts the low-redshift stellar mass density. We investigate this possible discrepancy using a compilation of the most up to date measurements of the stellar mass-density history (SMH).
A compilation of both low- and high-redshift measurements of the stellar mass density are given by [@WTH:08]. Using these values we derive a best-fitting SFH, comparing this estimate to other estimates of the SFH and highlighting the discrepancies. We assume $H_0=70\,$kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
Comparing the SMH with the SFH
==============================
The SMH, $\rho_*(t)$, can be expressed as the integral of the SFH, $\dot{\rho}_*(t)$, corrected for the effects of mass-loss through stellar evolution processes such as supernovae and stellar winds. This relation may be inverted to determine the SFH from the observed evolution of stellar mass, as described by [@WTH:08]. Fig.\[fig:sfh\] shows a best-fitting SFH derived from the SMH compilation and using the formalism of [@WTH:08], along with $1\,\sigma$ and $3\,\sigma$ uncertainty regions. For $z < 0.7$ the $1\,\sigma$ uncertainty region of this SFH is consistent with the best-fitting instantaneous SFH obtained by HB06. For $z > 0.7$ the best-fitting SFH of HB06 is consistently higher than that inferred from the SMH. At $z = 3$ the best fit of HB06 SFH implies a star formation rate around four times (0.6 dex) larger than that inferred from the stellar mass density.
This discrepancy suggests that either stellar mass estimates are incorrect or the SFH of HB06 is overestimated at $z > 0.7$, or perhaps both. These possibilities are explored in some detail by [@WTH:08]. An alternative solution is that the larger star formation rates could be explained by an evolution of the star formation rate calibration, such as that from an evolving IMF. Investigation of an environmental or temporal evolution of the IMF has been carried out by a number of authors [e.g., @Nag:05; @Bau:05; @LeD:06; @Lac:07]. [@Far:07] also investigates the possibility of a different IMF in starburst galaxies to explain a discrepancy between the extragalactic background light, the instantaneous SFH and the K-band luminosity density. An IMF that produces more emission associated with instantaneous indicators (such as the UV or H$\alpha$ luminosity) per unit mass created is required at high redshift. This implies evolution toward a more “top-heavy" (high-mass biased) IMF with increasing redshift. [@WTH:08] introduce such an evolving IMF. This evolution in the IMF changes the SFH implied by instantaneous indicators, the fraction of material recycled as a function of age and the observed stellar mass density. This simple model provides increased agreement between the observed SMH and that inferred from the SFH, shown in Fig.\[fig:smh\].
Many other forms of evolving IMF may also reproduce the relationship between the instantaneous SFH and the SFH derived from the evolution of stellar mass. The model shown here simply illustrates the effect of an increasing high-mass bias in an IMF toward high redshift, showing that such an effect is sufficient to explain the discrepancies between the instantaneous SFH and the SFH inferred from the SMH. It is likely that real stellar IMFs may have more complex evolution, and this is being investigated in ongoing work.
Summary
=======
A compilation of stellar mass density measurements spanning $0 < z < 4$ was compared to the SFH, by deriving a best-fitting SFH, well described by the [@Col:01] parameterisation with $a = 0.014$, $b = 0.11$, $c = 1.4$ and $d = 2.2$. There is good agreement at $z<0.7$ between these estimates, but at progressively higher redshifts the stellar mass density and instantaneous indicator inferred SFHs become inconsistent. Instantaneous measures at $z = 3$ imply best-fitting star formation rates four times larger than those inferred from the SMH. There are a number of possible causes of this tension. These include possible systematic effects in stellar mass-density estimation, and uncertainty in the effects of dust on both stellar mass estimates and high-redshift star formation rate estimates.
A more speculative solution is an effective temporal evolution of the IMF. We have identified a simple, non-unique model for an evolving IMF that reconciles both the SFH and SMH. Other recent evidence for an evolving IMF has been explored by [@Dav:08] and [@vD:08], who provide different parameterisations. Given the importance of both stellar mass density and star formation rate density measurements to our understanding of the galaxy formation process it is crucial that this discrepancy be resolved. To achieve this, refinements need to be made to measurements, and extensions, such as an evolving IMF, to galaxy formation models need to be implemented. Measurements of the SMH can be improved through larger and deeper surveys, more thorough understanding of dust attenuation, and improvements in population synthesis models. Improvements in the SFH can also be made by better observational constraints on dust attenuation, and independent estimates such as those from supernova rate densities, fossil-histories from local galaxies, gamma-ray bursts, and the diffuse supernova neutrino background.
SMW acknowledges support of an STFC studentship and of King’s College, NT acknowledges support provided by STFC and AMH acknowledges support provided by the Australian Research Council in the form of a QEII Fellowship (DP0557850).\
[**Comments**]{}\
[*A. Renzini*]{}: A flat IMF at $z\approx 3$ would overproduce metals in galaxy clusters by a sizeable factor.\
[*D. Wilman*]{}: It would be interesting to consider a varying IMF as a function of a physical parameter, such as the SFR. Pavel Kroupa has been suggesting recently that this might be the case.\
[*M. Dickinson*]{}: Something physical about galaxies that affects their IMF is a more preferable driver than simply redshift. It would be useful to predict other observable, testable properties that could be used to test any given prediction for an evolving or varying IMF.
Arnouts, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 137 Baugh, C. M., Lacey, C. G., Frenk, C. S., Granato, G. L., Silva, L., Bressa, A., Benson, A. J., Cole, S. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1191 Cole, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255 Dav[é]{}, R. 2007, MNRAS, (in press; arxiv:0710.0381) Eke, V. R., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., King, H. M., Peacock, J. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1233 Fardal, M. A., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., Dav[é]{}, R. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 985 Fontana, A., et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 23 Hopkins, A. M., Beacom, J. F. 2006, ApJ, 651, 142 (HB06) Kroupa, P. 2007, (astro-ph/0703124) Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A. 2007, MNRAS, (in press; arxiv:0704.1562) Le Delliou, M., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Morris, S. L. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 712 Lilly, S. J., Le F[é]{}vre, O., Hammer, F., Crampton, D. 1996, ApJ, 460, L1 Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., Fruchter, A. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388 Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., Dickinson, M. E. 1998, ApJ, 498, 106 Nagashima, M., Lacey, C. G., Okamoto, T., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Cole, S. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 31 van Dokkum, P. G. 2008, ApJ, 674, 29 Wilkins, S. M., Trentham, N., Hopkins, A. M. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 687
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum fluids of light are an emerging tool employed in quantum many-body physics. Their amazing properties and versatility allow using them in a wide variety of fields including gravitation, quantum information and simulation. However the implications of the quantum nature of light in the nonlinear optical propagation are still missing many features. We theoretically predict classical spontaneous squeezing of a photon fluid in a nonlocal nonlinear medium. By using the so called Gamow vectors, we show that the quadratures of a coherent state get squeezed and that a maximal squeezing power exists. Our analysis holds true for temporal and spatial optical propagation in highly nonlocal regime. These results open a new scenario in quantum photon fluids and may lead to novel applications in fields like metrology and analogues of quantum gravity.'
author:
- 'M. C. Braidotti$^{1,2\star}$, A. Mecozzi$^1$ and C. Conti$^{2,3}$'
bibliography:
- 'GIGAbib\_agg.bib'
title: Squeezing in a nonlocal photon fluid
---
¶
A recent forefront topic of research is the study of quantum fluids, which arise in a wide variety of fields ranging from condensed matter to particle physics (see [@Carusotto2013; @Vocke15; @Carusotto2014; @Carusotto2015] and references therein). Quantum fluids are many particle systems in which the average particle distance becomes comparable or smaller than the thermal de Broglie wavelength. In these cases the statistical properties of the system becomes fundamental in describing the properties of the fluid. One of the most popular quantum fluid is the Bose-Einstein condensate where a great number of particles share the same energy state [@Weitz2010; @Weitz2012]. Lately emerged the possibility of studying propagating classical light as a quantum fluid of photons where the photon-photon interactions are mediated by a nonlinear optical medium. A particularly intriguing scenario is the study of nonlocal mechanism both in the temporal and spatial domain [@Calvanese2014; @ContiBiancalana2010; @Ghofraniha07; @Mecozzi:96]. Nonlocality allows interesting phenomena such as analogue boson stars described by the Newton-Schrödinger equation[@Liebling; @Faccio2016natcom], large scale coherence and condensation processes [@Sun2012; @Picozzi06; @Weitz2012; @WeitzNAT2010; @WeitzNatPhys2010; @connaughton:263901]. In this scenario, there are numerous unexplored directions and missing features mostly in linking quantum mechanics and fluids of light. These features might be relevant for application in quantum information and simulation.\
In this Letter, we predict the presence of squeezing in nonlocal photon fluids. Squeezed states are pure quantum states, which proved to play an important role in modern quantum optics [@Walls1983; @WallsBook]. These quantum states were first discovered in 1927 by Kennard[@Kennard27], however their mathematical properties were investigated in 70s and 80s [@Stoler1970; @Stoler1971; @Fisher1984; @Ma1990]. The use of squeezed states in cryptography, quantum computation and gravitational wave detection has attracted great attention [@Gisin2002; @Ladd2010; @Ligo2011; @Chua2014; @Shnabel2010]. Nowadays the challenge is reaching maximal squeezing that can be implemented in gravitational waves detectors [@Vahlbruch2016].\
Here, we show that the squeezing operator $\hat S(\zeta)$ naturally occurs in the evolution of a photon fluid with nonlocal and/or non-instantaneous nonlinearity. We hence theoretically predict that photon fluids are squeezed states. A leading ingredient in our theory is the link with the reversed harmonic oscillator and the eigenstates of $\hat S(\zeta)$ given by the so called Gamow vectors (Gvs) [@gamow1928ZurQuadesAto; @Chruscinski2004squeeze; @Prigogine77; @nucl-th/9902076v1; @Ford1959] that we illustrate in the following[@Gentilini2015glauber; @Gentilini2015].
We start analyzing the spatially nonlocal nonlinear optical propagation in the one-dimensional paraxial case. Below we take into account also a pulse evolution in a non-instantaneous medium. We consider a linearly polarized Gaussian beam with wavelength $\lambda$ and amplitude $A$ in a defocusing nonlinear medium along the $Z$ direction: $$2ik\partial_Z A+\partial_X^2 A +2k^2\frac{\Delta n[|A|^2](X)}{n_0}A=0,
\label{nls}$$ where $n_0$ is the linear refractive index of the medium and $k=2\pi/\lambda$ is the wavenumber. $A$ is normalized such that $|A|^2=I$ is the intensity. In Eq. (\[nls\]) the perturbation to the refractive index $\Delta n[I](X)$ can be written as $$\Delta n[I](X)=n_2\int{G_2(X-X')I(X')dX'},
\label{dn}$$ where $n_2$ is the nonlinear coefficient and $G_2$ is the kernel function for an exponential nonlocality $G_2(X)=\mbox{exp}(-|X|/L_{nloc})/2L_{nloc}$. We write Eq.(\[nls\]) in terms of the adimensional variables $z=Z/Z_d$ with $Z_d=kW_0^2$ and $x=X/W_0$, being $W_0$ the Gaussian beam waist: $$i\partial_z \psi+\frac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 \psi -PK(x)\ast|\psi|^2\psi=0,
\label{nls_ad}$$ where $\psi=A\sqrt{P_{MKS}}/W_0$ and $P=P_{MKS}/P_{ref}$ with $P_{ref}=\lambda^2/4\pi^2n_0|n_2|$. $K(x)=W_0G_2(xW_0)=exp(-|x|/\sigma)/(2\sigma)$ is the nonlocal function with $\sigma=L_{nloc}/W_0$ the degree of nonlocality. In the highly nonlocal approximation, i.e., when the nonlocality length is much wider than the beam waist $(L_{nloc}>W_0)$ or $\sigma>1$, one can write the convolution as $\kappa(x)\simeq K(x)\ast|\psi|^2$. Eq.(\[nls\_ad\]) becomes $i\partial_z \psi=\hat H \psi$, with $\hat H=\frac{1}{2}\hat p^2 + V(x)$, $\hat p=-i\partial_x$ and $V(x)=P\kappa(x)$. A series expansion of $V(x)$ at $x=0$ gives $\kappa(x)\simeq\kappa_0^2-\frac{1}{2}\kappa_2^2 x^2$ with $\kappa_0=1/\sqrt{2\sigma}$ and $\kappa_2=(\sigma\sqrt[4]{\pi})^{-1}$. We have $\hat H = P\kappa_0^2 + \hat H_{RHO}$, where $$\hat H_{RHO} = \frac{\hat p^2}{2} - \frac{\gamma^2 \hat x^2}{2}
\label{Hrho}$$ is the Hamiltonian of a reversed harmonic oscillator, with $\gamma^2=P\kappa_2^2=P/\sigma^2\sqrt{\pi}$. Equation (\[Hrho\]) is typically studied in scaled coordinates with $\gamma=1$ in which the squeezed quadratures are immediately identified. A key difference in our case is the fact that the $\gamma$ parameter depends on the beam power $P$ because of the nonlinear dynamics. As a result the squeezing quadratures, defined below, rotates when varying the input flux. In the following, we will report a theory for such a nonlinear squeezing.\
First, we let $\psi=\mbox{exp}(-iP\kappa_0^2z)\Psi$ and obtain $ i\partial_z \Psi=\hat H_{RHO} \Psi$. This shows that a nonlocal photon fluid is actually described by the reversed harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian. One can realize that the evolution is hence given by the squeezing operator as follows. The evolved wave function $\Psi(z)$ can be written in terms of the propagator of quantum mechanics $\hat U(z)=\mbox{exp}(-i\hat H_{RHO} z)$ as $\Psi(z)=\hat U(z)\Psi(0)$. The key-point is that $\hat U(z)$ can be expressed as the squeezing operator $\hat S(\zeta)$ with $\zeta=r e^{i\theta}$, where $r$ is the *squeezing parameter*, as follows: the operator $\hat S(\zeta)$ is $$\hat S(\zeta)=\mbox{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta^* \hat a^2-\zeta \hat a^{\dag^2} \right)\right],
\label{squeeze}$$ and we consider $$\hat H_{\zeta}=\frac{i}{2z}\left(\zeta^* \hat a^2 - \zeta \hat a^{\dag^2} \right).
\label{squeeze}$$ The operator $\hat H_{RHO}=\hat R^{\dag}(\varphi)\hat H_{\zeta} \hat R(\varphi)$, with $\hat R(\varphi)$ a single mode rotation, is unitedly equivalent to $\hat H_{\zeta}$ [@Chruscinski2004squeeze]. Introducing the creation and annihilation operators: $$\hat a=\frac{\hat u+i \hat v}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad \hat a^{\dag}=\frac{\hat u-i \hat v}{\sqrt{2}},$$ we find that $$\hat H_{\zeta}=-\frac{\gamma}{2}(\hat u\hat v+\hat v\hat u)
\label{Hr}$$ which is the RHO Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Hrho\]) by the following canonical transformations $$\hat u=\frac{\gamma \hat x-\hat p}{\sqrt{2\gamma}},\qquad \hat v=\frac{\gamma \hat x+\hat p}{\sqrt{2\gamma}}.$$ The quadratures $\hat u$ and $\hat v$ are squeezed during evolution, i.e., one decreases exponentially below the coherent Gaussian limit, while the other increases: the squeezing parameter is $r=\gamma z$ and the angle is $\theta=0$.\
To quantify the squeezing occurring during the evolution of a Gaussian wave-packet we adopt Gvs, which are the generalized eigensolutions of the RHO: $\hat H_{RHO}\mathfrak{f}_n^{\pm}=\pm E_n\mathfrak{f}_n^{\pm}$, with imaginary eigenvalues $E_n=i\gamma(n+1/2)$. Gvs are also the eigenstates of the squeezing operator $\hat S(r)$ with real eigenvalues $s_n^{\pm}=\mbox{exp}\left[\pm r \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]$ [@Chruscinski2004squeeze] $$\hat S(r)\mathfrak{f}_n^{\pm}=e^{\mp i E_n z}\mathfrak{f}_n^{\pm}=s_n^{\pm}\mathfrak{f}_n^{\pm}.$$ On has $ \mathfrak{f}_n^+=\frac{u^n}{\sqrt{n!}}$. Our initial condition is a Gaussian beam $\psi_0(x)=(\pi)^{-1/4}\mbox{exp}\left[-x^2/2\right]$ in the $x$ space. $\psi_0(x)$ in the $u$ space reads [@Marcucci16] $$\psi_{0}(u)=(-1)^{1/8}\sqrt[4]{\frac{2\gamma}{\pi}}\frac{e^{\frac{-u^2(1-i\gamma)}{2(\gamma-i)}}}{\sqrt{1+i\gamma}}.
\label{psiu_new}$$ Equation (\[psiu\_new\]) can be expanded in series of Gvs $\mathfrak{f}^{+}_{n}$: $$\psi_{0}(u)=c \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left[\frac{(-1)(1-i\gamma)}{(\gamma-i)} \right]^n\sqrt{\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}}\mathfrak{f}^+_{2n}(u),$$ with $c =(-1)^{1/8}\sqrt[4]{\frac{2\gamma}{\pi(1+i\gamma)^2}}$. The squeezing operator $S(r)$, hence, acts as $$\begin{aligned}
S(r)\psi_0(u)&=c e^{r/2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left[\frac{(-1)(1-i\gamma)}{(\gamma-i)} \right]^n\times\\
&\times\sqrt{\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}}e^{2 r n}\mathfrak{f}^+_{2n}(u)=e^{r/2} \psi_0(ue^{r}).
\label{evolved}
\end{aligned}$$
![(Color online) (a) Uncertainty principle $\Delta u^2 \Delta v^2$ behavior as function of $\gamma$. The inset shows that the phase space distribution area changes with $\gamma$ and hence with $P$ and $\sigma$, while the phase space distribution form varies from circular to elliptical during the propagation. (b) Normalized quadratures $u$ (blue line) and $v$ (red line) uncertainties and uncertainty principle $\Delta u^2\Delta v^2$ (magenta line). Squares represent the theoretical behavior for the two normalized quadratures $u$ (blue squares) and $v$ (red squares) in semi-log-scale after Eq.(\[uncertainty\]) with $P=100$ and $\sigma=15$. Green dot-dashed curve provides the expected result in the hydrodynamical regime after Eq. (\[hydrodyn\]). Dashed line evidence the $3$ region limits. (c) Same as (b) for the temporal case with $P=100$ and $T=10$. The inset is the convolution integral $\mathcal{R}(t)$ behavior as function of time (blue line). The green dashed line is the series expansion trend around the convolution maximum $\bar t$.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1_sp_temp2.eps)
From Eq. (\[evolved\]), we calculate the quadrature uncertainties $\Delta u^2$ and $\Delta v^2$ for the evolved state (\[evolved\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^2&=\Braket{S(r)\psi_0(u)|\hat u^2|S(r)\psi_0(u)}=\frac{e^{-2r}}{4}\left(\frac{1+\gamma^2}{\gamma}\right),\\
\Delta v^2&=\frac{e^{2r}}{4}\left(\frac{1+\gamma^2}{\gamma}\right),
\label{uncertainty}
\end{aligned}$$ The $\hat u$ uncertainty decreases at the cost of the corresponding increase in $\Delta v$. The uncertainty principle reads as $$\Delta u^2\Delta v^2=\frac{(1+\gamma^2)^2}{16\gamma^2}.
\label{du*dv}$$ Remarkably, this generalized uncertainty principle $\Delta u^2 \Delta v^2$ predicts both that the squeezing degree depends on $\gamma$ and hence on the beam power and that, at fixed initial waist, $\Delta u\Delta v$ changes with the degree of nonlocality and the beam power. Figure \[fig:1\](a) reports $\Delta u\Delta v$ as function of $\gamma$, showing that a maximal degree of squeezing exists and corresponds to $\gamma=1$. For $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta x^2=\frac{\gamma^2-1}{4\gamma^2}+\frac{1+\gamma^2}{4\gamma^2}\cosh(2r),\\
&\Delta p^2=\frac{1-\gamma^2}{4}+\frac{1+\gamma^2}{4}\cosh(2r),\\
&\Delta x^2\Delta p^2=\frac{(1+\gamma^2)^2}{16\gamma^2}\cosh^2(2r)-\frac{(\gamma^2-1)^2}{16\gamma^2}.
\label{uncertainty2}
\end{aligned}$$ We remark that the squeezing in Eqs. (\[uncertainty\]), (\[du\*dv\]) and (\[uncertainty2\]) is obtained by the exact solution of the highly nonlocal nonlinear Schrödinger equation.\
Notably, we now show that no squeezing is predicted in the hydrodynamical approximation commonly adopted in solving the nonlinear Schröedinger equation (see, e.g.,[@ContiBiancalana2010]). In order to compute the hydrodynamical limit of the two quadratures $\hat u$ and $\hat v$, we define $\varepsilon=\sqrt{L_{nl}/Z_d}$, where $L_{nl}$ and $Z_d$ are the adimensional nonlinear and diffractive lengths respectively. $\varepsilon$ is a small parameter which accounts the competition between diffraction and nonlinearity. In the adimensional coordinates $\chi=x\varepsilon$ and $\rho=z\varepsilon$, Eq. (\[nls\_ad\]) reads as $$i\varepsilon\partial_{\rho} \psi+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^2\partial_{\chi}^2 \psi -PK(\chi/\varepsilon)\ast|\psi|^2\psi=0$$ and the quadratures $\hat u$ and $\hat v$ become $$\begin{aligned}
\hat u=\frac{\gamma x-\hat p}{\sqrt{2\gamma}}\quad\longrightarrow
\frac{\frac{\gamma\chi}{\varepsilon}+i\varepsilon\partial_{\chi}}{\sqrt{2\gamma}}\\
\hat v=\frac{\gamma x+\hat p}{\sqrt{2\gamma}}\quad\longrightarrow
\frac{\frac{\gamma\chi}{\varepsilon}-i\varepsilon\partial_{\chi}}{\sqrt{2\gamma}}.
\end{aligned}$$ For $\varepsilon \ll 1$, with $\psi=A e^{i\phi/\varepsilon}$, the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) approach is applicable and we obtain, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, the uncertainties of the two quadratures $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^2\rightarrow\frac{\gamma}{2}\Delta x^2,\\
\Delta v^2\rightarrow\frac{\gamma}{2}\Delta x^2.
\label{hydrodyn}
\end{aligned}$$ This result implies that in the hydrodynamical regime the quadratures $\hat u$ and $\hat v$ have the same evolution.\
The formalism just developed shed light on the presence of three different regimes in the nonlinear nonlocal photon fluids propagation. In the first part of the propagation squeezing takes place. Then, there is an intermediate region in which the squeezing stops and both the quadratures start increasing. In the third region the propagation becomes highly nonlinear.\
The presence of an intermediate region, strictly connected with the highly nonlocal approximation (HNA), can be also proved analytically. When the HNA does not hold true anymore, the nonlinearity starts having a dominant role in the wave propagation, which enters the nonlinear regime. This happens when the beam waist $W(z)=\Delta x$ becomes comparable to the degree of nonlocality $\sigma$: $\Delta x^2 = \frac{\gamma^2-1}{4\gamma^2}+\frac{1+\gamma^2}{4\gamma^2}\cosh(2r) \simeq \sigma^2.
$The value of $z$ at which the transition between the squeezing and the highly nonlinear regimes happens is around $$\bar z = \frac{\mbox{log}\left[\frac{\gamma^2(4\sigma^2-1)+1}{1+\gamma^2} + \sqrt{\left(\frac{\gamma^2(4\sigma^2-1)+1}{1+\gamma^2}\right)^2 - 1} \right]}{2\gamma}.
\label{zbarra}$$ Equation (\[zbarra\]) is successfully compared with numerical simulation below.
![(a) Numerical solution of Eq.(\[nls\_ad\]) with $P = 100$ and $\sigma = 15$; (b) Wigner function calculated after Eq.(\[nls\_ad\]) of the evolved beam in panel (a) at $z=2$, with $\bar k_x=257$; the inset shows the Wigner function of the initial condition of panel (a). (c) Numerical solution of Eq.(\[tnls\]) with $P = 100$ and $T = 10$; (d) the same as (b) for the evolved beam in panel (c), with $\bar k_t=128$.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig2_prop_wig.eps)
In order to test our theory, we simulate a Gaussian beam $\psi(x,0)=\psi_0(x)$ propagating according to Eq.(\[nls\_ad\]) in a nonlocal nonlinear medium. Figure \[fig:1\](b) shows the normalized uncertainty of the quadratures $\hat u$ and $\hat v$ trend. We observe the presence of the three predicted regions. In the initial stage of propagation, the quadrature $\hat u$ is squeezed, i.e., its uncertainty value decreases with respect to $1$, which is the normalized uncertainty for the coherent state, while $\Delta v$ diverges exponentially. Fig. \[fig:1\](b) shows that the RHO-approximation of Eq. (\[nls\_ad\]) holds true, and $\Delta u$ and $\Delta v$ show exponential trends. During evolution, the system reaches a maximum squeezing. After that, the two quadratures follow the same dynamics. Note that the product $\Delta u \Delta v$ stays constant in the squeezing region, as expected form Eq. (\[du\*dv\]). These numerical results show that the hydrodynamical approximation fails to catch the squeezing dynamics. Only after the maximal squeezing has been reached, the two quadratures tend to have the same trend as predicted by Eq. (\[hydrodyn\]): for large propagation distances the two quadratures tend to the same limit given by the green dot-dashed line in Fig. \[fig:1\](b). The transition point $\bar z$, calculated after Eq. (\[zbarra\]), corresponds with the limit of the intermediate region where the highly nonlocal approximation stops holding true. The Gamow approach is more accurate for what concerns the two quadratures; the hydrodynamical approach fails at the lowest order because it neglects the derivative of the density $|\psi|^2$ and only accounts for the dynamics of the phase. The scenario also holds true for temporal photon fluids. We consider the defocusing non-instantaneous nonlinear Shrödinger equation in the dimensionless form $$i\partial_z\psi+\partial_t^2 \psi -\psi\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}R(t-t')|\psi(t')|^2dt'=0,
\label{tnls}$$ where $R(t)=(1/T)\exp(-t/T)\Theta(t)$ is the medium response function and $T$ is the medium response time. $\Theta(t)$ is the Heaviside function which guarantees time causality. The response function $R(t)$ is normalized such that $\int{R(t)dt}=1$ [@Conti2010_linearons; @Skryabin03]. In the highly non-instantaneous limit, i.e. medium response time longer than the pulse duration $(T\gg t_0)$, Eq. (\[tnls\]) becomes effectively linear: $$i\partial_z\psi+\partial_t^2 \psi -\mathcal{E}R(t)\psi=0,
\label{linear-tnls}$$ where $\mathcal{E}=\int{|\psi(t)|^2dt}$ is the pulse energy. Equation (\[tnls\]) holds true in fibers with focusing nonlinearity in the normal dispersion regime. The highly non-instantaneous regime describes liquid filled hollow core fibers as those studied in [@Conti2010_linearons]. In analogy with the spatial case, the temporal dynamics of a nonlocal photon fluid can be described both by the hydrodynamical [@ContiBiancalana2010] and the Gamow vectors approach. In particular, Eq. (\[tnls\]) admits eigenfunctions of the form $\psi=\phi_E e^{iEz}$, as in [@Conti2010_linearons]. These solutions lead to Gamow vectors with imaginary eigenvalues by their analytical prolongation with $\mathcal{E}\rightarrow-i\sqrt{i}\mathcal{E}$ and $T\rightarrow\sqrt{i} T$. For finite time $T$ one can find the RHO by calculating the convolution integral $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}(t)&=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}R(t-t')|\psi(t')|^2dt'=\\
&=\frac{e^{\frac{1-4 t T}{4T^2}}}{2T}\left[1+\mbox{Erf}\left(t-\frac{1}{2T}\right) \right].
\label{conv}
\end{aligned}$$ This function has a maximum at $t=\bar t(T)$ as shown in the inset in Fig. \[fig:1\](c). Hence, for $t\simeq \bar t$ one can write $R(t)\simeq R(\bar t)+\frac{1}{2} R^{(2)}(\bar t)(t-\bar t)^2$. The model can be approximated by an RHO as in the spatial case. The temporal decay coefficient is $\gamma_t =|R^{(2)}(\bar t)|$. As a result, one has squeezing also in the temporal case as shown in the quadratures in Fig. \[fig:1\](c) that strongly resemble the spatial dynamics in Fig. \[fig:1\](b).
In order to further verify the squeezing, we study the evolution of the phase-space distribution for both the spatial and temporal cases. For squeezed light, the phase-space distribution is elliptical, i.e., it is compressed in the direction of the squeezed variable. [@Balazs1990; @Barton1986] The Wigner function $W(x,k)$ $$W(x,k)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int \psi^*(x+y)\psi(x-y)e^{2iky} dy
\label{wigner}$$ furnishes the phase-space distribution, where $x$ is either the spatial or temporal coordinate, while $k$ is the correspondent conjugated canonical variable. Panels (a) and (c) of Fig. \[fig:2\] report the simulation of the beam evolution for input power $P=100$ after Eqs. (\[nls\_ad\]) and (\[tnls\]) respectively. Panels (b) and (d) show the correspondent Wigner distribution $W(x,k)$ at $z=2$ and $z=0$ in the inset. After few steps of propagation $W(x,k)$ becomes elongated and compressed at a slanted direction. We point out that the spectral content is centered around $k\neq 0$. The elongation results symmetric in the spatial case, while it is asymmetrical in the temporal domain. This asymmetry is due to the causality in the time-response function. The degree of squeezing reaches a maximum value and stops increasing when the HNA does not hold true anymore.\
These findings can be experimentally tested, by letting a Gaussian laser beam with fixed waist propagate in a nonlinear nonlocal medium, as for example a thermal medium [@Gentilini2015glauber; @Gentilini2015]. Arranging the setup in order to measure the quadratures $\hat u$ and $\hat v$, a specific value of the beam power exists at which the degree of squeezing is maximum. This happens because the squeezed quadratures rotates in the phase-space with the beam power. A recent paper[@Schmidt2017] demonstrate highly non-instantaneous Raman response and the excitation related temporal solitons in liquid-filled hollow-core fibers. These results addresses the effective possibility of exciting squeezing in nonlinear nonlocal media.
In conclusion, squeezing emerges during the propagation of a photon fluid both in temporally and spatially nonlocal media. The spectral theory of the squeeze operator based on Gamow eigenvectors of a reversed harmonic oscillator in a rigged Hilbert space explains the process. During the evolution, a maximal squeezing is reached until the highly nonlinear approximation is valid. Numerical simulations and the study of the Wigner transform confirm the theory. Despite the analysis is limited to the classical regime, we have evidence that nonlinear propagation fosters the generation of highly non-Gaussian states that might be employed for novel quantum-inspired technologies. The implications at a fully quantum level are unknown, and will be deepened in future work. Our work establishes a link between the classical photon fluid description and quantum optics that may potentially surpass limits of squeezing generation for various application as quantum information and gravitational waves detection.
This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (58277). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the John Templeton Foundation.
[42]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.299) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1364/OPTICA.2.000484) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.043802) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.160403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.043853) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.013838) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.043903) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.21.000402) [**** (), 10.1103/PhysRevB.62.1516](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.62.1516) @noop [**** ()]{} [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2278) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**** ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.3217) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.4.1925) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.29.1107) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.41.4625) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0264-9381/31/i=18/a=183001) @noop [**** ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01343196) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2004.05.046) @noop [****, ()]{} [“,” ](http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9902076v1;
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9902076v1) (), @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.92.023801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052136) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.263902) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[We study the universality of the three-body parameters for systems relevant for ultracold quantum gases with positive $s$-wave two-body scattering lengths.]{} Our results account for finite-range effects and their universality is tested by changing the number of deeply bound diatomic states supported by our interaction model. We find that the physics controlling the values of the three-body parameters associated with the ground and excited Efimov states is constrained by a variational principle and can be strongly affected by $d$-wave interactions that prevent both trimer states from merging into the atom-dimer continuum. Our results enable comparisons to current experimental data and they suggest tests of universality for atomic systems with [positive scattering lengths]{}.'
author:
- 'Paul M. A. Mestrom'
- Jia Wang
- 'Chris H. Greene'
- 'José P. D’Incao'
title: 'Efimov-van-der-Waals universality for ultracold atoms with positive scattering lengths'
---
Introduction
============
The recent theoretical and experimental progress in the exploration of ultracold quantum gases in the strongly interacting regime have largely established the relevance of the three-body Efimov physics [@Efimov1970; @braaten2006pr; @wang2013aamop] for the understanding of both dynamics and stability of such systems [@fletcher2013prl; @rem2013prl; @makotyn2014np; @fletcher2016arxiv; @sykes2014pra; @laurent2014prl; @smith2014prl; @piatecki2014nc; @barth2015pra]. The control of interatomic interactions through magnetic-field dependent Feshbach resonances [@chin2010rmp] allows for dramatic changes in the $s$-wave two-body scattering length, $a$, making it possible to tune systems to the vastly different collective [(mean-field)]{} regimes of attractive, $a<0$, and repulsive, $a>0$ interactions. In the regime of strong interactions, $|a|/r_{\rm vdW}\gg1$, where $r_{\rm vdW}$ is the van der Waals length [@chin2010rmp], the Efimov effect is manifested through the appearance of an infinite series of three-body states that can lead to scattering resonances and interference effects accessible to experiments [@braaten2006pr; @wang2013aamop]. Such dramatic few-body phenomena open up the possibility to explore new quantum regimes in ultracold gases. One of the striking signatures of the Efimov effect is the geometric scaling of the system for many trimer properties, which interrelates all the three-body observables via the geometric factor $e^{\pi/s_0}$, where $s_0\approx1.00624$ for identical bosons. As a result, if universal scaling holds, the determination of a single observable —the [*three-body parameter*]{}— would allow derivation of all properties of the system. However, since the early days of Efimov’s original prediction it was largely accepted that this three-body parameter would be different for every system. Nevertheless, a few years ago, as experiments in ultracold gases evolved, it became clear that this concept needed reassessment.
The turnaround came from the experimental observations in $^{133}$Cs [@berninger2011prl] showing that the three-body parameter $a_-$, associated with the value of $a<0$ at which the first Efimov state merges with the three-body continuum, were the same (within a 15% margin) for different resonances in $^{133}$Cs. Moreover, if the results were recast in terms of $r_{\rm vdW}$, the observations in every other available atomic species also led to similar results, $a_-/r_{\rm vdW}\approx-10$ (see Ref. [@wang2013aamop] for a summary of such experimental findings). Theoretical works then successfully confirmed and interpreted the universality of the $a_-$ parameter [@wang2012prl; @dincao2013fbs; @wang2012prlb; @schmidt2012epjb; @naidon2014pra; @naidon2014prl; @blume2015fbs] and consolidated a new universal picture for Efimov physics in atomic systems dominated by van der Waals forces.
This [paper]{} assesses the universality of the three-body parameter in the yet unexplored regime of [positive]{} scattering lengths, $a>0$. The available experimental data for Efimov features within this regime is relatively sparse and, consequently, does not clearly display the same degree of universality found for $a<0$. [Although not explicitly demonstrated here, our present theoretical study shows that universality for $a>0$ persists and is rooted in the same suppression of the probability of finding particles at short distances previously found for $a<0$ [@wang2012prl; @dincao2013fbs; @wang2012prlb].]{} The observables we analyze are related to the value of $a$ at which an Efimov state intersects the atom-dimer threshold, $a_*$, thus causing a resonance in atom-dimer collisions [@dincao2005prl; @braaten2007pra], and the value $a_+$ at which a minimum in three-body recombination occurs as a result of a destructive interference between the relevant collision pathways [@nielsen1999prl; @esry1999prl; @bedaque2000prl; @dincao2005prl]. One important feature that can help to interpret our computed values for $a_*$ and $a_+$ associated with the ground Efimov state is the existence of a variational principle [@bruch1973prl; @lee2007pra] [that constrains its energy to always lie below a certain value lower than the dimer energy, thus preventing the trimer to cross the atom-dimer threshold.]{} This has a direct impact on both the lowest atom-dimer resonance and on interference phenomena, even when, as we show here, the conditions for the validity of that variational principle are not strictly satisfied. Moreover, our analysis indicates that the presence of strong $d$-wave interactions [@gao2000pra; @wang2012pra][, and/or possibly some other finite-range effects,]{} also prevents the first excited Efimov state from merging with the dimer threshold, although it still produces a resonance feature in atom-dimer observables and a recombination minimum for small $a$.
Brief theoretical background
============================
Here we use the adiabatic hyperspherical representation which offers a simple and conceptually clear description of few-body systems while still accurately determining their properties [@wang2013aamop]. Within this representation, after solving for the hyperangular internal motion —which includes all interparticle interactions— three-body observables can be obtained by solving the hyperradial Schrödinger equation [@wang2011pra] $$\begin{gathered}
\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\frac{d^2}{dR^2}+W_{\nu}(R)\right]F_{\nu}(R)
\\+\sum_{\nu'\neq\nu} W_{\nu\nu'}(R) F_{\nu'}(R)=E F_\nu(R).\label{RadialEq}
\end{gathered}$$ where the hyperradius $R$ describes the overall size of the system, $\mu=m/\sqrt{3}$ is the three-body reduced mass and $\nu$ is an index including all necessary quantum numbers to characterize each channel. Equation (\[RadialEq\]) describes the radial motion governed by the effective hyperspherical potentials $W_\nu$ and non-adiabatic couplings $W_{\nu\nu'}$, which determine all bound and scattering properties of the system. In the present study, each pair of particles interacts via a Lennard-Jones potential $$v_{LJ}(r) = - \frac{C_6}{r^6}\left(1-\frac{\lambda^6}{r^6}\right),
\label{vLJ}$$ where $\lambda$ is adjusted to give the desired value of $a$ and $C_6$ is the usual dispersion coefficient. Note that our calculations use van der Waals units (with energy and length units of $E_{\rm vdW}=\hbar^2/mr_{\rm vdW}^2$ and $r_{\rm vdW}$) such that the specification of the value of $C_6$ is unnecessary. Our present study is centered around the first three poles of $a$, which occur at the values denoted $\lambda=\lambda^*_{1}$, $\lambda^*_{2}$ and $\lambda^*_{3}$. One important point to keep in mind is that near $\lambda^*_{1}$ there can exist only a single two-body $s$-wave state, whereas near $\lambda^*_{2}$ and $\lambda^*_{3}$ multiple deeply bound states exist (4 and 9, respectively), owing to the presence of higher partial wave dimers.
Results
=======
Figure \[EfimovE\] shows the energies of the lowest three Efimov states, $E_{\rm 3b}$, for values of $a$ near the three poles considered ($\lambda^*_{1}$, $\lambda^*_{2}$ and $\lambda^*_{3}$), offering a global view of the degree of the universality of our results. Near $\lambda^*_{1}$, Efimov states (black filled circles) are true bound states while near $\lambda^*_{2}$ and $\lambda^*_{3}$ (red and green open circles, respectively) Efimov states are resonant states whose (presumably nonuniversal) widths have been calculated using the Ref. [@nielsen2002pra] procedure, indicated in Fig. \[EfimovE\] as the error bars. The atom-dimer threshold, defined by the dimer energy, $E_{\rm 2b}=-\hbar^2/ma^2$ ($a\gg r_{\rm vdW}$), is also shown (solid line).
![Energy of Efimov states calculated near the first three poles of $a$, $\lambda=\lambda^*_1$, $\lambda^*_2$ and $\lambda^*_3$, in our model potential in Eq. (\[vLJ\]). Near $\lambda^*_1$, Efimov states (black filled circles) are true bound states while near the $\lambda^*_2$ and $\lambda^*_3$ (red and green open circles, respectively) Efimov states are resonant states with the corresponding widths indicated as the error bars. Approximated values for $a_-$, $a_*$, and $a_+$ are also indicated.[]{data-label="EfimovE"}](Fig1.eps){width="3.4in"}
In Fig. \[EfimovE\] the ground Efimov state does not “cross" or intersect the atom-dimer threshold, as expected from the variational principle in Refs. [@bruch1973prl; @lee2007pra], which state that $E_{\rm 3b}<3E_{\rm 2b}$ . In principle, this variational constraint applies only to bound states, i.e., only for Efimov states near $\lambda^*_{1}$, however, our calculations for the energies of Efimov resonances near $\lambda^*_2$ and $\lambda^*_3$ also follow the same non-crossing rule. Evidently, this effect strongly modifies the expected universality predicted by zero-range models since it prevents an atom-dimer resonance and can also modify the minima in recombination associated with the ground Efimov state. Table \[Tab3BP\] summarizes our computed values of the three-body parameters —see also Fig. \[EfimovE\] for their approximate location. \[The values for $a_-$ were previously determined in Ref. [@wang2012prl] (and in unpublished work from that study).\] The additional index on the $a_-$, $a_+$, and $a_*$ parameters indicates their Efimov family parentage. The physics involved and caveats on the determination of these three-body parameters are given below.
-------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------
$a_{-,i}/r_{\rm vdW}$ $a_{*,i}/r_{\rm vdW}$ $a_{+,i}/r_{\rm vdW}$
Pole ($i=0,1$) ($i=1,2$) ($i=0,1$) \[$10^{\mbox{-}4}$\] \[$3\times10^{\mbox{-}4}$\] \[$10^{\mbox{-}3}]$
$\lambda^*_1$ -$9.60$, -$161$ $3.41$, $157$ $1.41$, $27.2$ $28.0$ $29.1$ $32.1$
$\lambda^*_2$ -$9.74$, -$164$ $3.26$, $160$ $1.41$, $27.9$ $28.7$ $30.7$ $34.8$
$\lambda^*_3$ -$9.96$, — $3.33$, $160$ $1.41$, $28.0$ — — —
\[0.05in\] Avg. -$9.77$, -$163$ $3.33$, $159$ $1.41$, $27.7$ $28.4$ $29.9$ $33.5$
\[0.05in\] $(i,j)$ $(0,0)$ $(0,1)$ $(1,0)$ $(1,1)$ $(2,0)$ $(2,1)$
$\theta_{ij}^{+-}$ 0.143 0.195 0.125 0.170 — —
$\theta_{ij}^{*-}$ — — 0.015 0.020 0.032 0.043
$\theta_{ij}^{*+}$ — — 0.105 0.120 0.220 0.253
-------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------
: Values for the three-body parameters $a_-$, $a_*$ and $a_+$ for the lowest two Efimov scattering features in recombination and atom-dimer collisions, near the lowest three poles in the scattering length. For $a_{+,1}$ we also show its dependence on the temperature by $\langle K_3\rangle$ (see text) at values of $k_BT/E_{\rm vdW}$ (indicated in square brackets) listed in the last three columns below. [In the bottom part of the table we list the universal ratios $\theta_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}$ \[see Eq. (\[uratios\])\] resulting from the average value of the three-body parameters (see text for the comparison with the zero-range results).]{}
\[Tab3BP\]
Closer inspection of Fig. \[EfimovE\] reveals that the first excited Efimov state also fails to intersect with the dimer threshold. This is clearly shown in Fig. \[EfimovEb\] for the binding energy of the Efimov states, $E_b=E_{\rm 2b}-E_{\rm 3b}$. Near $\lambda^*_1$ (black filled circles) the non-crossing of the first excited state is evident within the shaded region in Fig. \[EfimovEb\]. Near $\lambda^*_2$ (red open circles), the qualitative behavior is the same, however: As the energy of the Efimov state approaches the threshold its width increases to the point in which it exceeds the value of its binding energy —therefore, losing some its “bound" state character— and eventually “dissolving” into the atom-dimer continuum (see shaded region in Fig. \[EfimovEb\]).
![(a) Binding energies, $E_b=E_{\rm 2b}-E_{\rm 3b}$, of Efimov states near $\lambda^*_1$ and $\lambda^*_2$ (black filled and red open circles, respectively) showing that both ground and first excited Efimov states fail to merge into the atom-dimer threshold (see text). [In (b) and (c) we show a blow up of (a) near the second and first excited Efimov states, respectively.]{}[]{data-label="EfimovEb"}](Fig2.eps){width="3.4in"}
Passing this point, as $a$ decreases further, the state recovers its bound character. [Our physical interpretation of the non-crossing of the first excited Efimov state [@comment0] is that it results from the existence of strong $d$-wave interactions near $a/r_{\rm vdW}=1$ [@gao2000pra; @wang2012pra]. Within our theoretical model, since $s$- and $d$-wave interactions can not be separated, a more clear physical picture of the non-crossing of the first excited Efimov state still remains, leaving even the possibility of that being a generalization of the same variational principle [@bruch1973prl; @lee2007pra] which prevents the ground state to unbind.]{} Figure \[EfimovEb\] shows that only the second excited Efimov state displays the expected intersection with the atom-dimer threshold.
![(a) The atom-dimer scattering length, $a_{\rm ad}$, and (b) corresponding loss rate, $\beta$, displaying resonant behavior due to Efimov resonances associated with the first and second excited Efimov states. The values of the three-body parameters $a_{*,1}$ and $a_{*,2}$ are indicated in the figure. The dashed curve gives the analytical zero range results from Ref. [@braaten2007pra].[]{data-label="ADRates"}](Fig3.eps){width="3.4in"}
Evidently, the effects analyzed above have an important impact on the determination of the three-body parameter $a_*$. This is achieved here by directly calculating the corresponding atom-dimer scattering properties. Of particular importance for ultracold experiments is the atom-dimer scattering length $a_{\rm ad}$ and the atom-dimer loss rate $\beta$ [@dincao2008pra]. Figure \[ADRates\] shows our calculated values for these quantities. In Fig. \[ADRates\] (a), around the shaded region (corresponding to the same shaded region in Fig. \[EfimovEb\]) $a_{\rm ad}$ is enhanced, however, remaining always positive and consistent with the failure of the first excited Efimov state in Fig. \[EfimovEb\] to become unbound. (Note that in this regime $a_{\rm ad}$ for $\lambda^*_2$ and $\lambda^*_3$ displays a more complicated dependence on $a$ due to the presence of strong couplings to nearby three-body channels.) For larger $a$, $a_{\rm ad}$ is now enhanced and changes sign, implying that the second excited Efimov state intersects with the dimer energy (see Fig. \[EfimovEb\]). Note that here, $a_{\rm ad}$ for $\lambda^*_2$ and $\lambda^*_3$ does not actually diverge due to the presence of inelastic processes [@hutson2007njp]. Figure \[ADRates\](b) shows the corresponding atom-dimer loss rates, which display the resonant behavior associated with the first and second excited Efimov states. Even though the first excited Efimov state does not become unbound, it approaches the atom-dimer threshold close enough to produce a clear enhancement in the atom-dimer loss rate. We define $a_{*,1}$ and $a_{*,2}$ as the value of $a$ where $\beta$ is maximum \[see Fig. \[ADRates\] (b)\], except for our calculations near the first pole, where no losses occur ($\beta=0$). In this case $a_{*,1}$ and $a_{*,2}$ were determined from the maximum value of $a_{\rm ad}$ \[see Fig. \[ADRates\](a)\]. Numerical values are listed in Table \[Tab3BP\]. In order to contrast our numerical results with the universal predictions (based on two-body contact interaction models), we also display in Fig. \[ADRates\] (dashed lines) the expected behavior for $a_{\rm ad}$ and $\beta$ from Ref. [@braaten2007pra]. [For the zero-range, universal, model of Ref. [@braaten2007pra] we used the averaged value for $a_{*,2}$ from Table \[Tab3BP\] as the three-body parameter, and set the inelasticity parameter $\eta=0$ in Fig. \[ADRates\](a) and $\eta=0.03$ for Fig. \[ADRates\](b), in order to better fit the data for $\lambda^*_3$.]{} Although the agreement is very good for large $a$, near $a_{*,1}$ not only finite range corrections become more important but also the fact that the first excited Efimov state fails to intersect with the atom-dimer threshold, imply strong deviations between universal zero-range theory and our results.
![Three-body recombination, $K_3$, displaying interference minima associated with the ground and first excited Efimov states. Values of the three-body parameters $a_{+,0}$ and $a_{+,1}$ are indicated in the figure. The dashed curve gives the analytical zero range result in the absence of deeply bound dimers [@braaten2006pr; @comment1]. [*Inset*]{}: Thermally averaged recombination rate, $\langle K_3\rangle$, illustrating the temperature dependence of $\langle a_{+,1}\rangle$.[]{data-label="K3Rates"}](Fig4.eps){width="3.4in"}
Finally, we have also calculated the three-body recombination rate, $K_3$, in the lowest three-body angular momentum ($J=0$) [@suno2002pra; @dincao2004prl] to determine the values of the three-body parameter $a_{+}$. Figure \[K3Rates\] shows our results for $K_3$ in the zero-energy limit ($E=10^{-6}E_{\rm vdW}$) clearly displaying two minima, whose locations are identified as the values for $a_{+,0}$ and $a_{+,1}$ listed in Table \[Tab3BP\]. Our numerical results obtained near $\lambda^*_1$ are compared with the analytical results in the absence of deeply bound dimers [@braaten2006pr; @comment1] (dashed line). For large $a$ our results agree well with the analytical ones while strong deviations can be observed for small $a$. In particular, one can see that the predicted minimum in recombination near $a/r_{\rm vdW}=1$ is strongly affected by finite-range effects. We trace such effects to the presence of strong $d$-wave interactions [@comment0]. In fact, near $a/r_{\rm vdW}=1$ our results display an enhancement due to a universal three-body resonance with strong $d$-wave character [@wang2012pra]. Therefore, our result for $a_{+,0}$ is a balance between universal $s$- and $d$-wave physics [@comment0]. The inset of Fig. \[K3Rates\] shows the temperature dependence of $K_3$ obtained by calculating the thermally averaged recombination rate $\langle K_3\rangle$ [@dincao2004prl], which illustrates the temperature dependence of $\langle a_{+,1}\rangle$ in the regime relevant for experiments —see also the values listed in Table \[Tab3BP\]. [In principle, at finite temperatures one would also need to include higher partial-waves contributions to recombination. For identical bosons, however, the next leading contribution is for $J=2$ and scale with the temperature and scattering length as $T^2a^8$ [@dincao2004prl]. In that case, for the temperatures we explore in Fig. \[K3Rates\] and values for $\langle a_{+,1}\rangle$ listed Table \[Tab3BP\], such effects are likely to be small, except perhaps for our largest temperature, where $ka_{+,1}\approx0.88$ (see also the analysis in Ref. [@dincao2004prl]).]{}
Our results for the three-body parameters —summarized in Table \[Tab3BP\]— clearly show universal behavior [(with deviations between themselves within a few percent)]{} and should be applied for atomic species with isolated broad Feshbach resonances. We also used our results in Table \[Tab3BP\] to determine other universal properties —for instance, the ratios $a_+/a_-$, $a_*/a_-$, and $a_*/a_+$— and compare with those resulting from zero-range models [@braaten2006pr; @gogolin2008prl]. [ For that we define the ratio between different three-body parameters as $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\alpha,i}/a_{\beta,j}=\theta_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}(e^{\pi/s_0})^{i-j}, \label{uratios}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can assume the values “$-$", “$+$" and “$*$", while $i$ and $j$ run over the index labeling the Efimov state. Within the zero-range model $\theta$ is a universal number and does not depend on $i$ and $j$: $\theta_{ij}^{+-}\approx0.210$; $\theta_{ij}^{*-}\approx0.047$; $\theta_{ij}^{*+}\approx0.224$ [@braaten2006pr; @gogolin2008prl]. Comparing those with the ones shown in the bottom part of Table \[Tab3BP\] (calculated using the averaged values for $a_-$, $a_+$ and $a^*$) we have found substantial deviations, most likely due to finite-range effects and the absence of $d$-wave interactions in the zero-range model. Moreover, the values for the geometric scaling factors obtained from our calculations, $a_{-,1}/a_{-,0}\approx16.7$, $a_{+,1}/a_{+,0}\approx19.7$, and $a_{*,2}/a_{*,1}\approx47.8$, also display strong deviations from the universal value $e^{\pi/s_0}\approx22.69$. We note that the results for the geometric scaling factor for $a_-$ obtained in Refs. [@deltuva2012pra; @schmidt2012epjb] are consistent to ours but the corresponding results for $a_*$ from [@schmidt2012epjb] are not. A comparison with results originated from models which include finite-range corrections [@schmidt2012epjb; @deltuva2012pra; @kievsky2013pra; @ji2012ap; @platter2009pra; @ji2015pra] needs to be made carefully to ensure that the interaction parameters are the same. This, however, is beyond the scope of the present study. A more direct comparison, however, can be made with the work in Ref. [@li2016pra], where a model similar to ours, however, considering only $s$-wave interactions[, is used. The calculations of Ref. [@li2016pra] involve a separable approximation of a hard-core-type van der Waals potential as two-body interaction potential.]{} The comparison between our results and the ones from Ref. [@li2016pra] thus provides a sense of how important $d$-wave interactions might be. In Table \[TabTheoComp\] we list our average results, marked by LJ, (see Table \[Tab3BP\]) and the corresponding average results from Ref. [@li2016pra], marked by LJ$^s$. In Table \[TabTheoComp\] we also list the value of $\kappa_0=(mE_{\rm 3b}^{(0)}/\hbar^2)^{1/2}$ obtained from our calculations for $\lambda^*_1$ and the corresponding averaged result from Ref. [@li2016pra]. The agreement is generally good for all cases (the relative errors are indicated in Table \[TabTheoComp\] between square brackets), with the exception for the value of $a_{*,1}$, most likely because the non-crossing of the first excited Efimov state is absent in the model of Ref. [@li2016pra], clearly indicating a strong effect due to $d$-wave interactions. We note, however, that the agreement for the geometric factors $a_{-,1}/a_{-,0}$ and $a_{+,1}/a_{+,0}$ are generally better than the absolute values of the three-body parameters. This indicates that the effect of the $d$-wave interactions in such parameters is mainly to introduce a shift: $$\begin{aligned}
{a}_{x}\rightarrow{a_x}e^{-\phi_d/s_0},\label{Shift3BP}\end{aligned}$$ or, equivalently, a change in the three-body phase: $s_0\ln({a}/{a_x})\rightarrow s_0\ln({a}/{a_x})+\phi_d$. Indeed, forcing our value of $a_{+,0}$ to reproduce the one from Ref. [@li2016pra], we obtain $\phi_d\approx-0.146$ and the resulting rescaled three-body parameters, marked by LJ$^*$ in Table \[TabTheoComp\] now agree much better, evidently, with the exception of $a_{*,1}$. The above rescaling process, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to subtract-off $d$-wave effects from our calculations, although a more rigorous study that can provide a more quantitative analysis of such effects still needs to be performed.]{}
-------- --------------- ----------------------- ------------ --------------- ----------------------- -------------
${a}_{-,i}$ ${a}_{-,1}/{a}_{-,0}$ $\kappa_0$ ${a}_{+,i}$ ${a}_{+,1}/{a}_{+,0}$ ${a}_{*,1}$
$(i=0,1)$ $(i=0,1)$
LJ -9.77,-163 16.7 0.230 1.41,27.7 19.7 3.33
LJ$^s$ -10.7,-187 17.5 0.193 1.63,33.5 20.6 5.49
\[0.10,0.15\] \[0.05\] \[0.16\] \[0.16,0.21\] \[0.05\] \[0.65\]
LJ$^*$ -11.3,-188 16.7 0.199 1.63,32.0 19.7 3.85
\[0.05,0.01\] \[0.05\] \[0.03\] \[0.00,0.05\] \[0.05\] \[0.43\]
-------- --------------- ----------------------- ------------ --------------- ----------------------- -------------
: [Comparison between the average results for the three-body parameters in Table \[Tab3BP\], marked here by LJ, and the corresponding average results from Ref. [@li2016pra], marked by LJ$^s$. The Table also lists the value of $\kappa_0=(mE_{\rm 3b}^{(0)}/\hbar^2)^{1/2}$ obtained from our calculations for $\lambda^*_1$ and the corresponding averaged result from Ref. [@li2016pra]. The corresponding relative errors are indicated between square brackets.]{}
\[TabTheoComp\]
Atom $a_+/a_c$ $i$ $a_{+,i}/r_{\rm vdW}$ $a_{*}/a_c$ $i$ $a_{*,i}/r_{\rm vdW}$
------------ ----------- ----- ----------------------------------- ------------- ----- -----------------------------------------------
$^{133}$Cs 0.08 0 2.1(0.1) [@Kraemer2006] 0.13 1 4.2(0.1) [@Knoop2009; @Zenesini2014]
0.03 0 2.7(0.3)[@berninger2011prl] 0.24 1 6.5(0.3) [@Zenesini2014]
— 0 2.5(0.4) [@Ferlaino2011]
$^7$Li 0.02 0 2.7(0.1)[@Pollack2009; @Dyke2013] 0.09 1 13.0(0.6) [@Pollack2009; @Dyke2013]$^\dagger$
0.29 1 44(3) [@Pollack2009; @Dyke2013] 0.04 1 5.5 [@Machtey2012a]
0.32 1 35(4) [@Gross2009; @Gross2011] 0.05 1 6.0(0.1) [@Machtey2012a]$^\dagger$
0.34 1 39(2) [@Gross2010; @Gross2011]
$^{39}$K 0.03 0 3.5(0.1) [@Zaccanti2009] 0.01 0 0.5(0.2) [@Zaccanti2009]$^\dagger$
0.76 1 88(14) [@Zaccanti2009] 0.12 1 14.4(0.6) [@Zaccanti2009]$^\dagger$
$^{6}$Li 0.01 1 2.9 [@Lompe2010a]
: Experimental values for the three-body parameters $a_+$ and $a_*$. The table displays our assignment of the parameters by indicating the value of $i$ for $a_{+,i}$ and $a_{*,i}$ for each case. We also list the values for $a/a_c$ [@dincao2004prl] characterizing the degree of thermal effects in the experimental data.
\[TabExp\]
We now analyze the currently available experimental data for $a_+$ and $a_*$ listed (and assigned) in Table \[TabExp\]. [As one can see from Table \[TabExp\], the values listed for $a_{+,0}$ and $a_{+,1}$ are qualitatively consistent among themselves, with the exception of the data for $^{39}$K [@Zaccanti2009] —a new analysis presented in Ref. [@roy2013prl] suggests that this data might be subject of a new calibration. Although the values for $a_{+,1}$ in Table \[TabExp\] are likely to suffer from thermal effects (the condition $|a|\ll a_c = {\hbar}/{\sqrt{m k_B T}}$ [@dincao2004prl] ensuring the absence of thermal effects is not strictly satisfied), our finite temperature calculations covering the range of temperatures relevant for the experiments (see Table \[Tab3BP\]) indicate that thermal effects might lead to no more than a 10% variation from the zero temperature result. We also note that for $^7$Li and $^{39}$K the resonances are substantially less broad than the ones for $^{133}$Cs (see Ref. [@chin2010rmp]), thus opening up the possibility of finite-width effects as responsible for the deviations among the experimental data in Table \[TabExp\]. In comparison to the values for $a_+$, the results for $a_{*,1}$ listed in Table \[TabExp\] display a much stronger deviation among themselves. A more careful analysis, therefore, is necessary in order to understand some of the possible factors affecting such observations. For instance, the value for $a_{*,1}$ for $^{133}$Cs from Ref. [@Zenesini2014], as well as the results for $^{7}$Li from Ref. [@Machtey2012a], were obtained using a Feshbach resonance that is not well separated from another nearby resonance, possibly affecting the observed value for $a_{*,1}$. Most of the results marked in Table \[TabExp\] by “$^\dagger$” present the largest variations compared with the total averaged result for $a_{*,1}$ ($\approx6.63r_{\rm vdW}$). They were, however, obtained based on the assumption that atom-dimer resonances can be observed in atomic samples by means of an avalanche mechanism [@Zaccanti2009]. Although modifications on the description of such mechanism can lead to more reasonable results [@Machtey2012a; @Machtey2012b], this hypothesis is currently considered questionable [@Langmack2012; @Zenesini2014; @Hu2014].]{}
[Therefore, accordingly to our analysis above, in order to properly compare the experimental data to theoretical predictions, we excluded the data from $^{39}$K [@Zaccanti2009] and those marked by “$^\dagger$” in Table \[TabExp\]. From the remaining experimental data, we determine an average value and corresponding relative error as listed in Table \[TabExpComp\] (the relative errors are indicated between square brackets). Using the zero-range (ZR) universal relations derived in Refs. [@braaten2006pr; @gogolin2008prl] we determined the values for $a_{+,0}$, $a_{+,1}$ and $a_{*,1}$, using the average value for $a_{-,0}$ in Table \[Tab3BP\], and list these in Table \[TabExpComp\], along with our corresponding averaged results (LJ) from Table \[Tab3BP\]. As one can see, the zero-range results for $a_{+,0}$ and $a_{+,1}$ perform better than our results when compared to the experimental data, while our result for $a_{*,1}$ outperforms the zero-range result. In fact, within the zero-range model the atom-dimer resonance associated to $a_{*,1}$ originates from an actual crossing between the first excited Efimov state while in our model it does not (see Fig. \[EfimovEb\] and corresponding discussion in the text). We note, however, that our results for $a_{+,1}/a_{+,0}$ better reproduces the value from the experimental data, indicating that a shift on the position of the three-body parameters for $a>0$, in the same spirit than the one obtained from Eq. (\[Shift3BP\]), can improve the comparisons. In fact, as shown in Table \[TabExpComp\], using the results (LJ$^*$) listed in Table \[TabTheoComp\], an overall improvement can be observed. If we now rescale our results (LJ) to reproduce the experimental value for $a_{+,0}$, within a relative error of 0.10, our new rescaled results (LJ$^*_{\rm E}$) now display a much better overall comparison to the experimental data. Although there is no clear reason why such scaling should be allowed, the above analysis clearly indicates that our numerical results might suffer from finite-range effects, whether originated from the $s$- and $d$-wave mixing or the finite-width character produced by real interatomic interactions. ]{}
${a}_{+,0}/r_{\rm vdW}$ ${a}_{+,1}/r_{\rm vdW}$ ${a}_{+,1}/{a}_{+,0}$ ${a}_{*,1}/r_{\rm vdW}$
---------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------
Exp 2.50\[0.10\] 39.3\[0.12\] 15.7\[0.22\] 4.78\[0.20\]
ZR 2.05\[0.22\] 46.5\[0.16\] 22.7\[0.31\] 10.4\[0.54\]
LJ 1.41\[0.77\] 27.7\[0.42\] 19.7\[0.20\] 3.33\[0.43\]
LJ$^*$ 1.63\[0.53\] 32.0\[0.23\] 19.7\[0.20\] 3.85\[0.24\]
LJ$^*_{\rm E}$ 2.27\[0.10\] 44.7\[0.12\] 19.7\[0.20\] 5.37\[0.11\]
: [Comparison between the values for the three-body parameters from different theories and the average experimental data, marked by Exp (see text). Our average results (LJ and LJ$^*$) are those from Table \[TabTheoComp\] and the results marked by LJ$^*_{\rm E}$ are those obtained from LJ$^*$ by forcing the result for $a_{+,0}$ to agree with the experimental data within 10% (see text). The corresponding relative errors are indicated between square brackets.]{}
\[TabExpComp\]
[Evidently, there is much to be understood on the effects that realistic interactions can impose in the determination of the three-body parameters. In more realistic systems the short-range multichannel nature of the interactions can produce, for instance, a different mixing of $s$- and $d$-wave components than the single channel model does. One can expect $d$-wave interactions to be more important when the system possesses a small background scattering length, i.e., of the order of $r_{\rm vdW}$, since in this case the entrance channel physics, obeying the universality of the van der Waals interactions [@gao2000pra], can include a weakly bound $d$-wave state. Finite-width effects can lead to values of the effective range different than the one produced in our model, also determined by the universal van der Waals physics [@flambaum1999pra]. Such effects, although not entirely understood yet, can also lead to substantial deviations of the three-body parameters [@schmidt2012epjb]. In fact, the model developed in Ref. [@wang2014np], which incorporates some of the multichannel physics of the problem, shows a much better agreement between theory and experiment [@Zenesini2014], including for the $a<0$ geometric scaling $a_{-,1}/a_{-,0}\approx21.0$ from Ref. [@huang2014prl], indicating that both $s$- and $d$-wave mixing and finite-width effects might be at the heart of deviations of the three-body parameters for $a>0$ here obtained, as well as the deviations among the currently available experimental data (Table \[TabExp\]). A fundamental difference between the physics for $a<0$ (where a more robust universal picture was found [@wang2012prl; @dincao2013fbs; @wang2012prlb; @schmidt2012epjb; @naidon2014pra; @naidon2014prl; @blume2015fbs] —see Refs. [@wang2013aamop; @Ferlaino2011] for a summary of such experimental findings) and for $a>0$ is that corrections for the energy of the weakly bound $s$-wave dimer, whether originated from mixing of $s$- and $d$-wave interactions or finite-width effects, should already lead to modifications on the $a>0$ three-body parameters. For $a_+$, the atom-dimer channel controls the interference effects in recombination via the exit channel while it represents the initial collision channel responsible for the resonant effects determining $a_*$. In fact, under this perspective, a simple criteria can be established to determine whether $s$- and $d$-wave mixing and finite-width effects are important: if the degree of deviation between the binding energy obtained from multichannel interactions and the one obtained from single channel models are substantially different, such effects are likely to be important.]{}
Summary
=======
In conclusion, our present study establishes the universal values for the three-body parameters $a_*$ and $a_+$, both relevant for ultracold quantum gases with [positive scattering lengths]{}. One of the most interesting results that has emerged from this study is the fact that the first excited Efimov resonance fails to intersect the dimer threshold, which is a surprising difference from the zero-range universal theories that always predict such an intersection. Our interpretation, that this failure of the resonance to intersect the threshold derives from important $d$-wave interactions, is consistent with findings from another recent study of this $a>0$ region [@giannakeas2016arXiv] which uses a nonlocal potential model having no $d$-wave physics, and which [*does*]{} show such an intersection. The robustness of the present prediction thus hinges critically on whether the $d$-wave two-body physics is tightly constrained in the way predicted by van der Waals physics in single channel potential models [@gao2000pra; @wang2012pra]. [Whether it is reasonable to expect that in the case of broad two-body Fano-Feshbach resonances, this linkage of two-body $s$-wave and $d$-wave resonance positions is satisfied, remains an open question deserving further investigation.]{} However, especially in the case of narrow two-body resonances, $s$-wave and $d$-wave resonances are likely to be largely uncorrelated which presumably invalidates the present predictions in the vicinity of $a/r_{\rm vdW} \approx1$. Nevertheless, the qualitative agreement between our results and the currently available experimental data partially confirms the notion of universality of Efimov physics for ultracold atoms. However, more experimental data and more sophisticated theoretical models incorporating the multichannel nature of the atomic interactions might be necessary in order to quantitatively address present discrepancies.
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Grants PHY-1607204 and PHY-1607180 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). PMAM also acknowledges JILA for the hospitality during his stay. The authors acknowledge S. Kokkelmans and P. Giannakeas for fruitful discussions.
[99]{}
V. Efimov, Yad. Fiz. [**12**]{}, 1080 (1970); Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**12**]{}, 589 (1971).
E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Phys. Rep. [**428**]{}, 259 (2006).
Y. Wang, J. P. D’Incao, and B. D. Esry, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**62**]{}, 1 (2013).
R. J. Fletcher, A. L. Gaunt, N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 125303 (2013).
B. S. Rem, A. T. Grier, I. Ferrier-Barbut, U. Eismann, T. Langen, N. Navon, L. Khaykovich, F. Werner, D. S. Petrov, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 163202 (2013).
P. Makotyn, C. E. Klauss, D. L. Goldberger, E. A. Cornell, and D. S. Jin, Nat. Phys. [**10**]{}, 116 (2014).
R. J. Fletcher, R. Lopes, J. Man, N. Navon, R. P. Smith, M. W. Zwierlein, and Z. Hadzibabic, arXiv:1608.04377 (2016).
A. G. Sykes, J. P. Corson, J. P. D’Incao, A. P. Koller, C. H. Greene, A. M. Rey, K. R. A. Hazzard, and J. L. Bohn Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 021601(R) (2014).
S. Laurent, X. Leyronas, and F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 220601 (2014).
D. H. Smith, E. Braaten, D. Kang, and L. Platter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 110402 (2014).
S. Piatecki and W. Krauth, Nat. Comm. [**5**]{}, 3503 (2014).
M. Barth and J. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{}, 062716 (2015).
C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 1225 (2010).
M. Berninger, A. Zenesini, B. Huang, W. Harm, H.-C. Nägerl, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 120401 (2011).
J. Wang, J. P. D’Incao, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 263001 (2012).
J. P. D’Incao, J. Wang, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene, Few-Body Systems [**54**]{}, 1523 (2013).
Y. Wang, J. Wang, J. P. D’Incao, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 243201 (2012); [*ibid.*]{} [**115**]{}, 069901 (2015).
R. Schmidt, S.P. Rath, and W. Zwerger, Eur. Phys. J. B [**85**]{}, 386 (2012).
P. Naidon, S. Endo, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 022106 (2014).
P. Naidon, S. Endo, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 105301 (2014).
D. Blume, Few-Body Syst. [**56**]{}, 859 (2015).
J. P. D’Incao and B. D. Esry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 213201 (2005).
E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 052710 (2007).
E. Nielsen and J. H. Macek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1566 (1999).
B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, and J. P. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1751 (1999).
P. F. Bedaque, Eric Braaten, and H.-W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 908 (2000).
L. W. Bruch and K. Sawada, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 25 (1973).
M. D. Lee, T. Köhler, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 012720 (2007).
Bo Gao, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 050702(R) (2000).
J. Wang, J. P. D’Incao, Y. Wang, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 062511 (2012).
J. Wang, J. P. D’Incao, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A [**84**]{}, 052721 (2011).
E. Nielsen, H. Suno, and B. D. Esry, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 012705 (2002).
Based on the analysis of the hyperspherical adiabatic potentials we can trace a strong coupling between the relevant $s$-wave channel for Efimov physics and the $d$-wave channel associated with the $d$-wave dimer state, supporting a universal three-body state [@wang2012pra]
J. P. D’Incao, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 052709 (2008).
J. M. Hutson, New J. Phys. [**9**]{}, 152 (2007).
H. Suno, B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, and J. P. Burke, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 042725 (2002).
J. P. D’Incao, H. Suno, and B. D. Esry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 123201 (2004).
The results from Ref. [@braaten2006pr] were multiplied by a factor $3\sqrt{3}$ in order to ensure the proper comparison.
A. O. Gogolin, C. Mora, and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 140404 (2008).
A. Deltuva, Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 012708 (2012).
A. Kievsky and M. Gattobigio, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 052719 (2013).
C. Ji, D. R. Phillips, and L. Platter, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**327**]{}, 1803 (2012).
L. Platter, C. Ji, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 022702 (2009).
C. Ji, E. Braaten, D. R. Phillips, and L. Platter, Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{}, 030702(R) (2015).
J.-L. Li, X.-J. Hu, Y.-C. Han, and S.-L. Cong, Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 032705 (2016).
T. Kraemer, M. Mark, P. Waldburger, J. G. Danzl, C. Chin, B. Engeser, A. D. Lange, K. Pilch, A. Jaakkola, H.-C. Nägerl and R. Grimm, Nature [**440**]{}, 315 (2006).
F. Ferlaino, A. Zenesini,M. Berninger, B. Huang, H.-C. Nägerl, and R. Grimm, Few-Body Syst. [**51**]{}, 113 (2011).
S. E. Pollack, D. Dries, and R. G. Hulet, Science [**326**]{}, 1683 (2009).
P. Dyke, S. E. Pollack, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 023625 (2013).
N. Gross, Z. Shotan, S. Kokkelmans, and L. Khaykovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 163202 (2009).
N. Gross, Z. Shotan, O. Machtey, S. Kokkelmans, and L. Khaykovich, Comp. Rend. Phys. [**12**]{}, 4 (2011).
N. Gross, Z. Shotan, S. Kokkelmans, and L. Khaykovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 103203 (2010).
M. Zaccanti, B. Deissler, C. D’Errico, M. Fattori, M. Jona-Lasinio, S. Müller, G. Roati, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 586 (2009).
S. Knoop, F. Ferlaino, M. Mark, M. Berninger, H. Schöbel, H.-C. Nägerl, and R. Grimm, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 227 (2009).
A. Zenesini, B. Huang, M. Berninger, H.-C. Nägerl, F. Ferlaino, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 022704 (2014).
O. Machtey, Z. Shotan, N. Gross, and L. Khaykovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 210406 (2012).
T. Lompe, T. B. Ottenstein, F. Serwane, K. Viering, A. N. Wenz, G. Zürn, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 103201 (2010).
S. Roy, M. Landini, A. Trenkwalder, G. Semeghini, G. Spagnolli, A. Simoni, M. Fattori, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 053202 (2013).
O. Machtey, D. A. Kessler, and L. Khaykovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 130403 (2012).
C. Langmack, D. H. Smith, and E. Braaten, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 022718 (2012).
M.-G. Hu, R. S. Bloom, D. S. Jin, and J.M. Goldwin, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 013619 (2014).
V. V. Flambaum, G. F. Gribakin, and C. Harabati, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 1998 (1999).
Y. Wang and P. S. Julienne, Nat. Phys. [**10**]{}, 768 (2014).
B. Huang , L. A. Sidorenkov, R. Grimm, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 190401 (2014).
P. Giannakeas and C. H. Greene, arXiv:1608.08276 (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss utilization of kinetic schemes for description of open interacting systems, focusing on vibrational energy relaxation for an oscillator coupled to a nonequilibirum electronic bath. Standard kinetic equations with constant rate coefficients are obtained under the assumption of timescale separation between system and bath, with the bath dynamics much faster than that of the system of interest. This assumption may break down in certain limits and we show that ignoring this may lead to qualitatively wrong predictions. Connection with more general, nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) analysis, is demonstrated. Our considerations are illustrated within generic molecular junction models with electron-vibration coupling.'
author:
- Abraham Nitzan
- Michael Galperin
title: Kinetic Schemes in Open Interacting Systems
---
[{width="5cm"}]{}\
No phonon runaway:\
kinetic scheme vs. NEGF.
[*Introduction.*]{} Development of experimental techniques on the nanoscale has made studies of single molecule junctions possible. These experiments yield unique possibilities to explore physical and chemical properties of molecules by measuring their responses to external perturbations. Following experimental advances, there was rapid development of theoretical approaches. Today a variety of techniques, ranging from diagrammatic expansions (such as, e.g., nonequilibrium Green function (NEGF) [@HaugJauho_2008; @StefanucciVanLeeuwen_2013], quantum master equation [@LeijnseWegewijsPRB08; @GrifoniEPJB13], and Hubbard NEGF [@ChenOchoaMGJCP17; @MiwaChenMGSciRep17]) to approximate treatments of strongly correlated systems (e.g., dynamical mean field theory [@WernerRMP14] and beyond [@KatsnelsonLichtensteinRubtsovRMP18]) and to numerically exact methods (e.g., renormalization group techniques [@PaasckeRoschWolflePRB04; @Anders2008; @UedaJPhysSocJpn08; @MedenNJP14] and continuous time quantum Monte-Carlo [@CohenPRL14; @CohenGullReichmanMillisPRL15; @GullCohenPRB18]) are available. Implementation of such schemes, particularly the numerically exact approaches, is often expensive and their applications for simulations of realistic systems is limited.
At the same time, simple kinetic schemes have been widely and successfully utilized in description of rate phenomena in open molecular systems (for example, donor-bridge-acceptor (DBA) molecular complexes) [@MiglioreNitzanACSNano11; @EinaxDierlNitzanJPCC11; @MiglioreNitzanJACS13; @EinaxNitzanJPCC14; @CravenNitzanPNAS16; @CravenNitzanJCP17; @ChenCravenNitzanJCP17; @CravenNitzanPRL17]. Such schemes lead to description of system states connected by rate processes whose Markov limit description provides “rate coefficients” which enter into the kinetic description (master equation) of the system evolution. Such Markov limit descriptions rely on timescale separation between the observed system evolution and dynamic processes that determine the rates, the latter usually involves the dynamics of relaxation in the bath. Obviously the details of such kinetic schemes depend on the way system-bath separation is defined and used. The general practice dictated by balance between simplicity and rigor, takes “the system” to be comprised by the observed variables together (when possible) with other variables whose inclusion makes the dynamics Markovian. This practice should be exercised with caution because even if conditions for timescale separations are established in a given range, they may become invalid in other domains of operation. Such situations are well known in classical dynamics. For example, transition state theory (TST) of molecular rate processes assumes that molecular degrees of freedom except the reaction coordinate are at thermal equilibrium (and therefore can be taken to be part of the thermal environment). TST breaks down when the observed rate is of the order of, or faster than, the rate of thermal relaxation in the molecule, as demonstrated in the Kramers theory of activated rate processes [@Kramers1940].
Importantly, even if the assumed timescale separation holds near equilibrium it might fail far from it. The reason is that systems interacting with their equilibrium surrounding remain within the energetic domain of thermal energy, while systems coupled to non-equilibrium environments, e.g., under optical illumination or voltage bias, may be driven to energy domains where timescale separation does not hold. Thus, while situations of the first kind (such as activated barrier crossing) are well understood and documented, mathematically equivalent circumstances have been often overlooked. One such case is the vibrational dynamics of molecules adsorbed at or bridging between metallic interfaces due to coupling to the thermal electronic baths. Molecular vibrational motion is sensitive to the electronic occupation of the molecule, which in turn is affected by the molecule and metal electronic structure, their mutual coupling and the junction voltage bias. A common approximation, equivalent to the fast bath assumption discussed above, is to disregard the effect of vibrational dynamics on the electronic subsystem, representing the latter by a thermal electronic bath or, for a biased (current carrying) junction, by the corresponding steady-state electronic distribution, assumed unaffected by the vibrational process. This level of description, which effectively takes the molecular electronic degrees of freedom as part of the (generally non-equilibrium) electronic bath [@SegalPRB15; @EspositoPRB18; @SubotnikPRB18], has been recently used to discuss bias induced vibrational instabilities [@BrandbygePRL11; @SegalPCCP12; @ThossPeskinNL18]. While the limitations of such treatments are sometimes pointed out [@ThossPeskinNL18], in other publications they are ignored. Indeed, such instabilities were recently claimed[@FortiVazquezJPCL18] to be generic properties of wires whose conduction is dominated by distinct electronic resonances (or, in the language of Ref. [@FortiVazquezJPCL18] by “separated” electronic states).
It should be noted that in general, zero order treatments of the kind described above are known to violate conservation laws [@BaymKadanoffPR61; @BaymPR62]. Thus, notwithstanding their usefulness in many applications, such treatment should be regarded with caution, in particular when unusual behavior are observed. For example, the observation of negative sign of vibrational dissipation rate at an apparent steady-state of a molecular junction should not be regarded an indicator of a true vibrational instability in the system, but (like in linear stability analysis of non-linear differential equations) as an indication of failure of the underlying assumptions that lead to such result. It should be emphasized that (again, as in linear stability analysis) such analysis can be useful as an indicator that a real stable state exists elsewhere (which in a real anharmonic molecule may or may not lie beyond a bond breaking threshold). Still, many low order treatments [@BrandbygePRL11; @SegalPCCP12] of vibrational instabilities in harmonic bridge models of molecular junctions leave the reader with the message that the observed “runaway behavior” describes the full physical behavior.
Exact numerical solutions [@schinabeck_hierarchical_2018] are obviously capable of exploring the correct physical picture. Here we show that an approximate self-consistent treatment that does not violate conservation laws can already avoid the qualitative pitfalls of a linear theory. We consider simple junction models with electron-vibration coupling (see Fig. \[fig1\]), treated within the nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) theory. In this framework the consequence of interaction between a system of interest (here the vibrational mode) and its environment (here the electronic subsystem) enters through self-energy terms that (a) directly describe relaxation and driving of the system of interest by its environment and (b) modify the Green functions that enter into the definition of these self-energies. A full calculation must therefore be self-consistent and take into account the mutual influence between system and environment, namely the effect of environment on the system as well as the back-action from the system on the environment. We show that the basis of the zero order approximation, the assumption of timescale separation between molecular electronic and vibrational degrees of freedom (i.e. ability to neglect back action of molecular vibration on electronic bath), does not hold automatically, and in fact has a limited range of validity. Consequently, while regimes of significantly enhanced vibrational heating can be found in biased junctions with electron-phonon coupling (and heating transient spikes may occur following sudden parameter change), instabilities identified as appearance of negative vibrational dissipation rate do not occur. In our consideration below, the molecular vibration (system) is weakly coupled to the electronic degrees of freedom (bath), which is the usual setup in considerations of system and bath separation. We stress that even in this favorable situation kinetic considerations may lead to qualitative failures.
Below, after introducing the model, we discuss its general treatment using NEGF and its connection to simple kinetic considerations. We consider the steady-state of such model under voltage bias and illustrate failures of standard kinetic description within numerical examples.
![\[fig1\] Molecular junction with electron-phonon interaction. Shown are models for (a) single level junction with polaronic coupling and (b) two-level junction with non-adiabatic coupling. Note that setup (b) favors phonon heating, which is maximized when the level spacing $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$ is close to the vibrational frequency. ](fig1){width="\linewidth"}
[*Model and method.*]{} We consider a junction consisting of a molecular bridge $M$ coupled to two contacts, $L$ and $R$ (Fig \[fig1\]). Besides electronic degrees of freedom, a molecular vibration, modeled as a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\omega_0$ coupled to the molecular electronic subsystem, is included. The contacts are reservoirs of free charge carriers, each at its own equilibrium. The model Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H &= \hat H_M + \sum_{K=L,R}\bigg(\hat H_K + \hat V_{KM}\bigg)
\\
\label{HM}
\hat H_M &= \sum_{m_1m_2\in M} H^M_{m_1m_2}\hat d_{m_1}^\dagger\hat d_{m_2}
+ \omega_0\hat a^\dagger\hat a
\\ &
+ \sum_{m_1,m_2\in M} U_{m_1m_2}\bigg(\hat a+\hat a^\dagger\bigg)
\hat d_{m_1}^\dagger\hat d_{m_2}
\nonumber \\
\hat H_K &= \sum_{k\in K}\epsilon_k\hat c_k^\dagger\hat c_k
\\
\hat V_{KM} &= \sum_{k\in K}\sum_{m\in M}\bigg( V_{km}\hat c_k^\dagger\hat d_m + H.c. \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat d_m^\dagger$ ($\hat d_m$) and $\hat c_k^\dagger$ ($\hat c_k$) creates (annihilates) electron in level $m$ of the bridge and state $k$ of contacts, respectively. $\hat a^\dagger$ ($\hat a$) creates (annihilates) vibrational quanta. $V_{km} = V_{k1}$ when $k\in L$ and $V_{k2}$ when $k\in R$ is molecule-contact transfer matrix element and $U_{m_1m_2}$ is electron-phonon coupling strength. Below we consider two special cases of this Hamiltonian: A single bridge level with polaronic coupling to the vibrational mode, whereupon the last term in Eq. (\[HM\]) takes the form $U (\hat a+\hat a^\dagger)\hat d^\dagger \hat d$ (Fig. \[fig1\]a) and a bridge comprising two coupled electronic levels, each coupled to its respective lead, with electron-vibration coupling of the form $U (\hat a+\hat a^\dagger)(\hat d_2^\dagger \hat d_1+\hat d_1^\dagger \hat d_2)$.
We treat the electron-vibration coupling, last term in Eq.(\[HM\]), within standard diagrammatic technique. According to the rules for building conserving approximations [@BaymKadanoffPR61; @BaymPR62] one starts from the Luttinger-Ward functional [@LuttingerWardPR60; @StefanucciVanLeeuwen_2013], whose functional derivatives with respect to the electron and phonon (vibration) Green functions yield the electron self-energy due to coupling to vibrations, $\Sigma^{(ph)}$, and the phonon self-energy due to coupling to electronic degrees of freedom, $\Pi^{(el)}$, respectively. For our discussion it is important to stress that the electron and phonon Green functions in the functional are full (dressed) functions, with back-action of electrons on vibration and vice versa taken into account. Explicit expressions at second order of the diagrammatic technique in electron-phonon interaction are [@ParkMG_FCS_PRB11; @GaoMGJCP16_1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sigma}
\Sigma^{(ph)}_{m_1m_2}(\tau_1,\tau_2) &= i\, D(\tau_1,\tau_2)\,
\mbox{Tr}\bigg[\mathbf{U}\,\mathbf{G}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\,\mathbf{U}\bigg]
\\
\label{Pi}
\Pi^{(el)}(\tau_1,\tau_2) &= -i\,\mbox{Tr}\bigg[\mathbf{U}\,\mathbf{G}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\,\mathbf{U}\,\mathbf{G}(\tau_2,\tau_1)\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ where the $\mbox{Tr}[\ldots]$ is over electronic degrees of freedom in $M$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_{m_1m_2}(\tau_1,\tau_2) &=
-i\langle T_c\, \hat d_{m_1}(\tau_1)\,\hat d_{m_2}^\dagger(\tau_2)\rangle
\\
D(\tau_1,\tau_2) &= -i\langle T_c\,\hat a(\tau_1)\,\hat a^\dagger(\tau_2)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ are the electron and phonon (vibration) Green functions (here $T_c$ is the Keldysh contour ordering operator and $\tau_{1,2}$ are the contour variables). Below (for simplicity and to compare with previous studies) we will consider the quasiparticle limit for the phonon Green function [@Mahan_1990]. Solving together the coupled Eqs. (\[Sigma\]) and (\[Pi\]) constitutes the self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA)[^1]. Dynamical characteristics are obtained by projecting these Keldysh functions onto real time. Lesser and greater projections of the self-energies (\[Sigma\])-(\[Pi\]) describe respectively in- and out-fluxes into the corresponding degree of freedom due to its coupling to the other degrees of freedom in the system, while the retarded projection describes dissipation induced by the interaction. These projections are related by $$\label{relation_Pi}
\Pi^{(el)\, >}(t_1,t_2)-\Pi^{(el)\, <}(t_1,t_2) = \Pi^{(el)\, r}(t_1,t_2)-\Pi^{(el)\, a}(t_1,t_2)$$ where $\Pi^{(el)\, a}(t_1,t_2)=[\Pi^{(el)\, r}(t_2,t_1)]^{*}$ is the advanced projection and $t_{1,2}$ are physical times corresponding to the contour variables $\tau_{1,2}$. A similar relation holds for the electron self-energies obtained as projections of (\[Sigma\]) onto the physical time.
At steady state, when correlation functions depend on time differences, one can Fourier transform (\[relation\_Pi\]). The right side of the expression is identified to be the vibrational dissipation rate due to coupling to electronic degrees of freedom $$\label{gamma_el}
\gamma_{el}(\omega) = i\bigg( \Pi^{(el)\, >}(\omega)-\Pi^{(el)\, <}(\omega) \bigg)$$ which at quasiparticle limit should be taken at $\omega=\omega_0$. The energy flux between the electronic and vibrational subsystems can be expressed by either of the two fluxes [@MGNitzanRatner_heat_PRB07; @Datta_1995] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Iel_ph}
I^{(el)}_{ph} &= -\int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\bigg(
\Pi^{(el)\, <}(\omega)\, D^{>}(\omega) - \Pi^{(el)\, >}(\omega)\, D^{<}(\omega),
\bigg)
\\
\label{Iph_el}
I^{(ph)}_{el} &= \int\frac{dE}{2\pi}\,
\mbox{Tr}\bigg[\Sigma^{(ph)\, <}(E)\, \mathbf{G}^{>}(E) - \Sigma^{(ph)\, >}(E)\, \mathbf{G}^{<}(E)
\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ which can be shown, by substituting for the self-energies $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$ the corresponding projections of Eqs. (\[Sigma\]) and (\[Pi\]), respectively, to be equal in magnitude and opposite in sign. These fluxes are caused by the electron-phonon interaction. Eq. (\[Iel\_ph\]) expresses the energy flux (in terms of vibrational quanta) into the vibrational system, while (\[Iph\_el\]) expresses the flux for population redistribution between energy levels of the electronic subsystem. Because of charge conserving character of electron-phonon interaction this flux vanishes, which at the quasi-particle limit leads to [@FranssonMGPCCP11] $$\label{N_w0}
N_{\omega_0} =i\,\Pi^{(el)\, <}(\omega_0)/\gamma_{el}(\omega_0)$$ Here $N_{\omega_0}=\langle\hat a^\dagger\hat a\rangle$ is the nonequilibrium average phonon population.
As discussed above, zero order treatments that lead to standard kinetic schemes for this problem assume timescale separation between electronic and vibrational equilibration times (usually treating the vibrational subsystem as much slower than its electronic counterpart), thus disregarding back action of the phonon on the electronic subsystem. Mathematically this is manifested by disregarding contribution to the electron self-energy due to coupling to vibration, Eq (\[Sigma\]), and employing the resulting zero order electronic Green functions in evaluation of phonon self-energy (\[Pi\]). While the argument of timescale separation seems reasonable, it may lead to erroneous predictions. We note in passing that within diagrammatic perturbation theory, substituting full (dressed) Green function with the bare one in the Luttinger-Ward functional leads to violation of conservation laws in the system [@KadanoffBaym_1962]. In the Markov limit, when self-energies simplify into transition rates, such substitution corresponds to statement that rates are kept constant irrespective to actual state of the system.
Below we illustrate some consequences of breakdown of such time scale separation assumption with numerical examples for the model junctions shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. Model (a) comprises a single molecular electronic level coupled to the two metal electrodes and to a single vibration, with $H^M_{mm}\to\epsilon$ and $U_{mm}\to U$. Model (b) involves two molecular levels and one vibrational mode with $H^M_{m_1m_2}=\delta_{m_1,m_2}\epsilon_{m_1} - (1-\delta_{m_1,m_2})t$, $U_{m_1m_2}=(1-\delta_{m_1,m_2})U$, and $V_{km}$ is $V_{k1}$ when $k\in L$ and $V_{k2}$ when $k\in R$.
[*Numerical results.*]{} We start with model (a) - single electronic level coupled to a molecular vibration (Fig. \[fig1\]a). Electron escape rates to contacts are taken $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=0.1$ eV. The frequency of the molecular vibration is set to $\omega_0=0.1$ eV and for the electron-vibration coupling we take $U=0.05$ eV. The contacts temperature is taken as $T=300$ K. The Fermi energy is chosen as the energy origin $E_F=0$. We apply a bias $V_{sd}=3$ V across the junction symmetrically ($\mu_L=1.5$ eV and $\mu_R=-1.5$ eV) and consider the steady state of the system when level $\epsilon$ is moved in and out of the bias window. Calculations are performed on energy grid spanning the range from $-4$ to $4$ eV with step $10^{-4}$ eV. We compare the results of zero order simulation, where rate (\[gamma\_el\]) and population (\[N\_w0\]) are obtained utilizing the zero order electron Green function in (\[Pi\]), with SCBA results, where the self-consistent procedure takes into account the mutual influence of electron and vibrational degrees of freedom in the system is taken into account. In the latter case convergence is assumed to be reached when difference in values of electron density matrix at subsequent steps is less than $10^{-12}$.
![\[fig2\] Steady-state simulation of the single level model (Fig. \[fig1\]a) within the SCBA (solid line, blue) and Born approximation (dashed line, red) schemes at $V_{sd}=3$ V. Shown are (a) phonon dissipation rate due to coupling to electrons, Eq. (\[gamma\_el\]), and (b) nonequilibrium phonon population, Eq. (\[N\_w0\]), vs. position of the level $\epsilon$. Insets are logarithmic scale plots of the main panels. ](fig2){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig2\]a shows phonon dissipation rates as function of gate voltage. As expected, the rate is maximum when level $\epsilon$ crosses the lead chemical potential where the possibility of effective creation of electron-hole pairs exceeds that of destruction which leads to strong dissipation of vibrational energy; the rate is much lower away from chemical potentials where both creation and destruction of electron-hole pairs have similar probability. Qualitatively both schemes give the same behavior. However, self-consistency of the SCBA allows to account for multiple phonon scatterings, which results in significantly higher dissipation rate for the vibration within the bias window. As a result, the standard kinetic scheme significantly overestimates heating of molecular vibration by electron flux, as is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig2\]b. This results in underestimation of stability of molecular junction when analyzed within kinetic scheme.
Discrepancy between SCBA and standard kinetic scheme is even more pronounced for non-adiabatic electron-phonon coupling (model b). This is the two-level model (Fig. \[fig1\]b) used in Refs. [@BrandbygePRL11; @SegalPCCP12; @FortiVazquezJPCL18] to demonstrate bias induced vibrational instabilities. As above, we consider stable steady-state and its characteristics - rate (\[gamma\_el\]) and population (\[N\_w0\]). We note that phonon back action on the electron degrees of freedom, characterized by the self-energy (\[Sigma\]), is proportional to population $N_{\omega_0}$. That is, within the harmonic oscillator model, any electron pumping can be compensated by phonon back action when big enough $N_{\omega_0}$ is reached. Thus, one expects that a stable steady state will be always achievable, and no phonon runaway will be observed. Taking into account that molecular vibrations are not harmonic at high excitations, the reasonable question to ask is if $N_{\omega_0}$ compensating for electronic pumping is big enough to actually break molecular bond. We note that SCBA analysis of the model was performed in the literature previously [@RyndykCunibertiPRB06; @ParkMG_FCS_PRB11]. Our goal here is comparison between the SCBA and kinetic scheme predictions.
The electronic levels are chosen at equilibrium as $\epsilon_1=-0.15$ eV and $\epsilon_2=0.55$ eV. Following Ref. [@BrandbygePRL11] we assume that the two electronic levels are pinned to their respective baths, so that positions of the levels are shifted with bias together with corresponding chemical potentials. Electron escape rates to contacts are $\Gamma_L=0.3$ eV and $\Gamma_R=0.1$ eV. The other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig2\].
![\[fig3\] Steady-state simulation of the two-level model (Fig. \[fig1\]b). Shown is map of the phonon dissipation rate, Eq. (\[gamma\_el\]), vs. applied bias, $V_{sd}$, and electron hopping, $t$, for (a) zero order and (b) SCBA simulations. Panel (c) shows results of the two simulations at $t=0.05$ eV. Red dotted line presents kinetic scheme results, solid blue line - SCBA results. Inset shows average vibrational population $N_{\omega_0}$, Eq. (\[N\_w0\]), as function of $V_{sd}$. ](fig3){width="0.48\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig3\] compares zero order and SCBA results for the phonon dissipation rate $\gamma_{el}$, Eq. (\[gamma\_el\]). In agreement with previous considerations [@BrandbygePRL11; @SegalPCCP12; @FortiVazquezJPCL18], the zero-order calculation predicts instability for resonance condition, showing runaway heating of the vibration when the electron hopping matrix element $t$ is small (see low right corner of the dissipation rate map shown in Fig. \[fig3\]a). The corresponding SCBA results are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]b: no instability (negative dissipation rate) is observed in this case. To make the comparison easier, Fig. \[fig2\]c shows horizontal cuts of the two maps for $t=0.05$ eV. The inset in this panel shows the nonequilibrium population of the mode at this time. While the zero-order simulation predicts negative damping (and hence instability), SCBA result indicates finite heating of the mode with bias. Note that the population at $V_{sd}=1$ V is about $N_{\omega_0}=20$, which for $\omega_0=0.1$ eV gives total vibrational energy of $2$ eV ($190$ kJ/mol) – insufficient for breaking most molecular bonds.
The qualitative nature of this results, that is, the absence of true instability in the models considered, does not depend on the parameters used in the calculation. We note that phonon back action on the electron degrees of freedom, characterized by the self-energy (5), is proportional to population $N_{\omega_0}$. That is, within the harmonic oscillator model, any electron pumping can be compensated by phonon back action when big enough $N_{\omega_0}$ is reached. Thus, one expects that a stable steady state will be always achievable, and no phonon runaway will be observed. Depending on the actual molecular forcefield, the corresponding compensating for electronic pumping may be quite large [@schinabeck_hierarchical_2018] and, depending on the molecule, may be beyond the bond-breaking threshold of the real anharmonic molecule. Such bond-breaking should not however be deduced just from the prediction of negative vibrational dissipation rate obtained from the standard kinetic analysis. Note that negativity of vibrational dissipation rate in a steady-state situation is an indication of qualitative failure of the zero order treatment.
![\[fig4\] Steady-state simulation of the two-level model (Fig. \[fig1\]b). Shown are electron population distributions for levels (a) $\epsilon_1$ and (b) $\epsilon_2$. Kinetic scheme results (dashed line, red) are compared with the SCBA (solid line, blue) simulations. ](fig4){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig4\] shows the electronic energy distribution in levels (a) $\epsilon_1$ and (b) $\epsilon_2$ calculated with (solid line - SCBA) and without (dashed line - zero order) vibrational back action taken into account. In this calculation we have used $t=0.05$ eV and $V_{sd}=0.9$ V. These parameters correspond to the most unstable (most negative dissipation rate) prediction of the Born (zero order) calculation (Fig. \[fig3\]c). One sees that electron-vibration coupling promotes redistribution of electron population between levels $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$; the effect is significant even for $U\ll\Gamma_{L,R}$. We note in passing that effect of the coupling on electronic coherence (not shown) is even more drastic.
[*Conclusions.*]{} Standard rate theories that are very useful in the analysis of many chemical dynamics phenomena, usually rely on timescale separation between the system of interest and its environment. Failure of such separation in treatments of systems interacting with equilibrium environments is usually handled by redefining the boundaries between system and bath. Extra care is needed when the system is driven by a non-equilibrium environment, where the driving may move the system into regimes where timescale separation does not hold. We have discussed the implications of the common timescale separation assumption used in analyzing the time evolution vibrational energy in biased molecular junctions. Using such treatments outside their range of validity can lead to qualitatively wrong predictions. As an example, we have consider generic models of molecular junctions with electron-phonon interaction treated within the NEGF-SCBA level of theory. Standard timescale separation argument suggests that phonon back-action on electronic degrees of freedom can be disregarded. Such approximation, however, formally violates conservation laws and can fail both qualitatively and quantitatively when inadvertently carried into regimes where timescale separation does not hold. Not accounting for this back action leads to an overestimated heating of molecular vibrations in the standard single electronic level model of current carrying molecular junctions as compared with the renormalized (SCBA) treatment (Fig. \[fig1\]a). This discrepancy with the SCBA is even more pronounced for non-adiabatic electron-phonon coupling model (Fig. \[fig1\]b). Analysis of this model within the timescale separation assumption has indicated the existence of bias induced vibrational instability in molecular junctions, which was associated with appearance of negative vibrational dissipation rate. However, a self-consistent calculation, here carried at the NEGF-SCBA level, shows that stable steady-state is reached for any set of parameters (any electronic heating rate).
Depending on the molecular forcefield, the molecule-metal coupling and potential bias, the molecular energy at the steady state obtained in such a (harmonic model) calculation, which can be high [@schinabeck_hierarchical_2018], may or may not exceed the actual bond-breaking threshold of the real anahrmonic molecule. We note that sudden changes in electronic system (such as fast switch on of bias) can lead to transient heating spikes that, for a harmonic oscillator, will eventually relax to the new steady state but in real molecules can lead to bond breaking even if the steady-state population is below the breaking threshold. For slow switch-on of the bias, observation of vibrational instabilities in calculation done under the standard system-bath timescale separation assumption should be taken as indications that this assumption fails and that higher-level studies are needed for reaching conclusions about actual bond-breaking.
Rate theories using standard kinetic schemes are often a method of choice that has been repeatedly reliable and useful for modeling chemical dynamics. Extra caution should be exercised when employing such methods in nonequilibrium systems, since they usually disregard back action of the system onto its bath(s) which, as we showed, may lead to erroneous predictions. Development of advanced kinetic schemes for the latter systems is a goal of future research.
A.N. is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. CHE-1665291), the Israel Science Foundation, the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the University of Pennsylvania. M.G. is supported by the National Science Foundation under CHE-1565939 and by the Department of Energy under DE-SC0018201.
@ifundefined
[44]{}
Haug, H.; Jauho, A.-P. *Quantum [K]{}inetics in [T]{}ransport and [O]{}ptics of [S]{}emiconductors*; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2008 Stefanucci, G.; van Leeuwen, R. *Nonequilibrium Many-Body Theory of Quantum Systems. A Modern Introduction*; Cambridge University Press: New York; 2013 Leijnse, M.; Wegewijs, M. R. Kinetic Equations for Transport through Single-Molecule Transistors. *Phys. Rev. B* **2008**, *78*, 235424,; [Grifoni, Milena]{}, Transport across an Anderson Quantum Dot in the Intermediate Coupling Regime. *Eur. Phys. J. B* **2013**, *86*, 384 Chen, F.; Ochoa, M. A.; Galperin, M. Nonequilibrium Diagrammatic Technique for [H]{}ubbard [G]{}reen functions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2017**, *146*, 092301 Miwa, K.; Chen, F.; Galperin, M. Towards Noise Simulation in Interacting Nonequilibrium Systems Strongly Coupled to Baths. *Sci. Rep.* **2017**, *7*, 9735 Aoki, H.; Tsuji, N.; Eckstein, M.; Kollar, M.; Oka, T.; Werner, P. Nonequilibrium Dynamical Mean-Field Theory and Its Applications. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **2014**, *86*, 779–837 Rohringer, G.; Hafermann, H.; Toschi, A.; Katanin, A. A.; Antipov, A. E.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Lichtenstein, A. I.; Rubtsov, A. N.; Held, K. Diagrammatic Routes to Nonlocal Correlations Beyond Dynamical Mean Field Theory. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **2018**, *90*, 025003 Paaske, J.; Rosch, A.; Wölfle, P. Nonequilibrium Transport through a Kondo Dot in a Magnetic Field: Perturbation Theory. *Phys. Rev. B* **2004**, *69*, 155330 Anders, F. B. Steady-State Currents through Nanodevices: A Scattering-States Numerical Renormalization-Group Approach to Open Quantum Systems. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2008**, *101*, 066804 Kirino, S.; Fujii, T.; Zhao, J.; Ueda, K. Time-Dependent DMRG Study on Quantum Dot under a Finite Bias Voltage. *J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.* **2008**, *77*, 084704 Laakso, M. A.; Kennes, D. M.; Jakobs, S. G.; Meden, V. Functional Renormalization Group Study of the Anderson-Holstein Model. *New J. Phys.* **2014**, *16*, 023007 Cohen, G.; Gull, E.; Reichman, D. R.; Millis, A. J. Green’s Functions from Real-Time Bold-Line Monte Carlo Calculations: Spectral Properties of the Nonequilibrium Anderson Impurity Model. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2014**, *112*, 146802 Cohen, G.; Gull, E.; Reichman, D. R.; Millis, A. J. Taming the Dynamical Sign Problem in Real-Time Evolution of Quantum Many-Body Problems. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2015**, *115*, 266802 Ridley, M.; Singh, V. N.; Gull, E.; Cohen, G. Numerically Exact Full Counting Statistics of the Nonequilibrium Anderson Impurity Model. *Phys. Rev. B* **2018**, *97*, 115109 Migliore, A.; Nitzan, A. Nonlinear Charge Transport in Redox Molecular Junctions: A Marcus Perspective. *ACS Nano* **2011**, *5*, 6669–6685 Einax, M.; Dierl, M.; Nitzan, A. Heterojunction Organic Photovoltaic Cells as Molecular Heat Engines: A Simple Model for the Performance Analysis. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **2011**, *115*, 21396–21401 Migliore, A.; Nitzan, A. Irreversibility and Hysteresis in Redox Molecular Conduction Junctions. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2013**, *135*, 9420–9432 Einax, M.; Nitzan, A. Network Analysis of Photovoltaic Energy Conversion. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **2014**, *118*, 27226–27234 Craven, G. T.; Nitzan, A. Electron Transfer across a Thermal Gradient. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.* **2016**, *113*, 9421–9429 Craven, G. T.; Nitzan, A. Electron Transfer at Thermally Heterogeneous Molecule-Metal Interfaces. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2017**, *146*, 092305 Chen, R.; Craven, G. T.; Nitzan, A. Electron-Transfer-Induced and Phononic Heat Transport in Molecular Environments. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2017**, *147*, 124101 Craven, G. T.; Nitzan, A. Electrothermal Transistor Effect and Cyclic Electronic Currents in Multithermal Charge Transfer Networks. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2017**, *118*, 207201 Kramers, H. A. Brownian Motion in a Field of Force and the Diffusion Model of Chemical Reactions. *Physica* **1940**, *7*, 284–304 Agarwalla, B. K.; Jiang, J.-H.; Segal, D. Full Counting Statistics of Vibrationally Assisted Electronic Conduction: Transport and Fluctuations of Thermoelectric Efficiency. *Phys. Rev. B* **2015**, *92*, 245418 Strasberg, P.; Schaller, G.; Schmidt, T. L.; Esposito, M. Fermionic Reaction Coordinates and Their Application to an Autonomous Maxwell Demon in the Strong-Coupling Regime. *Phys. Rev. B* **2018**, *97*, 205405 Dou, W.; Subotnik, J. E. Universality of Electronic Friction. II. Equivalence of the Quantum-Classical Liouville Equation Approach with von Oppen’s Nonequilibrium Green’s Function Methods out of Equilibrium. *Phys. Rev. B* **2018**, *97*, 064303 Lü, J.-T.; Hedegård, P.; Brandbyge, M. Laserlike Vibrational Instability in Rectifying Molecular Conductors. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2011**, *107*, 046801 Simine, L.; Segal, D. Vibrational Cooling[,]{} Heating[,]{} and Instability in Molecular Conducting Junctions: Full Counting Statistics Analysis. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2012**, *14*, 13820–13834 Gelbwaser-Klimovsky, D.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Thoss, M.; Peskin, U. High Voltage Assisted Mechanical Stabilization of Single-Molecule Junctions. *Nano Lett.* **2018**, *Just Accepted Manuscript* Foti, G.; V[' a]{}zquez, H. Origin of Vibrational Instabilities in Molecular Wires with Separated Electronic States. *J. Phys. Chem. Lett.* **2018**, *9*, 2791–2796 Baym, G.; Kadanoff, L. P. Conservation Laws and Correlation Functions. *Phys. Rev.* **1961**, *124*, 287–299 Baym, G. Self-Consistent Approximations in Many-Body Systems. *Phys. Rev.* **1962**, *127*, 1391–1401 Luttinger, J. M.; Ward, J. C. Ground-State Energy of a Many-Fermion System. II. *Phys. Rev.* **1960**, *118*, 1417–1427 Park, T.-H.; Galperin, M. Self-Consistent Full Counting Statistics of Inelastic Transport. *Phys. Rev. B* **2011**, *84*, 205450 Gao, Y.; Galperin, M. Optical Spectroscopy of Molecular Junctions: Nonequilibrium Green’s Functions Perspective. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2016**, *144*, 174113 Mahan, G. D. *Many-Particle Physics*; Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers: New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow; 1990 Galperin, M.; Nitzan, A.; Ratner, M. A. Heat Conduction in Molecular Transport Junctions. *Phys. Rev. B* **2007**, *75*, 155312 Datta, S. *Electronic Transport in Mescoscopic Systems*; Cambridge University Press: Cambrigde, U.K.; 1995 Fransson, J.; Galperin, M. Spin Seebeck Coefficient of a Molecular Spin Pump. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2011**, *13*, 14350–14357 Kadanoff, L. P.; Baym, G. *Quantum Statistical Mechanics*; Frontiers in Physics; W. A. Benjamin, Inc.: New York; 1962 Ryndyk, D. A.; Hartung, M.; Cuniberti, G. Nonequilibrium Molecular Vibrons: An Approach Based on the Nonequilibrium Green Function Technique and the Self-Consistent Born Approximation. *Phys. Rev. B* **2006**, *73*, 045420 Schinabeck, C.; H[" a]{}rtle, R.; Thoss, M. Hierarchical Quantum Master Equation Approach to Electronic-Vibrational Coupling in Nonequilibrium Transport Through Nanosystems: [Reservoir]{} Formulation and Application to Vibrational Instabilities. *Phys. Rev. B* **2018**, *97*
[^1]: Note that within SCBA, the electron self-energy contains also the Hartree term, which comes from an additional contribution to the Luttinger-Ward functional and is responsible for shift of electronic levels due to the interaction. For relatively weak electron-vibration coupling the shift is small and can be disregarded.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By using the point canonical transformation approach in a manner distinct from previous ones, we generate some new exactly solvable or quasi-exactly solvable potentials for the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation with a position-dependent effective mass. In the latter case, SUSYQM techniques provide us with some additional new potentials.'
author:
- |
B. Bagchi $^a$, P. Gorain $^a$, C. Quesne $^{b,}$[^1] , R. Roychoudhury $^c$\
[*$^a$ Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Calcutta,*]{}\
[*92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700009, India*]{}\
[*$^b$ Physique Nucléaire Théorique et Physique Mathématique, Université Libre de Bruxelles,*]{}\
[*Campus de la Plaine CP229, Boulevard du Triomphe, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium*]{}\
[*$^c$ Physics and Applied Mathematics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700035, India*]{}\
date:
title: ' New approach to (quasi)-exactly solvable Schrödinger equations with a position-dependent effective mass'
---
plus 1pt minus 1pt
[*PACS*]{}: 02.30.Gp, 03.65.Ge
[*Keywords*]{}: Schrödinger equation; Position-dependent mass; Point canonical transformation; Supersymmetry
Introduction
============
In recent years, quantum mechanical systems with a position-dependent effective mass (PDEM) have attracted a lot of attention due to their relevance in describing the physics of many microstructures of current interest, such as compositionally graded crystals [@geller], quantum dots [@serra], ${}^3$He clusters [@barranco], quantum liquids [@arias], metal clusters [@puente], etc.
As in the constant-mass case, exact solutions play an important role because they may provide both a conceptual understanding of some physical phenomena and a testing ground for some approximation schemes. Many recent developments have been devoted to constructing exactly solvable (ES), quasi-exactly solvable (QES) or conditionally-exactly solvable potentials for the PDEM Schrödinger equation [@dekar]–[@bagchi05] by using point canonical transformations (PCT), Lie algebraic techniques or supersymmetric quantum mechanical (SUSYQM) methods.
In this Letter, we will show that new ES or QES potentials in a PDEM background may be generated by using the PCT approach in a manner distinct from previous ones. We will then combine such results with SUSYQM methods to produce some additional QES potentials.
PCT approach in a PDEM context
==============================
As is well known (see, e.g., [@bagchi04a]), the general Hermitian PDEM Hamiltonian, initially proposed by von Roos [@vonroos] in terms of three ambiguity parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ such that $\alpha + \beta + \gamma = -1$, gives rise to the (time-independent) Schrödinger equation $$H \psi(x) \equiv \left[- \frac{d}{dx} \frac{1}{M(x)} \frac{d}{dx} + V_{\rm eff}(x)
\right] \psi(x) = E \psi(x), \label{eq:H}$$ where the effective potential $$V_{\rm eff}(x) = V(x) + \frac{1}{2} (\beta + 1) \frac{M''}{M^2} - [\alpha (\alpha +
\beta + 1) + \beta + 1] \frac{M^{\prime 2}}{M^3} \label{eq:Veff}$$ depends on some mass terms. Here a prime denotes derivative with respect to $x$, $M(x)$ is the dimensionless form of the mass function $m(x) = m_0 M(x)$ and we have set $\hbar = 2m_0 = 1$.
Let us look for solutions of Eq. (\[eq:H\]) of the form $$\psi(x) = f(x) F(g(x)), \label{eq:psi}$$ where $f(x)$, $g(x)$ are two so far undetermined functions and $F(g)$ satisfies a second-order differential equation $$\ddot{F} + Q(g) \dot{F} + R(g) F = 0, \label{eq:eq-F}$$ where a dot denotes derivative with respect to $g$. Since in this Letter we shall be interested in bound-state wavefunctions, we shall actually restrict ourselves to polynomial solutions of Eq. (\[eq:eq-F\]).
On inserting Eq. (\[eq:psi\]) in Eq. (\[eq:H\]) and comparing the result with Eq. (\[eq:eq-F\]), we arrive at two expressions for $Q(g(x))$ and $R(g(x))$ in terms of $E - V_{\rm eff}(x)$ and of $M(x)$, $f(x)$, $g(x)$ and their derivatives. The former allows us to calculate $f(x)$, which is given by $$f(x) \propto \left(\frac{M}{g'}\right)^{1/2} \exp\left(\frac{1}{2} \int^{g(x)} Q(u)\,
du\right), \label{eq:f}$$ while the latter leads to the equation $$E - V_{\rm eff}(x) = \frac{g'''}{2Mg'} - \frac{3}{4M} \left(\frac{g''}{g'}\right)^2 +
\frac{g^{\prime2}}{M} \left(R - \frac{1}{2} \dot{Q} - \frac{1}{4} Q^2\right) -
\frac{M''}{2M^2} + \frac{3 M^{\prime2}}{4 M^3}. \label{eq:PCT}$$ It is clear that we need to find some functions $M(x)$, $g(x)$ ensuring the presence of a constant term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:PCT\]) to compensate $E$ on its left-hand side and giving rise to an effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(x)$ with well-behaved wavefunctions.
In the constant-mass case, i.e., for $M(x) = 1$, this procedure has been thoroughly investigated [@bhatta; @levai]. A similar study in the PDEM context looks more involved for two reasons: (i) there are now two unknown functions instead of only one and (ii) the usual square-integrability condition for bound-state wavefunctions has to be completed by the additional restriction $|\psi(x)|^2/\sqrt{M(x)} \to 0$ at the end points of the definition interval of $V(x)$ to ensure the Hermiticity of $H$ in the Hilbert space spanned by its eigenfunctions [@bagchi05].
In most applications of PCT that have been carried out so far in the PDEM context, the choice $M = \lambda g^{\prime2}$ or $g(x) = (1/\lambda) \int^x \sqrt{M(u)}\, du +
\nu$ (where $\lambda$, $\nu$ are some constants) has been made (see, e.g., [@alhaidari; @gonul; @bagchi04a]). In the next two sections, we will explore the new possibilities offered by two other options, namely $M = \lambda g'$ and $M =
\lambda/g'$ or, equivalently, $g(x) = (1/\lambda) \int^x M(u)\, du + \nu$ and $g(x) =
(1/\lambda) \int^x [M(u)]^{-1}\, du + \nu$.
Generation of ES potentials in the $M = \lambda g'$ case
========================================================
Substituting $M = \lambda g'$ into Eq. (\[eq:PCT\]) leads to $$E - V_{\rm eff}(x) = \frac{1}{\lambda} g' \left(R - \frac{1}{2} \dot{Q} - \frac{1}{4}
Q^2\right). \label{eq:PCT-ES}$$ Some simple and interesting results can be derived from this relation by assuming that $F(g)$ is either a Jacobi or a generalized Laguerre polynomial [@abramowitz].
For $F_n(g) \propto P^{(a,b)}_n(g)$, $n=0$, 1, 2, …, $a, b > -1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R - \frac{1}{2} \dot{Q} - \frac{1}{4} Q^2 & = & \frac{n(n+a+b+1)}{1-g^2} + \frac{1}
{(1-g^2)^2} \left[\frac{1}{2} (a+b+2) - \frac{1}{4} (b-a)^2\right] \nonumber \\
&& \mbox{} + \frac{g}{(1-g^2)^2} \frac{1}{2} (b-a)(b+a) - \frac{g^2}{(1-g^2)^2}
\frac{1}{4} (a+b)(a+b+2). \label{eq:R-Jacobi} \end{aligned}$$ A constant term can therefore be generated on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:PCT-ES\]) by assuming $g'/[\lambda (1-g^2)] = C$, where $C$ must be restricted to positive values in order to get increasing energy eigenvalues for successive $n$ values. The solution of this first-order differential equation for $g(x)$ leading to a positive mass function reads $g(x) = \tanh qx$, where $q = \lambda C > 0$. Without loss of generality, we may set $C = q^2$ so that $\lambda = 1/q$. Hence we get $$g(x) = \tanh qx, \qquad M(x) = \sech^2 qx, \qquad - \infty < x < + \infty.
\label{eq:g-Jacobi}$$
Equations (\[eq:f\]), (\[eq:PCT-ES\]), (\[eq:R-Jacobi\]) and (\[eq:g-Jacobi\]) then yield $$\begin{aligned}
E_n & = & q^2 \left(n + \frac{a+b}{2}\right) \left(n + \frac{a+b+2}{2}\right) + V_0,
\label{eq:E-Jacobi} \\
V_{\rm eff}(x) & = & q^2 \left\{\left[\frac{1}{2} (a^2+b^2) - 1\right] \cosh^2 qx
+ \frac{1}{2} (a-b)(a+b) \sinh qx \cosh qx\right\} + V_0 \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{4} q^2 \left[(a^2-1) e^{2qx} + (b^2-1) e^{-2qx} + a^2 + b^2 - 2\right]
+ V_0, \\
\psi_n(x) & \propto & (1 - \tanh qx)^{(a+1)/2} (1 + \tanh qx)^{(b+1)/2} P^{(a,b)}_n
(\tanh qx), \label{eq:psi-Jacobi}\end{aligned}$$ where $n=0$, 1, 2, …, $V_0$ denotes some constant and we have to assume $a, b
> -1/2$ in order to satisfy the conditions on bound-state wavefunctions in a PDEM context (observe that the square-integrability condition alone does not impose any restriction on $a$, $b$!).
By proceeding similarly for $F_n(g) \propto L^{(a)}_n(g)$, $n=0$, 1, 2, …, $a >
-1$, from the relation [@abramowitz] $$R - \frac{1}{2} \dot{Q} - \frac{1}{4} Q^2 = \frac{2n+a+1}{2g} - \frac{(a+1)(a-1)}
{4g^2} - \frac{1}{4}$$ and the condition $g'/(\lambda g) = C > 0$, we obtain the results $$g(x) = e^{-qx}, \qquad M(x) = e^{-qx}, \qquad - \infty < x < + \infty,$$ where we have set $C = q^2$ (hence $\lambda = - 1/q$) and where without loss of generality we may assume $q > 0$. Furthermore $$\begin{aligned}
E_n & = & q^2 \left(n + \frac{a+1}{2}\right) + V_0, \\
V_{\rm eff}(x) & = & \frac{1}{4} q^2 \left[(a^2-1) e^{qx} + e^{-qx} \right] + V_0, \\
\psi_n(x) & \propto & \exp\left\{- \frac{1}{2} \left[(a+1)qx + e^{-qx}\right]\right\}
L^{(a)}_n\left(e^{-qx}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the PDEM background imposes an additional restriction $a > - 1/2$ on the wavefunctions again.
Turning now to the initial potential $V(x)$, we find from Eq. (\[eq:Veff\]) that $V(x) =
V_{\rm eff}(x) + q^2 [f(\alpha, \beta) \cosh^2 qx - g(\alpha, \beta)]$ and $V(x) =
V_{\rm eff}(x) + \frac{1}{4} q^2 f(\alpha, \beta) e^{qx}$, with $f(\alpha, \beta) \equiv
(2\alpha+1) (2\alpha+2\beta+2) - 2\alpha$, $g(\alpha, \beta) \equiv (2\alpha+1)^2 +
\beta (4\alpha+1)$, for the Jacobi and generalized Laguerre polynomials, respectively. Hence, in both cases, for the choice of ambiguity parameters made by BenDaniel and Duke ($\alpha=0$, $\beta=-1$) [@bendaniel], there is no distinction between $V(x)$ and $V_{\rm eff}(x)$. Furthermore, when the Jacobi polynomials reduce to Legendre ones, i.e., for $a=b=0$, and the ambiguity parameters are those selected by Zhu and Kroemer ($\alpha = - 1/2$, $\beta=0$) [@zhu], $V(x)$ becomes a constant potential $V_0$. Our results (\[eq:E-Jacobi\]) and (\[eq:psi-Jacobi\]) then describe the generation of an infinite number of bound states for a free-particle potential in a $\sech^2$-mass environment [@bagchi04a]. For nonvanishing $a$, $b$ values, Eqs. (\[eq:E-Jacobi\])–(\[eq:psi-Jacobi\]) may therefore be seen as a generalization of this interesting property.
Generation of QES potentials in the $M = \lambda/g'$ case
=========================================================
Whenever $M = \lambda/g'$, Eq. (\[eq:PCT\]) becomes $$E - V_{\rm eff}(x) = \frac{g'''}{\lambda} - \frac{g^{\prime\prime2}}{\lambda g'} +
\frac{g^{\prime3}}{\lambda} \left(R - \frac{1}{2} \dot{Q} - \frac{1}{4} Q^2\right).
\label{eq:PCT-QES}$$ In such a case, we shall take for $F(g)$ some polynomials of nonhypergeometric type satisfying the equation $$\ddot{F} + \frac{a (g^2 - \xi^2)}{g^3} \dot{F} + \frac{bg+c}{g^3} F = 0,
\label{eq:krylov}$$ where we assume $a$, $b$, $c$, $\xi$ real, $a \ne 0$, $b \ne 0$ and $\xi > 0$. As shown elsewhere [@krylov], this second-order differential equation has $k$th-degree polynomial solutions provided $b = -k (a+k-1)$ and there exist $k+1$ such solutions $F_n(g)$, $n=0$, 1, …, $k$, associated with $k+1$ distinct values $c_n$ of $c$, if $a$ is appropriately chosen.
Substituting $$R - \frac{1}{2} \dot{Q} - \frac{1}{4} Q^2 = - \frac{(2k+a-2)(2k+a)}{4g^2} + \frac{c_n}
{g^3} + \frac{a(a-3)\xi^2}{2g^4} - \frac{a^2\xi^4}{4g^6}$$ in Eq. (\[eq:PCT-QES\]), we find a constant term on the right-hand side of the transformed equation by choosing $g^{\prime3}/(\lambda g^3) = C$. Then with $C=q^2$ and $\lambda = q > 0$, we obtain $$g(x) = e^{qx}, \qquad M(x) = e^{-qx}, \qquad - \infty < x < + \infty. \label{eq:g-QES}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
E_n & = & q^2 c_n + V_0, \\
V_{\rm eff}(x) & = & q^2 \left[\frac{1}{4} (2k+a-2)(2k+a) e^{qx} - \frac{1}{2} a(a-3)
\xi^2 e^{-qx} + \frac{1}{4} a^2 \xi^4 e^{-3qx}\right] + V_0, \label{eq:Veff-QES} \\
\psi_n(x) & \propto & \exp\left[\frac{1}{2}(a-2)qx + \frac{1}{4} a \xi^2 e^{-2qx}
\right] F_n\left(e^{qx}\right), \label{eq:psi-QES}\end{aligned}$$ where $n=0$, 1, …, $k$.
The functions (\[eq:psi-QES\]) turn out to be physically acceptable as bound-state wavefunctions provided $a$ is restricted to the range $a < - 2k + \frac{3}{2}$. We conclude that for such values and for the PDEM given in (\[eq:g-QES\]), the effective potentials (\[eq:Veff-QES\]) corresponding to $k=1$, 2, 3, …, are QES with $k+1$ known eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. For $k=1$ and $k=2$, for instance, we find $$c_{\stackrel{0}{1}} = \pm a \xi, \qquad F_{\stackrel{0}{1}}(g) \propto g \pm \xi,
\qquad {\rm if\ } a < - \frac{1}{2},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\stackrel{0}{2}} & = & \mp \Delta \xi, \qquad c_1 = 0, \qquad
F_{\stackrel{0}{2}}(g) \propto g^2 \mp \frac{\Delta}{a+2} \xi g + \frac{a}{a+2}
\xi^2, \nonumber \\
F_1(g) & \propto & g^2 - \frac{a}{a+1} \xi^2, \qquad \Delta \equiv \sqrt{2a(2a+3)},
\qquad {\rm if\ } a < - \frac{5}{2}, \end{aligned}$$ respectively. Observe on these two examples that for the values taken by $a$, $\xi$ and $g(x)$, $\psi_n(x)$ has $n$ zeros on the real line, so that $\psi_0(x)$ is the ground-state wavefunction, while $\psi_n(x)$, $n=1$, 2, …, $k$, correspond to the $n$th excited states.
The results presented here could be easily extended to more general polynomials. For instance, if instead of $g^2 - \xi^2$ in (\[eq:krylov\]), we had considered $(g - g_3)(g -
g_4)$ with $g_3$ and $g_4$ real but $g_4 \ne - g_3$, we would have obtained effective potentials containing an additional term proportional to $e^{-2qx}$.
Finally, it should be noticed that the PDEM being the same as that chosen for generalized Laguerre polynomials in Sec. 3, the relation between $V(x)$ and $V_{\rm
eff}(x)$ is also similar.
SUSYQM approach
===============
Let us consider the intertwining relationship $\eta H = H_1 \eta$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (\[eq:H\]), $H_1$ has the same kinetic energy term but an associated effective potential $V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x)$, and $\eta$ is a first-order intertwining operator $\eta = A(x) \frac{d}{dx} + B(x)$. As shown in [@bagchi04a], such a relationship leads to the restrictions $A(x) = M^{-1/2}$ and $$V_{\rm eff}(x) = \epsilon + B^2 - \left(\frac{B}{\sqrt{M}}\right)', \qquad
V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x) = V_{\rm eff} + \frac{2B'}{\sqrt{M}} + \frac{M''}{2M^2} -
\frac{3M^{\prime2}}{4M^3}, \label{eq:partner-V}$$ with $\epsilon$ denoting some arbitrary constant.
A solution for $B(x)$, which at the same time ensures that $\eta$ annihilates the ground-state wavefunction of $H$, is provided by $B(x) = - \psi'_0/(\sqrt{M} \psi_0)$ together with $\epsilon = E_0$. In this (PDEM-extended) unbroken SUSYQM framework [@cooper], the eigenvalues of $H_1$ are $E_{1,n} = E_{n+1}$, $n=0$, 1, 2, …, with the corresponding wavefunctions given by $\psi_{1,n} \propto \eta
\psi_{n+1}$.
For the wavefunctions considered in Eq. (\[eq:psi\]), $\psi'_0/\psi_0$ in general contains two terms: $\psi'_0/\psi_0 = f'/f + g' \dot{F}_0/F_0$. In the ES potential case reviewed in Sec. 3, however, the second term vanishes since $F_0(g) = 1$, so that we obtain simple results for $B(x)$, namely $$B(x) = \frac{1}{2}q [(a-b) \cosh qx + (a+b+2) \sinh qx]$$ and $$B(x) = \frac{1}{2}q [(a+1) e^{qx/2} - e^{-qx/2}]$$ for the Jacobi and generalized Laguerre polynomials, respectively. Substituting such functions in (\[eq:partner-V\]), we arrive at SUSY partners $V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x)$, which have the same shape as $V_{\rm eff}(x)$ and differ only in the parameters ($a_1 =
a+1$, $b_1 = b+1$, $V_{0,1} = V_0$ and $a_1 = a+1$, $V_{0,1} = V_0 + \frac{1}{2}
q^2$, respectively). We conclude that the potentials $V_{\rm eff}(x)$ are shape invariant.
The QES potential case reviewed in Sec. 4 looks more interesting because $F_0(g)$ being now a $k$th-degree polynomial in $g$, the second term in $\psi'_0/\psi_0$ does not vanish anymore. As a consequence, the functions $B(x)$ and $V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x)$ become $k$-dependent and given by $$\begin{aligned}
B(x) & = & q \left[- \frac{1}{2}(a-2) e^{qx/2} + \frac{1}{2}a \xi^2 e^{-3qx/2} -
e^{3qx/2} \frac{\dot{F}_0}{F_0}\right], \\
V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x) & = & V_{\rm eff} - q^2 \left[\frac{1}{2} \left(a - \frac{3}{2}
\right) e^{qx} + \frac{3}{2}a\xi^2 e^{-qx} + 3 e^{2qx} \frac{\dot{F}_0}{F_0} + 2
e^{3qx} \left(\frac{\ddot{F}_0}{F_0} - \frac{\dot{F}_0^2}{F_0^2}\right)\right]. \end{aligned}$$ The SUSY partners $V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x)$ therefore contain some terms which are rational functions in $e^{qx}$. For $k=1$ and $k=2$, for instance, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x) & = & q^2 \Biggl[\frac{1}{4}(a-1)(a+1) e^{qx} - \frac{1}{2}a^2
\xi^2 e^{-qx} + \frac{1}{4} a^2 \xi^4 e^{-3qx} \nonumber \\
&& \mbox{} + \frac{3\xi^2}{e^{qx}+\xi} - \frac{2\xi^3}{(e^{qx}+\xi)^2} \Biggl] +
V_0 - q^2 \xi \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
V_{1,{\rm eff}}(x) & = & q^2 \Biggl[\frac{1}{4}(a+1)(a+3) e^{qx} - \frac{1}{2}a^2
\xi^2 e^{-qx} + \frac{1}{4} a^2 \xi^4 e^{-3qx} \nonumber \\
&& \mbox{} + \frac{a\xi^2}{(a+2)^3} Z_1(x) - \frac{4a^2\xi^4}{(a+2)^4} Z_2(x)
\Biggl] + V_0 + q^2 \frac{\Delta\xi}{a+2}, \nonumber \\
Z_1(x) & \equiv & \frac{6(a+2)(a+1)e^{qx} - (a+6)\Delta\xi}{e^{2qx} - \frac{\Delta}
{a+2}\xi e^{qx} + \frac{a}{a+2}\xi^2}, \nonumber \\
Z_2(x) & \equiv & \frac{(3a+4)e^{qx} - \Delta\xi}{\left(e^{2qx} - \frac{\Delta}
{a+2}\xi e^{qx} + \frac{a}{a+2}\xi^2\right)^2}, \end{aligned}$$ respectively. Such effective potentials provide us with some new examples of QES potentials in a PDEM environment with $k$ known eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.
Conclusion
==========
In this Letter, we have investigated the problem of the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation in a PDEM background from several viewpoints. By using first the PCT approach and assuming a relation between the new variable $g = g(x)$ and the mass $M(x)$ that differs from the usual one, we have constructed some new ES or QES potentials. The former are associated with either Jacobi or generalized Laguerre polynomials, while the latter correspond to some $k$th-degree polynomials of nonhypergeometric type.
We have then considered an equivalent intertwining-operator approach and shown that while our ES potentials are shape invariant, the SUSY partners of our QES potentials are new. In the latter case, iterating the procedure would lead us to a hierarchy of SUSY partners with an increasingly complicated form.
The method described here could be used to generate other classes of masses and potentials providing exact solutions of the PDEM Schrödinger equation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
PG thanks the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi for the award of a fellowship. CQ is a Research Director of the National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS), Belgium.
[99]{}
M.R. Geller, W. Kohn, Phy. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3103.
Ll. Serra, E. Lipparini, Europhys. Lett. 40 (1997) 667.
M. Barranco, M. Pi, S.M. Gatica, E.S. Hernández, J. Navarro, Phys. Rev. B 56 (1997) 8997.
F. Arias de Saavedra, J. Boronat, A. Polls, A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev.B 50 (1994) 4248.
A. Puente, Ll. Serra, M. Casas, Z. Phys. D 31 (1994) 283.
L. Dekar, L. Chetouani, T.F. Hammann, J. Math. Phys. 39 (1998) 2551.
V. Milanović, Z. Ikonić, J. Phys. A 32 (1999) 7001.
A.R. Plastino, A. Rigo, M. Casas, F. Garcias, A. Plastino, Phys.Rev. A 60 (1998) 4318.
A. de Souza Dutra, C.A.S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. A 275 (2000) 25.
B. Roy, P. Roy, J. Phys. A 35 (2002) 3961.
R. Koç, M. Koca, E. Körcük, J. Phys. A 35 (2002) L527;\
R. Koç, M. Koca, J. Phys. A 36 (2003) 8105.
A.D. Alhaidari, Phys. Rev. A 66 (2002) 042116.
B. Gönül, O. Özer, B. Gönül, F. Üzgün, Mod. Phys.Lett. A 17 (2002) 2453.
B. Bagchi, P. Gorain, C. Quesne, R. Roychoudhury, Mod. Phys.Lett. A 19 (2004) 2765.
B. Bagchi, P. Gorain, C. Quesne, R. Roychoudhury, Czech.J. Phys. 54 (2004) 1019.
C. Quesne, V.M. Tkachuk, J. Phys. A 37 (2004) 4267.
B. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, C. Quesne, V.M. Tkachuk, J. Phys. A 38 (2005) 2929.
O. von Roos, Phys. Rev. B 27 (1983) 7547.
A. Bhattacharjie, E.C.G. Sudarshan, Nuovo Cimento 25 (1962) 864;\
G.A. Natanzon, Theor. Math. Phys. 38 (1979) 146.
G. Lévai, J. Phys. A 22 (1989) 689;\
G. Lévai, J. Phys. A 24 (1991) 131;\
R. Roychoudhury, P. Roy, M. Znojil, G. Lévai, J. Math. Phys. 42 (2001) 1996;\
B. Bagchi and A. Ganguly, J. Phys. A 36 (2003) L161.
M. Abramowitz, I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover, New York, 1965.
D.J. BenDaniel, C.B. Duke, Phys. Rev. B 152 (1966) 683.
Q.-G. Zhu, H. Kroemer, Phys. Rev. B 27 (1983) 3519.
G. Krylov, M. Robnik, J. Phys. A 34 (2001) 5403.
F. Cooper, A. Khare, U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. 251 (1995) 267.
[^1]: Corresponding author. [*E-mail addresses*]{}: [email protected] (B. Bagchi), [email protected] (P. Gorain), [email protected] (C. Quesne), [email protected] (R.Roychoudhury).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'II. Institute of Theoretical Physics, Pfaffenwaldring 57/III, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany'
- 'Science+Computing, Hagellocher Weg 71, 72070 Tübingen, Germany'
- 'The Center of Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems, 223 James P. Brawley Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30314, USA'
author:
- Dirk Helbing
- Joachim Keltsch
- Péter Molnár
title: Modelling the Evolution of Human Trail Systems
---
Previous studies have shown that various observed self-organization phenomena in pedestrian crowds can be simulated very realistically. This includes the emergence of lanes of uniform walking direction and oscillatory changes of the passing direction at bottlenecks [@Hel2; @Hel1]. Another interesting collective effect of pedestrian motion, which we have investigated very recently, is the formation of trail systems in green areas. In many cases, the pedestrians’ desire to take the shortest way and the specific properties of the terrain are insufficient for an explanation of the trail characteristics. It is essential to include the effect of human orientation. To simulate the typical features of trail systems, we have extended the afore mentioned model of pedestrian motion to an active walker model by introducing equations for environmental changes and their impact on the chosen walking direction.
First, we represent the ground structure at place $\vec{r}$ and time $t$ by a function $G(\vec{r},t)$ which reflects the comfort of walking. Trails are characterized by particularly large values of $G$. On the one hand, at their positions $\vec{r} = \vec{r}_\alpha(t)$, all pedestrians $\alpha$ leave footprints on the ground (e.g. by trampling down some vegetation). Their intensity is assumed to be $I(\vec{r}) [1 - G(\vec{r},t)/
G_{\rm max}(\vec{r})]$, since the clarity of a trail is limited to a maximum value $G_{\rm max}(\vec{r})$. This causes a saturation effect $[1 - G(\vec{r},t)/
G_{\rm max}(\vec{r})]$ of the ground’s alteration by new footprints. On the other hand, the ground structure changes due to the vegetation’s regeneration. This will lead to a restoration of the natural ground conditions $G_0(\vec{r})$ with a certain weathering rate $1/T(\vec{r})$ which is related to the durability $T(\vec{r})$ of trails. Thus, the equation of environmental changes reads $$\frac{dG(\vec{r},t)}{dt} = \frac{1}{T(\vec{r})}
[ G_0(\vec{r}) - G(\vec{r},t)]
+ I(\vec{r}) \left[ 1 - \frac{G(\vec{r},t)}
{G_{\rm max}(\vec{r})} \right] \sum_\alpha
\, \delta (\vec{r} - \vec{r}_\alpha(t)) \, ,
\label{ground}$$ where $\delta(\vec{r} - \vec{r}_\alpha)$ denotes Dirac’s delta function (which yields only a contribution for $\vec{r} = \vec{r}_\alpha$).
The attractiveness of a trail segment at place $\vec{r}$ from the perspective of place $\vec{r}_\alpha$ decreases with its distance $\|\vec{r} - \vec{r}_\alpha(t)\|$ and depends on the visibility $\sigma(\vec{r}_\alpha)$. Considering this by a factor $\exp(-\|\vec{r} - \vec{r}_\alpha\|/\sigma(\vec{r}_\alpha))$ and taking the spatial average by integration of the weighted ground structure over the green area, we obtain $$V_{\rm tr}(\vec{r}_\alpha,t) = \int d^2 r\, \mbox{e}^{-\|\vec{r} -
\vec{r}_\alpha\|/\sigma(\vec{r}_\alpha)} G(\vec{r},t) \, .
\label{potential}$$ The trail potential $V_{\rm tr}(\vec{r}_\alpha,t)$ reflects the attractiveness of walking at place $\vec{r}_\alpha$. It describes indirect long-range interactions via environmental changes, which are essential for the characteristics of the evolving patterns [@Jacob].
On a plain, homogeneous ground, the walking direction $\vec{e}_\alpha$ of pedestrian $\alpha$ is determined by the direction of the next destination $\vec{d}_\alpha$, i.e. $\vec{e}_\alpha(\vec{r}_\alpha) =
(\vec{d}_\alpha - \vec{r}_\alpha ) / \| \vec{d}_\alpha - \vec{r}_\alpha \|$. Without a destination, a pedestrian is expected to move into the direction of the largest increase of ground attraction, which is given by the (normalized) gradient $\vec{\nabla}_{\!\vec{r}_\alpha} V_{\rm tr}(\vec{r}_\alpha,t)$ of the trail potential. However, since the choice of the walking direction $\vec{e}_\alpha$ is influenced by the destination and existing trails at the same time, the orientation relation $$\vec{e}_\alpha(\vec{r}_\alpha,t) = \frac{\vec{d}_\alpha - \vec{r}_\alpha
+ \vec{\nabla}_{\!\vec{r}_\alpha} V_{\rm tr}(\vec{r}_\alpha,t)}
{ \| \vec{d}_\alpha - \vec{r}_\alpha
+ \vec{\nabla}_{\!\vec{r}_\alpha} V_{\rm tr}(\vec{r}_\alpha,t) \| }
\label{orient}$$ was taken as the arithmetic average of both effects. Considering cases of rare interactions, the approximate equation of motion of a pedestrian $\alpha$ with desired velocity $v_\alpha^0$ is $$\frac{d\vec{r}_\alpha}{dt} = v_\alpha^0 \vec{e}_\alpha(\vec{r}_\alpha,t) \, .
\label{motion}$$
A comparison of simulation results with photographs shows that the above described model is in good agreement with empirical obvervations. In particular, the evolution of the unexpected ‘island’ in the middle of the trail system in Figure \[trail\_vaih\] can be correctly described (Figure \[wegtyp\]). The goodness of fit of the model is quite surprising, since it contains only two independent parameters $\kappa = I T/\sigma^2$ and $\lambda = V^0 T/\sigma$, where $V^0$ denotes the average of the desired velocities $v_\alpha^0$. This can be shown by scaling the model to dimensionless equations. The parameter $\lambda$ was kept constant.
Our simulations base on a discretization of the considered area in small quadratic elements of equal size, which converts the integral (\[potential\]) into a sum. Temporal and spatial derivatives are approximated by difference quotients. The presented examples begin with plain, homogeneous ground. All pedestrians have their own destinations and entry points, from which they start at a randomly chosen point in time. In Figure \[wegtyp\] (Figure \[wegsys\]) pedestrians move between all possible pairs of three (four) fixed places. While in Figure \[tramp\] the entry points and destinations are distributed over the small ends of the ground.
At the beginning, pedestrians take the direct ways to their respective destinations. However, after some time they begin to use already existing trails, since this is more comfortable than to clear new ways. By this, a kind of selection process [@Eig; @Ebel; @Schw] between trails sets in: Frequently used trails are more attractive than others. For this reason they are chosen very often, and the resulting reinforcement makes them even more attractive. However, the weathering effect destroys rarely used trails and limits the maximum length of the way system which can be supported by a certain rate of trail usage. As a consequence, the trails begin to bundle, especially where different trails meet or intersect. This explains, why pedestrians with different destinations use and produce common parts of the trail system (Figures \[wegtyp\] and \[wegsys\]).
A direct way system (which provides the shortest connections, but covers a lot of space) only develops if all ways are almost equally comfortable. If the advantage $\kappa$ of using existing trails is large, the final trail system is a minimal way system (which is the shortest way system that connects all entry points and destinations). For realistic values of $\kappa$, the evolution of the trail system stops before this state is reached (Figure \[wegtyp\]). Thus, $\kappa$ is related to the average relative detour of the walkers. We conjecture that the resulting way system is the shortest one which is compatible with a certain accepted relative detour. In this sense, it yields an optimal compromise between convencience and shortness.
Therefore, we suggest to use the above model as a tool for urban planners and landscape gardeners, who have the dilemma to build most comfortable way systems at minimal construction costs. For planning purposes one needs to know the entry points and destinations within the considered area and the rates of usage of their connections. If necessary, these can be estimated by trip chaining models [@Timmer], which are also needed in cases of complex lines of access and sight. The effects of the physical terrain and already existing ways can be taken into account by the function $G_0(\vec{r})$. By varying the model parameter $\kappa$, the overall length of the resulting trail system can be influenced (Figures \[wegtyp\] and \[wegsys\]). In the same way, one can check its structural stability. Presently, we are evaluating typical parameter values of $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ by comparison of simulation results with real pedestrian flows which are reconstructed from video films by image processing. These values shall be used for designing convenient way systems in residential areas, parks, and recreation areas by means of computer simulations (Figure \[wegsys\]). We expect that such way systems will actually be accepted, since they take into account the route choice habits of pedestrians.
In summary, the presented active walker model is able to describe the self-organization and the typical structural properties of human trail systems. It will be interesting to relate our model to the work on space syntax [@Hillier]. Repulsive interactions between pedestrians can be taken into account by generalizing equation (\[motion\]) in accordance with the social force model of pedestrian motion [@Hel2; @Hel1]. However, these are only relevant in cases of frequent pedestrian interactions, in which they lead to broader trails.
Axelrod, R. & Dion, D. The further evolution of cooperation. [*Science*]{} [**242**]{}, 1385–1390 (1988). Clearwater, S. H., Huberman, B. A. & Hogg, T. Cooperative solution of constraint satisfaction problems, [*Science*]{} [**254**]{}, 1181–1183 (1991). Helbing, D. [*Quantitative Sociodynamics. Stochastic Methods and Social Interaction Processes*]{} (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995). Makse, H. A., Havlin, S. & Stanley, H. E. Modelling urban growth patterns, [*Nature*]{} [**377**]{}, 608–612 (1995). Herman, R., Lam, T. & Prigogine, I. Multilane vehicular traffic and adaptive human behavior, [*Science*]{} [**179**]{}, 918–920 (1973). Herman, R. & Prigogine, I. A two-fluid approach to town traffic, [*Science*]{} [**204**]{}, 148–151 (1979). Helbing, D. [*Verkehrsdynamik. Neue physikalische Modellierungskonzepte*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1997). Henderson, L. F. The statistics of crowd fluids, [*Nature*]{} [**229**]{}, 381–383 (1971). Henderson, L. F. Sexual differences in human crowd motion, [*Nature*]{} [**240**]{}, 353–355 (1972). Helbing, D. & Molnár, P. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics, [*Physical Review E*]{} [**51**]{}, 4282–4286 (1995). Haken, H. [*Advanced Synergetics*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2nd ed., 1987). Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. [*Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1977). Schenk, M. [*Untersuchungen zum Fu[ß]{}gängerverhalten*]{} (PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, 1995). Kayser, D. R., Aberle, L. K., Pochy, R. D. & Lam, L. Active walker models: tracks and landscapes, [*Physica A*]{} [**191**]{}, 17–24 (1992). Lam, L. Active walker models for complex systems, [*Chaos, Solitons & Fractals*]{} [**6**]{}, 267–285 (1995). Schweitzer, F. & Schimansky-Geier, L. Clustering of “active” walkers in a two-component system, [*Physica A*]{} [**206**]{}, 359–379 (1994). Schimansky-Geier, L., Mieth, M., Rosé, H. & Malchow, H. Structure formation by active Brownian particles, [*Physics Letters A*]{} [**207**]{}, 140–146 (1995). Ben-Jacob, E. [*et al.*]{} Generic modelling of cooperative growth patterns in bacterial colonies. [*Nature*]{} [**368**]{}, 46–49 (1994). Stevens, A. & Schweitzer, F. Aggregation induced by attractive media, in [*Mechanisms of Cell and Tissue Motion*]{}, ed. by Alt, W., Deutsch, A. & Dunn, G. (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996). Eigen, M. & Schuster, P. [*The Hypercycle*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1979). Feistel, R. and Ebeling, W. [*Evolution of Complex Systems. Self-Organization, Entropy and Development*]{} (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989). Timmermans, H., van der Hagen, X. & Borgers, A. Transportation systems, retail environments and pedestrian trip chaining behaviour: Modelling issues and applications, [*Transportation Research B*]{} [**26**]{}, 45–59 (1992). Hillier, B. [*Space is a Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture.*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Frank Schweitzer for many stimulating discussions. Wolfgang Weidlich and Martin Treiber were helpful in reviewing the manuscript.
(12.5,11) (0,0) (4.8,0)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**[On certain quaternary quadratic forms]{}**]{}
By Kazuhide Matsuda
Department of Engineering Science, Niihama National College of Technology,\
7-1 Yagumo-chou, Niihama, Ehime, Japan, 792-8580\
E-mail: [email protected]\
Fax: 0897-37-7809
[**Abstract**]{} In this paper, we determine all the positive integers $a, b$ and $c$ such that every nonnegative integer can be represented as $$f^{a,b}_c(x,y,z,w)=ax^2+by^2+c(z^2+zw+w^2) \,\, \textrm{with} \,\,x,y,z,w\in\mathbb{Z}.$$ Furthermore, we prove that $f^{a,b}_c$ can represent all the nonnegative integers if it represents $n=1,2,3,5,6,10.$ quaternary quadratic forms; theta functions; “The 290-theorem”. 14K25; 11E25
Introduction
============
Throughout this paper, set $\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$ and $\mathbb{N}_0=\{0,1,2,3,\ldots\}.$ $\mathbb{Z}$ denotes the set of rational integers. In addition, the triangular numbers are $t_x=x(x+1)/2,\,\, (x\in\mathbb{N}_0)$ and the squares are $y^2, \,\,(y\in\mathbb{Z}).$ Furthermore, $a,b$ and $c$ are fixed positive integers with $1\le a\le b.$
Lagrange proved that every $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ is a sum of four squares. Noted is that Jacobi [@Jacobi] showed this fact using the elliptic function theory.
Ramanujan [@Ramanujan] determined all the positive integers $a,b,c$ and $d$ such that every $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ is represented as $ax^2+by^2+cz^2+du^2$ with $x,y,z,u\in\mathbb{Z}.$ He proved that there exist fifty-four such quadruples $(a,b,c,d)$ with $1\le a \le b \le c \le d.$ A proof of this fact is contained in Dickson [@Dickson-2].
The aim of this paper is to determine all the positive integers $a, b$ and $c$ with $a\le b$ such that every $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be represented as $$f^{a,b}_c(x,y,z,w)=ax^2+by^2+c(z^2+zw+w^2)$$ with $x,y,z,w\in\mathbb{Z}.$ Furthermore, we prove that $f^{a,b}_c$ can represent all the nonnegative integers if it represents $n=1,2,3,5,6,10.$ Our main theorem is as follows:
\[thm:main\]
*For positive integers $a,b$ and $c$ with $a\le b,$ set $$f^{a,b}_c(x,y,z,w)=ax^2+by^2+c(z^2+zw+w^2), \,\,(x,y,z,w\in\mathbb{Z}).$$*
1. $f^{a,b}_c$ can represent any nonnegative integers if and only if $$(a,b,c)=
\begin{cases}
(1,b,1) &(b=1,2,3,4,5,6), \\
(2,b,1) &(b=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), \\
(1,b,2) &(b=1,2,3,4,5), \\
(1,2,3), & \\
(1,2,4). &
\end{cases}$$
2. If $f^{a,b}_c$ represents $n=1,2,3,5,6,10,$ then it can represent all the nonnegative integers.
Remarks {#remarks .unnumbered}
-------
Theorem \[thm:main\] (2) is the restriction of “The 290-theorem” to the forms $ax^2+by^2+c(z^2+zw+w^2).$ Bhargava and Hanke [@Bhargava-Hanke] proved “The 290-theorem”.
(“The 290-theorem”) \[thm:290\] [*If a positive-definite quadratic form with integer coefficients represents the 29 integers $$\begin{aligned}
&1,2,3,5,6,7,10,13,14,15,17,19,21,22,23,26, \\
&29,30,31,34,35,37,42,58,93,110,145,203,290,\end{aligned}$$ then it represents all positive integers.* ]{}
For the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], following Ramanujan, we introduce $$\varphi(q)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} q^{n^2}, \,\,
\psi (q) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} q^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}, \,\,
a(q)=\sum_{m,n\in\mathbb{Z}} q^{m^2+mn+n^2}, \,\,(q\in\mathbb{C}, \,\,|q|<1),$$ and use the following identities: $$\begin{aligned}
&a(q)=a(q^4)+6q\psi (q^2)\psi (q^6). \label{eqn:tri(1,3)} \\
&\varphi(q)\varphi(q^3)=a(q^4)+2q\psi (q^2)\psi (q^6). \label{eqn:tri(1,3)-(2)}\end{aligned}$$ For the proof of these formulas, see Berndt [@Berndt pp. 232] and Hirschhorn et al. [@Hirschhorn-Garvan-Borwein].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We are grateful to Professor Williams for informing us the “The 290-theorem” and, for his useful suggestions.
Notations and preliminaries
===========================
For the fixed positive integers $a,c$ and each $n\in\mathbb{N}_0,$ we define $$f^a_c(x,y,z)=ax^2+c(y^2+yz+z^2),$$ and $$A^a_c(n)=\sharp
\left\{
(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{Z}^3 \, | \, n=f^a_c(x,y,z)
\right\}.$$ Moreover, for the fixed positive integers $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ and each $n\in\mathbb{N}_0,$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\alpha,\beta}(n)=&\sharp
\left\{
(x,y)\in\mathbb{Z}^2 \, | \,n=\alpha x^2+\beta y^2
\right\}, \\
t_{\alpha,\beta}(n)=&\sharp
\left\{
(x,y)\in\mathbb{N}_0^2 \, | \,n=\alpha t_x+\beta t_y
\right\}, \\
r_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}(n)=&\sharp
\left\{
(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{Z}^3 \, | \,n=\alpha x^2+\beta y^2+\gamma z^2
\right\}, \\
m_{\alpha\text{-}\beta, \gamma}(n)
=&\sharp
\left\{
(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{N}_0^2 \, | \,n=\alpha x^2+\beta t_y+\gamma t_z
\right\}. \\\end{aligned}$$
The case where $c=1$
====================
\[lem:c=1\] Suppose that $a\le b, \,\, c=1$ and $f^{a,b}_c(x,y,z,w), \,\,(x,y,z,w\in\mathbb{Z})$ represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0.$ Then, $a=1,2.$
The lemma follows from the fact that $n=2$ cannot be written as $z^2+zw+w^2$ with $z,w\in\mathbb{Z}.$
The case where $a=1$
--------------------
We use the following result of Dickson [@Dickson-2 pp. 112-113]:
\[lem-1,1,3\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+y^2+3z^2$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 9^k(9l+6), \,\, (k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
By Lemma \[lem-1,1,3\], we have the following proposition:
\[prop:a=1,c=1\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+(y^2+yz+z^2)$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 9^k(9l+6), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
Multiplying both sides of equations (\[eqn:tri(1,3)\]) and (\[eqn:tri(1,3)-(2)\]) by $\varphi(q),$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(q)a(q)=&\varphi(q)a(q^4)+6q\varphi(q)\psi (q^2)\psi (q^6), \\
\varphi(q)^2\varphi(q^3)=&\varphi(q)a(q^4)+2q\varphi(q)\psi (q^2)\psi (q^6). \end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_1(n) q^n=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_4(n) q^n +6q \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}2,6}(N)q^N, \\
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} r_{1,1,3}(n) q^n=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_4(n) q^n +2q \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}2,6}(N)q^N. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
n\neq 9^k(9l+6), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0) &\Longleftrightarrow r_{1,1,3}(n)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_4(n)>0 \,\textrm{or} \, m_{1\text{-}2,6}(n-1)>0, \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_1(n)>0,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the proposition.
By Proposition \[prop:a=1,c=1\], we obtain the following theorem:
\[thm:a=1,c=1\] [*$f^{1,b}_1$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ if and only if $b=1,2,3,4,5,6.$* ]{}
The “only if” direction follows from Proposition \[prop:a=1,c=1\]. In order to establish the “if” direction, we have only to prove that $f^{1,b}_1$ represents $n=9l+6, \,\,(l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
When $b=1,2,3,4,5,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-by^2=9l+6-b\cdot1^2\equiv 5, 4,3,2, 1 \,\,\mathrm{mod}\,9,$$ which can be written as $x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
Suppose that $b=6.$ If $n=6, 15,$ or $l\equiv 2, 8 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$ taking $y=1,$ we obtain $$n-6\cdot 1^2=9l, \,\,(l=0,1 \,\textrm{or} \,l\equiv 2, 8 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9),$$ which can be represented as $x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
If $l\ge 2$ and $l \not\equiv 2, 8 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$ taking $y=2,$ we have $$n-6\cdot 2^2=9l+6-24=9(l-2),$$ which can be written as $x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
The case where $a=2$
--------------------
We use the following result of Dickson [@Dickson-1]:
\[lem-1,2,3\]
**
1. $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+2y^2+3z^2$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 4^k(16l+10), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
2. $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+2(y^2+yz+z^2)$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 4^k(8l+5), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
By Lemma \[lem-1,2,3\], we have the following proposition:
\[prop:a=2,c=1\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $2x^2+(y^2+yz+z^2)$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq4^k(16l+10), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
Multiplying both sides of equations (\[eqn:tri(1,3)\]) and (\[eqn:tri(1,3)-(2)\]) by $\varphi(q^2),$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(q^2)a(q)=&\varphi(q^2)a(q^4)+6q\varphi(q^2)\psi (q^2)\psi (q^6), \\
\varphi(q) \varphi(q^2) \varphi(q^3)=&\varphi(q^2)a(q^4)+2q\varphi(q^2)\psi (q^2)\psi (q^6). \end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^2_1(n) q^n=&\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} A^1_2(N) q^{2N} +6q \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}1,3}(N)q^{2N}, \\
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} r_{1,2,3}(n) q^n=&\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} A^1_2(N) q^{2N} +2q \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}1,3}(N)q^{2N}. \end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $n$ is even and $n=2N.$ Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
n\neq 4^k(16l+10), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0) &\Longleftrightarrow r_{1,2,3}(n)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_2(N)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^2_1(n)>0. \end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $n$ is odd and $n=2N+1.$ Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
n\neq 4^k(16l+10), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0) &\Longleftrightarrow r_{1,2,3}(n)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow m_{1\text{-}1,3}(N)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^2_1(n)>0. \end{aligned}$$
By Proposition \[prop:a=2,c=1\], we obtain the following theorem:
\[thm:a=2,c=1\] [*Suppose that $2\le b.$ Then, $f^{2,b}_1$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ if and only if $b=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.$* ]{}
The “only if” direction follows from Proposition \[prop:a=2,c=1\]. In order to establish the “if” direction, we have only to prove that $f^{2,b}_1$ represents $n=16l+10, \,\,(l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
When $b\neq 2,10,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-by^2=16l+10-b\cdot1^2\not\equiv 0,8, 10 \,\,\mathrm{mod}\,16,$$ which can be written as $2x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
When $b=2,$ taking $y=2,$ we obtain $$n-2\cdot 2^2=16l+10-8=16l+2,$$ which can be represented as $2x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
We last suppose that $b=10.$ If $n=10, 26,$ taking $y=1,$ we obtain $$n-10\cdot 1^2=0, 16,$$ which can be written as $2x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
If $l\ge 2,$ taking $y=2,$ we have $$n-10\cdot 2^2=16l+10-40=16(l-2)+2,$$ which can be represented as $2x^2+(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
Summary
-------
By Theorems \[thm:a=1,c=1\], \[thm:a=2,c=1\] and their proofs, we obtain
\[thm:c=1-summary\]
*Let $a,b$ be positive integers with $a\le b.$*
1. $f^{a,b}_1$ can represent any nonnegative integers if and only if $(a,b)$ are given by $$(a,b)=
\begin{cases}
(1,b) &(b=1,2,3,4,5,6), \\
(2,b) &(b=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10).
\end{cases}$$
2. If $f^{a,b}_1$ represents $n=1,2, 6,10,$ it can represent all the nonnegative integers.
Furthermore, we obtain the following theorem:
[*For fixed positive integers, $a,c,$ set $$f^a_c(x,y,z)=ax^2+c(y^2+yz+z^2) \,\,\text{with} \,\,x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$$ There exists no positive integers, $a,c$ such that $f^a_c$ can represent every natural number.* ]{}
Suppose that there exist such positive integers, $a,c.$ Taking $n=1,$ we have $a=1$ or $c=1.$
Suppose that $a=1.$ The choice $n=2$ implies that $c=1,2.$ On the other hand, if $(a,c)=(1,1), (1,2),$ by Proposition \[prop:a=1,c=1\] and Lemma \[lem-1,2,3\], we see that there exist positive integers which cannot be expressed by $f^1_1$ or $f^1_2,$ which is contradiction.
Suppose that $c=1.$ The choice $n=2$ implies that $a=1,2.$ If $(a,c)=(1,1),(2,1),$ by Propositions \[prop:a=1,c=1\] and \[prop:a=2,c=1\], we see that there exist positive integers which cannot be expressed by $f^1_1$ or $f^1_2,$ which is contradiction.
### Remark {#remark .unnumbered}
In [@Dickson-2 pp.104], Dickson proved that there exist no positive integers, $a,b,c,$ such that $ax^2+by^2+cz^2, \,(x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z})$ can represent all positive integers.
The case where $c=2$
====================
Noting that $a=1$ if $f^{a,b}_2$ can represent any nonnegative integers, by Lemma \[lem-1,2,3\] (2), we obtain the following theorem:
\[thm:a=1,c=2\] [*Suppose that $1\le a \le b.$ Then, $f^{a,b}_2$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ if and only if $a=1$ and $b=1,2,3,4,5.$* ]{}
The “only if” direction follows from Lemma \[lem-1,2,3\] (2). In order to establish the “if” direction, we have only to prove that $f^{1,b}_2$ represents $n=8l+5, \,\,(l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
We first treat the case where $b=1.$ Taking $y=2,$ we obtain $$n-1\cdot 2^2=8l+5-4=8l+1,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+2(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
When $b=2,3,4,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-by^2=8l+5-b\cdot1^2\equiv 3,2, 1 \,\,\mathrm{mod}\,8,$$ which can be written as $x^2+2(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
We last suppose that $b=5.$ If $l=0,1,$ taking $y=1,$ we obtain $$n-5\cdot 1^2=8l+5-5=0,8,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+2(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
If $l\ge 2,$ taking $y=2,$ we have $$n-5\cdot 2^2=8l+5-20=8(l-2)+1,$$ which can be written as $x^2+2(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
By the proof of Theorem \[thm:a=1,c=2\], we obtain
\[thm:a=1,c=2-(2)\] [*If $f^{a,b}_2$ represents $n=1,5,$ it can represent all the nonnegative integers.* ]{}
The case where $c=3$
====================
We use the result of Dickson [@Dickson-2 pp. 112-113]:
\[lem-1,3,9\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+3y^2+9z^2$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 3l+2, \, 9^k(9l+6), \,\, (k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
By Lemma \[lem-1,3,9\], we have the following proposition:
\[prop:a=1,c=3\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+3(y^2+yz+z^2)$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 3l+2, \, 9^k(9l+6), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
Replacing $q$ by $q^3$ in equations (\[eqn:tri(1,3)\]) and (\[eqn:tri(1,3)-(2)\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
a(q^3)=&a(q^{12})+6q^3\psi (q^6)\psi (q^{18}), \\
\varphi(q^3)\varphi(q^9)=&a(q^{12})+2q^3\psi (q^6)\psi (q^{18}). \end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides of these equations by $\varphi(q),$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(q)a(q^3)=&\varphi(q)a(q^{12})+6q^3\varphi(q)\psi (q^6)\psi (q^{18}), \\
\varphi(q)\varphi(q^3)\varphi(q^9)=&\varphi(q)a(q^{12})+2q^3\varphi(q)\psi (q^6)\psi (q^{18}). \end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_3(n) q^n=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_{12}(n) q^n +6q^3 \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}6,18}(N)q^N, \\
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} r_{1,3,9}(n) q^n=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_{12}(n) q^n +2q^3 \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}6,18}(N)q^N. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
n\neq 3l+2, \, 9^k(9l+6), \,\,(k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0) &\Longleftrightarrow r_{1,3,9}(n)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_{12}(n)>0 \,\textrm{or} \, m_{1\text{-}6,18}(n-3)>0, \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_3(n)>0,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the proposition.
Noting that $a=1$ if $f^{a,b}_3$ can represent any nonnegative integers, we obtain the following theorem:
\[thm:a=1,c=3\] [*$f^{a,b}_3$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ if and only if $a=1$ and $b=2.$* ]{}
Let us first prove the “only if” direction. Proposition \[prop:a=1,c=3\] implies that $b=1,2.$ Assume that $b=1$ and $$n=6=x^2+y^2+3(z^2+zw+w^2) \,\,\textrm{with} \,\,x,y,z,w\in\mathbb{Z},$$ which implies that $z^2+zw+w^2=1, \neq 0,2.$ It then follows that $x^2+y^2=3,$ which is impossible.
In order to establish the “if” direction, we have only to prove that $f^{1,b}_3$ can represent $n=3l+2, \,9l+6, \,\,(l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
Suppose that $n=3l+2.$ We first treat the case where $l\equiv 0 \,\mathrm{mod} \,3.$ It is obvious that $f^{1,2}_3$ can represent $n=2.$ When $l\ge 1$ and $l\equiv 0 \,\mathrm{mod} \,3,$ we obtain $$n-2\cdot 2^2=3l+2-8=3(l-2),$$ which can be written as $x^2+3(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
When $l\equiv 1 \,\mathrm{mod} \,3,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-2y^2=3l+2-2=3l,$$ which can be written as $x^2+3(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
Assume that $l\equiv 2 \,\mathrm{mod} \,3.$ For $l=2, 5, 8,$ taking $y=2,$ we have $$n-2\cdot 2^2=3l+2-2\cdot 2^2=0, 9, 9\cdot 2,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+3(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$ If $l\ge 11$ and $l=3L+2, \,\,(L\in\mathbb{N}_0),$ taking $y=4,$ we have $$n-2\cdot 4^2=3l+2-2\cdot 4^2=3\{3(L-3)+1\},$$ which can be written as $x^2+3(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
We last suppose that $n=9l+6.$ Taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-2y^2=9l+6-2=9l+4 \equiv 1 \,\mathrm{mod} \, 3,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+3(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
By the proof of Theorem \[thm:a=1,c=3\], we obtain
\[thm:a=1,c=3-(2)\] [*If $f^{a,b}_3$ represents $n=1,2,6,$ it can represent all the nonnegative integers.* ]{}
The case where $c=4$
====================
We use the following result of Dickson [@Dickson-2 pp. 112-113]:
\[lem-1,4,12\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+4y^2+12z^2$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 4l+2, \, 4l+3, \, 9^k(9l+6), \,\, (k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
By Lemma \[lem-1,4,12\], we have the following proposition:
\[prop:a=1,c=4\] [*$n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ can be written as $x^2+4(y^2+yz+z^2)$ with $x,y,z\in\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $n\neq 4l+2, \, 4l+3, \, 9^k(9l+6), \,\, (k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$* ]{}
Replacing $q$ by $q^4$ in equations (\[eqn:tri(1,3)\]) and (\[eqn:tri(1,3)-(2)\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
a(q^4)=&a(q^{16})+6q^4\psi (q^8)\psi (q^{24}), \\
\varphi(q^4)\varphi(q^{12})=&a(q^{16})+2q^4\psi (q^8)\psi (q^{24}). \end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides of these equations by $\varphi(q),$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(q)a(q^4)=&\varphi(q)a(q^{16})+6q^4\varphi(q)\psi (q^8)\psi (q^{24}), \\
\varphi(q)\varphi(q^4)\varphi(q^{12})=&\varphi(q)a(q^{16})+2q^4\varphi(q)\psi (q^8)\psi (q^{24}). \end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_4(n) q^n=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_{16}(n) q^n +6q^4 \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}8,24}(N)q^N, \\
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} r_{1,4,12}(n) q^n=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A^1_{16}(n) q^n +2q^4 \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} m_{1\text{-}8,24}(N)q^N. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
n\neq 4l+2, \, 4l+3, \, 9^k(9l+6), \,\, (k,l\in\mathbb{N}_0) &\Longleftrightarrow r_{1,4,12}(n)>0 \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_{16}(n)>0 \,\textrm{or} \, m_{1\text{-}8,24}(n-4)>0, \\
&\Longleftrightarrow A^1_4(n)>0,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the proposition.
Noting that $a=1, b=2$ if $f^{a,b}_4$ can represent any nonnegative integers, we obtain the following theorem:
\[thm:a=1,c=4\] [*$f^{a,b}_4$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$ if and only if $a=1$ and $b=2.$* ]{}
The “only if” direction is obvious. In order to establish the “if” direction, we have only to prove that $f^{1,2}_4$ represents $n=4l+2, \, 4l+3, \,9l+6, \,\,(l\in\mathbb{N}_0).$
Suppose that $n=4l+2.$ If $l \not\equiv0,6 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-2y^2=4l+2-2=4l,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$ If $\l \equiv0,6 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$ taking $y=3,$ we obtain $$n-2y^2=4l+2-2\cdot 3^2=4(l-4),$$ which can be represented as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
Suppose that $n=4l+3.$ If $l \not\equiv2,8 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-2y^2=4l+3-2=4l+1\not\equiv 0,6 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$ If $\l \equiv2,8 \,\mathrm{mod} \,9,$ taking $y=3,$ we obtain $$n-2y^2=4l+3-2\cdot 3^2=4(l-4)+1\equiv 2, 8 \,\mathrm{mod} \, 9,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$ It is easy to check that $f^{1,2}_4$ can represent $n=11.$
Suppose that $n=9l+6.$ If $\l\equiv 0 \,\mathrm{mod} \,4$ and $l=4L, \,\,(L\in\mathbb{N}_0),$ taking $y=5,$ we have $$n-2y^2=9l+6-2\cdot 5^2=4\{9(L-2)+7\},$$ which can be written as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$ It is easy to check that $f^{1,2}_4$ can represent $n=6,42.$
If $\l\equiv 1 \,\mathrm{mod} \,4,$ taking $y=1,$ we have $$n-2y^2=9l+6-2\cdot 1^2=9l+4\equiv 1 \,\mathrm{mod} \, 4,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
If $\l\equiv 2 \,\mathrm{mod} \,4$ and $l=4L+2, \,\,(L\in\mathbb{N}_0),$ taking $y=4,$ we have $$n-2y^2=9l+6-2\cdot 4^2=4(9L-2),$$ which can be written as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$ It is easy to check that $f^{1,2}_4$ can represent $n=24.$
If $\l\equiv 3 \,\mathrm{mod} \,4,$ taking $y=2,$ we have $$n-2y^2=9l+6-2\cdot 2^2=9l-2\equiv 1 \,\mathrm{mod} \, 4,$$ which can be represented as $x^2+4(z^2+zw+w^2)$ with $x,z\in\mathbb{Z}.$
By the proof of Theorem \[thm:a=1,c=4\], we obtain
\[thm:a=1,c=4-(2)\] [*If $f^{a,b}_4$ represents $n=1,2,3,$ it can represent all the nonnegative integers.* ]{}
The case where $c\ge 5$
=======================
The case where $c=5$
--------------------
\[thm:c=5\] [*There exist no positive integers $a,b$ such that $1\le a\le b$ and $f^{a,b}_5$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0,$ where $$f^{a,b}_5(x,y,z,w)=ax^2+by^2+5(z^2+zw+w^2).$$* ]{}
Suppose that there exist such positive integers $a$ and $b.$ Considering $n=1,$ we have $a=1.$ Taking $n=2,$ we obtain $b=1,2.$ Considering $n=3,$ we have $(a,b)=(1,2).$
Take $n=10.$ Then, $n$ cannot be written as $x^2+2y^2$ with $x,y\in\mathbb{Z},$ which implies that $z^2+zw+w^2=1,$ because $2$ cannot be represented as $z^2+zw+w^2$ with $z,w\in\mathbb{Z}.$ Therefore, it follows that $5=10-5\cdot 1$ can be written as $x^2+2y^2$ with $x,y\in\mathbb{Z},$ which is impossible.
The case where $c\ge 6$
-----------------------
\[thm:cge6\] [*There exist no positive integers $a,b,c$ such that $1\le a\le b,$ $c\ge 6$ and $f^{a,b}_c$ can represent any nonnegative integers $n\in\mathbb{N}_0$.* ]{}
Suppose that there exist such positive integers $a,b$ and $c.$ Considering $n=1,$ we have $a=1.$ Taking $n=2,$ we obtain $b=1,2.$ Considering $n=3,$ we have $(a,b)=(1,2).$ On the other hand, $n=5$ cannot be written as $x^2+2y^2$ with $x,y\in\mathbb{Z}.$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
==============================
Theorem \[thm:main\] (1) follows from Theorems \[thm:c=1-summary\], \[thm:a=1,c=2\], \[thm:a=1,c=3\], \[thm:a=1,c=4\], \[thm:c=5\] and \[thm:cge6\]. Theorem \[thm:main\] (2) follows from Theorems \[thm:c=1-summary\], \[thm:a=1,c=2-(2)\], \[thm:a=1,c=3-(2)\], \[thm:a=1,c=4-(2)\], \[thm:c=5\] and \[thm:cge6\].
[10]{}
M. Bhargava and J. Hanke, [*Universal Quadratic Forms and the 290-Theorem,*]{} (preprint)
B. C. Berndt, [*Ramanujan’s notebooks. Part III.*]{} Springer-Verlag, New York, (1991).
L. E. Dickson, [*Integers represented by positive ternary quadratic forms,*]{} Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**33**]{} 63-70 (1927).
L. E. Dickson, [*Modern Elementary Theory of Numbers,*]{} University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1939).
M. Hirschhorn, F. Garvan, and J. Borwein, [*Cubic analogues of the Jacobian theta function $\theta(z,q),$* ]{} Canad. J. Math. [**45**]{} 673-694 (1993).
C. G. J. Jacobi, [ *Fundamenta Nova Theoriae Functionum Ellipticarum,* ]{} Bornträger, Regiomonti, (1829).
S. Ramanujan, [*On the expression of a number in the form $ax^2+by^2+cz^2+du^2,$* ]{} Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**19**]{} 11-21 (1917).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Kenzo <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ISHIKAWA</span> and Yutaka <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TOBITA</span>'
title: On Coherence Lengths of Wave Packets
---
Introduction
============
When particles are identified using detectors, they show classical trajectories. These classical trajectories are observed because the particle’s wave functions have finite sizes and the probability for the particle to be observed within this width becomes unity.
A position $x$ and a momentum $p$ satisfy the canonical commutation relation, $$\begin{aligned}
[x,p]=i \hbar,
\label{commutation-relation}\end{aligned}$$ and a momentum eigenstate is extended in space. Thus, the momentum eigenstate does not show a classical trajectory, and a linear combination of momentum eigenstates, a wave packet, which has a finite spatial size, shows a classical trajectory. Wave packets are necessary for describing states with finite spatial extensions.
Wave packet behaves like a particle and is convenient for studying the connection between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. Uncertainty relations and other properties of quantum mechanics are described well using wave packets and are explained in many textbooks of quantum mechanics [@yeazell].
In scattering experiments, an overlap between the initial and final states is studied. Since the final states are determined using detectors of finite sizes, they are described using wave packets. [@Goldberger] Their sizes are normally semimicroscopic between microscopic and macroscopic lengths, and it is good to approximate the initial and final states using plane waves if the typical scales of targets and interaction lengths are microscopic.
The wave packets have been applied in various areas of physics such as electromagnetic wave propagations[@Brillouin], particle scatterings,[@Goldberger] and neutrino oscillations. [@Giunti] Moreover, the fundamental problems of quantum mechanics that are connected with measurements and their implications in quantum information, entanglements, and others are tested using beams of electrons, neutrons, and of photons or its coherent states, lasers. However, in these cases, either the wave is classical or the coherence lengths of waves in quantum physics are much larger than the typical scales of microscopic objects. The interactions of these waves with microscopic objects were studied using plane waves. A detailed qualitative study of microscopic physics, particularly of particle physics, has not been made for wave packets.
We found that the situation has been changed now and there are many occasions where the wave packet’s effects are important.[@Asahara] Particularly in the present problems of fundamental physics where high precision, high energy, long distance, and other new circumstances are required, these effects are expected to be important. Qualitative theoretical investigations of the wave packet’s effects are lacking. It is our objective to study the deviations of one-particle states from simple plane waves and their consequences in many-body quantum systems. We mainly study the systems of relativistic invariance, where space and time are treated equally.
The minimum wave packet is an idealistic wave packet that satisfies the minimum uncertainty relation between the variances of coordinates and momenta. Although they have been studied often,[@Schiff; @Schiff2] it is instructive to review the properties of the minimum wave packet here for later convenience.
From the canonical commutation relation, Eq. $(\ref{commutation-relation})$, uncertainties in the position and momentum satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x \delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}.
\label{uncertainty-product}\end{aligned}$$ In Gaussian wave packet, the coherent state of one variable $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
& &\langle x |P_0,X_0\rangle =N_1e^{i{ P_0 \over \hbar} (x-X_0)-{1 \over 2{\gamma}}(x-X_0)^2},\\
& &N_1^2=(\pi {\gamma})^{-{1 \over 2}},~{P_0 \over \hbar}=k_0, \end{aligned}$$ where $X_0$ and $P_0$ are the expectation values of $x$ and $p$, the equality of Eq. $(\ref{uncertainty-product})$ is satisfied. The variances of $x$ and $p$ are, in fact, $$\begin{aligned}
& &( \delta x)^2= \langle| x^2| \rangle-\langle |x |\rangle^2= {1 \over 2}{\gamma}^2, \\
& & ( \delta p)^2= \langle| p^2| \rangle-\langle |p|\rangle^2 ={{\hbar}^2 \over {2 {\gamma}^2}}\label{parameter-sigma}
. \end{aligned}$$ The product of the variance of the momentum with that of the coordinate, $$\begin{aligned}
& &(\delta x)^2 \times (\delta p)^2= {(\hbar)^2 \over 4}, \end{aligned}$$ is independent from $\gamma $ and is the minimum allowed from the commutation relation.
The coherent state also satisfies the completeness condition,[@Ishikawa-Shimomura] $$\begin{aligned}
\int {d P_0 d X_0 \over 2 \pi \hbar}\langle x| P_0,X_0\rangle \langle P_0,X_0|y\rangle
&=& \int {d P_0 d X_0 \over 2 \pi \hbar} N_1^2 e^{ik_0(x-y)}e^{-{1 \over 2 \gamma }(x-X_0)^2-{1 \over 2 \gamma }(y-X_0)^2 } \nonumber\label{completeness}\\
&=&\delta (x-y).\end{aligned}$$ In higher dimensions, the products of the functions of each variable are used. They satisfy the minimum uncertainty relations and completeness conditions in higher dimensions.
For nonminimal wave packets, a function $ h_m(x-X_0) $ is multiplied to the right-hand side, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x |P_0,X_0\rangle =N_1e^{i{ P_0 \over \hbar} (x-X_0)-{1 \over 2{\gamma}}(x-X_0)^2}h_m(x-X_0).
\label{non-minumum-wave packet}\end{aligned}$$ The completeness condition, Eq. $(\ref{completeness})$, is satisfied also in this case, but the product of $\delta
x$ and $\delta p$ is not minimum and is larger than the minimum. This packet should be used in realistic cases of having a larger value of the product of uncertainties. If the function $h_m(x-X_0)$ is a Hermite polynomial of order $m$, the product of uncertainties becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x \delta p=m \times {\hbar \over 2 }\label{Harmonic}.\end{aligned}$$
A wave packet emerges from the matter effects. The wave in the medium is affected by disorders and is described by one function within a finite length, which we define as a coherence length. When this wave of finite coherence is emitted from the medium into the vacuum, it has a finite time length and a finite energy width, because the wave in the matter lives for a finite period of time, of the order of a mean free time. Consequently, this wave packet in the vacuum is not the eigenstate of the Hamiltonian but it is the linear combination of different energies. Its width is determined from the interactions of the particle with scatterers. There are other situations where wave packets are formed. We will study them and estimate wave packet sizes in §2.
Since the wave packet is a linear combination of plane waves of different energies, the wave packet is not a stationary state and varies with time. For a nonrelativistic particle of mass $m$, the energy, $E={{\vec p}^2 \over 2m}$, has the width $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E={p \over m} \Delta p= v\Delta p,~v={p \over m},\end{aligned}$$ and the time width is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau={\hbar \over \Delta E}={\Delta x \over v},~\Delta x={1 \over \Delta k},~\Delta k={\Delta p \over \hbar }.\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations, the energy width $\Delta E$, time width $\delta \tau$, and position width $\Delta x$ are determined using the momentum width $\Delta p$.
The position of the wave packet also varies with time in a manner that follows a classical trajectory of the velocity given by the central value of the momentum. Furthermore, the wave packet spreads with time with a speed that depends on the mass and initial size.
The other feature of the wave packets can be observed in a momentum correlation, $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=(\langle {\vec p}_1|\alpha \rangle )(\langle {\vec p}_2|\alpha \rangle)^{*}=\langle {\vec p}_1|\alpha \rangle \langle \alpha|{\vec p}_2 \rangle,
\label{correlation-wave packet}\end{aligned}$$ where the state $ | \alpha \rangle $ is one state described using a wave packet and $ | {\vec p} \rangle $ is a momentum eigenstate. If the state $| \alpha \rangle $ is a momentum state $|{\vec q} \rangle $, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
C_0({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=(\langle {\vec p}_1|\vec q \rangle )(\langle {\vec p}_2|
{\vec q}' \rangle)^{*}=\delta ({\vec p}_1-{\vec q})\delta ({\vec p}_2-{\vec q}),\end{aligned}$$ and $C_0({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ is proportional to $\delta({\vec
p}_1-{\vec p}_2)$.
If the state $| \alpha \rangle $ is a wave packet described using the momentum state $|{\vec q} \rangle $ as $$\begin{aligned}
| \alpha \rangle=\int d{\vec q} F_{\alpha}({\vec q})|\vec q \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ then we have $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)&=&\int d{\vec q}_1 F_{\alpha}^{*}({\vec q}_1)
d{\vec q}_2 F_{\alpha}({\vec q}_2)\delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec q}_1)\delta({\vec p}_2-{\vec q}_2)\\
&=& F_{\alpha}^{*}({\vec p}_1) F_{\alpha}({\vec p}_2).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the correlation function vanishes if $|{\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2|$ is larger than the momentum width of the wave packet. When all the states of a complete set are added, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha} C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\sum_{\alpha } \langle {\vec p}_1|\alpha \rangle \langle \alpha|{\vec p}_2 \rangle
=\delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2),\end{aligned}$$ then the correlation function agrees with the delta function. For a state described using a wave packet, $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ deviates from $\delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2)$. The deviation of the correlation function $C({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2)$ from the $\delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2)$ shows a feature of the state $|{\alpha }
\rangle$, and the width of ${\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2$ is determined using the momentum width $\Delta p$. This correlation function will be used later.
We investigate the problems connected with the particle’s coherence in this series of papers. In a previous paper,[@Ishikawa-Shimomura] we showed the general features of wave packet scatterings such as the evolution of wave packets and slight violations of energy and momentum conservations in many-body reactions. The consistency of the nonorthogonality of wave packets with the fundamental requirement of quantum mechanics in many-body scatterings was also shown.
In the present paper, we study the formations of wave packets that have finite uncertainties of position and momentum and the transmutations of these uncertainties in various reactions. We present the coherence length of wave packets and other universal properties in the potential scatterings and other many-body reactions.
This paper is organized as follows. In §2, several mechanisms of forming wave packets are studied. In §3, we study the potential scatterings of wave packets, and in §4, we present the transformations of wave packets. In §5 the particle’s coherence in refraction and reflection is studied, and many-body processes are studied in §6. A summary is given in §7.
Wave packet formations
======================
In this section, we study one-particle states in various situations and show that the wave packets are good wave functions for particles in medium and for particles in measurements.
First, we study a system where the particle’s mean free path is short. If a particle interacts with atoms or other particles frequently, the distance in which a particle moves freely, the mean free path, becomes short. A particle is described using one wave function during a mean free time, which is a period for a particle to move freely, and is given by dividing the mean free path by its velocity. This wave function that has a finite coherence length is described using a wave packet.
Second, we study one particle surrounded by many particles where the particle’s mean free path is long. In this system, particles have long mean free paths, and the direct effects of the mean free path are negligible. However, the many-particle state is described using one wave function. If a one-particle state in a many-particle system is regarded as a linear combination of momentum states, this particle is expressed using a wave packet. This wave packet has a different origin from that of the first case and plays important roles in dilute medium.
Third, we study a one-particle state in a system where a particle measurement is made. If a particle is measured with uncertainties of position and momentum, this particle state is described using a wave packet of these uncertainties. The formation of wave packets in the process of particle measurement is a delicate problem that is connected with the fundamental problem of measurement of quantum mechanics. In fact, a particle is identified using a classical trajectory in a detector, and its position and momentum are measured with finite uncertainties regardless of the dynamics of measurement. Thus, the state that has these uncertainties of momentum and position is described using a wave packet.
Short mean free path: finite spatial extensions
-----------------------------------------------
Particles in matter frequently interact with atoms and lose coherence. The average distance for one particle to move freely is the mean free path in which the particle’s wave maintains coherence. Beyond the mean free path, particles lose coherence and are expressed using different wave functions. Hence, this state has a finite spatial width and its momentum is defined with a finite uncertainty. This momentum uncertainty is inversely proportional to the mean free path and becomes large if the mean free path is short. Thus, a mean free path is used as a wave packet size.
### Mean free path
The mean free path of a particle when it propagates in matter and is scattered incoherently by scatterers is determined using the cross section and number density of scatterers. From the scattering cross section of a particle, $\sigma$, and number density of the scatterers, $\rho$, the mean free path $l$ is determined as $$\begin{aligned}
l={1 \over \sigma \rho }.\end{aligned}$$ The mean free paths of various particles in matter are computed easily.
### Comparison of energy widths
Because the particle state is defined using one wave function within the mean free path, $l$, this state has a finite uncertainty of the momentum, $\delta p$, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta p=\frac{\hbar}{l}.\end{aligned}$$ This finite uncertainty of the momentum leads to a finite uncertainty of the energy for the nonrelativistic particle of mass $m$, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E={\delta p^2 \over 2m}=v\delta p=v\frac{\hbar}{l}.
\label{delta-energy-1}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the particle that has a mean free path $l$ has the energy width $v{\hbar \over l}$.
The uncertainty of the energy of a wave packet is found from the momentum width Eq. $(\ref{parameter-sigma})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E={\delta p^2 \over 2m}=v\delta p=v{\hbar \over \sqrt{ 2}\gamma}.
\label{delta-energy-2}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing two energy widths, Eqs. $(\ref{delta-energy-1} )$ and $(\ref{delta-energy-2} )$, we have the wave packet parameter $\gamma$, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma= {l \over \sqrt 2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the wave packet size $\gamma$ is determined using the mean free path $l$.
When this particle moves with a velocity $v$, the time spent by this particle crossing one position is given using the mean free path over the particle’s velocity, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau ={l \over v }.\end{aligned}$$ This state has an uncertainty of time $\tau$ and an uncertainty of energy $\delta E$. $\delta E$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E={\hbar \over \tau}={\hbar \over l}v.
\label{delta-energy-3}\end{aligned}$$ The energy width of Eq. $(\ref{delta-energy-3})$ agrees with those of Eqs. $(\ref{delta-energy-1})$ and $(\ref{delta-energy-2})$.
Thus, in matter, a particle wave has a finite spatial size. Consequently, a wave behaves as a wave packet of this spatial size. The momentum width is determined from the inverse of the spatial width, and the wave is approximately given using the minimum wave packet.
Long mean free path: finite momentum spreads
--------------------------------------------
When there is a degeneracy in one particle energy, a superposition of the states with the same energy is also an eigenstate. Which eigenstate is realized depends on the production process. In this section, we study wave packets that have origins in momentum spreading of the produced particles and are connected with the energy degeneracy.
### Many-particle states: transmutation of momentum spreads
In a system of many particles with long mean free path, one particle interacts with other surrounding particles many times while maintaining quantum coherence. If these surrounding particles have momentum uncertainties, they are transmuted to one particle. This particle is described using a wave packet that has an origin in the momentum uncertainty.
One example of a wave that is extended in the momentum is a spherical wave around a short-range potential. A spherical wave is a superposition of plane waves and is decomposed into plane waves of continuous momentum. Hence, the spherical wave is extended in the momentum. In a normal scattering, a particle is measured at a certain scattering angle. The probability of observing this particle at a certain angle is proportional to the square of the absolute value of the amplitude. It is not easy to verify directly the fact that the wave function is extended in momentum variables. In our objective of studying interference phenomena in systems of large scales, this type of momentum extension is important as a new mechanism of the wave packet.
We study the coherence length of a particle surrounded by many particles and whole states are described using one wave function based on the correlation in the momentum variables $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$. In this situation, one particle obtains a large uncertainty from many particles. Even though the momentum uncertainty of each particle is small, the effects of momentum uncertainties of these many particles are added constructively and affect this particle with a significant magnitude. Consequently, this particle is given a finite momentum uncertainty by these many particles and behaves as a wave packet.
This new mechanism is applied, for instance, when many particles are involved in the microscopic processes and they maintain coherence for a long time. This may be realized actually in the universe. Particularly around the decoupling time of cosmological background radiations in an early universe, where particle states are described using one wave function for a long time, a wave packet due to momentum uncertainty of this section is expected to play roles.
During the time evolution of one particle wave function, this particle interacts with surrounding particles. The effects of surrounding particles are studied next. We study the system of many electrons and many photons in which they interact by Thomson scattering. The Thomson scattering cross section is given in Appendix A. Photons and electrons interact also with protons. The number of protons is the same as the number of electrons from charge neutrality. These protons have finite uncertainties, i.e., finite spreads of the momenta due to Rutherford scatterings between charges $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta p={\hbar \over l_{\text{Ru}}},~l_\text{Ru}={1 \over \sigma_{\text{Ru}} n_\text{c}},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_c$ is the density of charged particles and $\sigma_\text{Ru}$ is Rutherford scattering cross section, which is given in Appendix A.
Even if these momentum spreads are small, a system of many protons could give a large uncertainty to an electron owing to the constructive effects. In this case, the whole uncertainty of the momentum becomes large, and this system of the electron and protons violates the translational invariance maximally.
A mean free path of the electron due to Thomson scattering is given by $$\begin{aligned}
l_\text{Th}={1 \over \sigma_\text{Th} n_{\gamma}},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\gamma}$ is photon density. A mean free path of the electron due to Rutherford scattering is given by $$\begin{aligned}
l_\text{Ru}={1 \over \sigma_\text{Ru} n_\text{pr}},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_\text{pr}$ is a proton density. Their magnitudes are given in Appendix A. The ratio between two lengths $$\begin{aligned}
N_\text{T}={l_\text{Th} \over l_\text{Ru} }\end{aligned}$$ is the number of average collisions due to Rutherford scattering per Thomson scattering. During a Thomson scattering time, Rutherford scatterings occur $N_\text{T}$ times. The $l_\text{Th}$, $l_\text{Ru}$, and $N_\text{T}$ are given in Appendix A.
For the coherence of photon and electron, surrounding protons are taken into account, and the Feynman diagram of these processes has many lines of particles, as in Fig. \[fig:proton-electron\].
\[fig:proton-electron\]
The average number of Rutherford scatterings in the distance $l$, $N$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
N={l \over l_\text{Th}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the electron’s spread obtains contributions from the proton’s momentum spread $N$ times in the distance $l$. A photon obtains contributions from the electron’s momentum spread. As shown in Appendix B, the momentum spreads of the electron and photon, after the $N$ step of interactions, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta p_\text{total})^2=\sum_i^N (\Delta p_i)^2,\end{aligned}$$ and its magnitude becomes large for large $N$. Particularly if $(\Delta p_i)^2=(\Delta p)^2$ is finite, $(\Delta p_\text{total})^2$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta p_\text{total})^2=N (\Delta p)^2\end{aligned}$$ and reaches the absolute value of the momentum, $|p|$, at a sufficiently large $N$. This is realized at a macroscopic distance $l$. Thus, the total spread becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta p_\text{total} \rightarrow \infty,\end{aligned}$$ and the wave has a large momentum spread and the momentum conservation becomes effectively negligible.
Next, we focus the final Thomson scattering of one photon and one electron shown in Fig. \[fig:stat\]. The incoming states of the final scattering are almost real photon and electron and have large momentum spreads. These photon and electron are described by superpositions of momentum states of large momentum uncertainties with a suitable energy weight.
\[fig:stat\]
### Statistical model
The weight of the superposition of the initial states at the final scattering is determined using its previous scatterings and identical particle effects. From the facts that the waves have large momentum spreads after the macroscopic distance and that the amplitude of the Thomson scattering in low energy of the range 3000 - 4000 K is constant and spherically symmetric, waves of the photon and electron in the initial state of the final scattering are regarded as spherical waves that are superpositions of plane waves of all orientations.
In the many-particle state, identical particles satisfy either Fermi-Dirac statistics or Bose-Einstein statistics, and the total energy conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_i^N n_i E_i=E,\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied. An average occupation number of the state ${\vec p}$, i.e., one particle distribution, is given by Bose-Einstein distribution $$\begin{aligned}
n_\text{P}({\vec p})=N_\text{BE}({\vec p})={1 \over e^\frac{p^0}{k_\text{B} T}-1}\end{aligned}$$ for photon and by Fermi-Dirac distribution $$\begin{aligned}
n_e({\vec p})=N_\text{FD}({\vec p})={1 \over e^{{p^0-\mu} \over k_\text{B} T}+1}\end{aligned}$$ for electron, where $\mu$ is the chemical potential, $k_\text{B}$ is Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the temperature that is determined from the average energy. A many-body wave function that satisfies these conditions mentioned above is the coherent state of the Boson field and the state of the Fermi field constructed in the same manner. An explicit form is given in Appendix C.
Thus, we assume that the amplitude for one photon and one electron is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T(1)= N_\text{BE}(p_2)^{1/2}N_\text{FD}(k_2)^{1/2}\tilde T(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde T(1)$ does not depend on ${\vec p_2}$ and ${\vec k_2}$. The whole amplitude is written as $$\begin{aligned}
T({\vec k}_1,{\vec p}_1)&=& \int d{\vec k}_2 d{\vec p}_2 T({\vec p}_1,{\vec k}_1;{\vec p}_2,{\vec k}_2)N_\text{F}(p_2)^{1/2}N_\text{B}(k_2)^{1/2}
\delta({\vec p}_2+{\vec k}_2-{\vec p}_1-{\vec k}_1)\nonumber \\
& &\times \tilde T(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $T({\vec p}_1,{\vec k}_1;{\vec p}_2,{\vec k}_2)$ is the amplitude of Thomson scattering and is constant in low energy.
The momentum correlation function $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ is a product of the amplitude of the photon momentum ${\vec p}_1$ and its complex conjugate of the photon momentum ${\vec p}_2$ and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& &C({\vec k}_1,{\vec k'}_1)=
\int d{\vec k}_2 d{\vec p}_2 T({\vec p}_1,{\vec k}_1;{\vec p}_2,{\vec k}_2)N_\text{F}(p_2)^{1/2}N_\text{B}(k_2)^{1/2}\delta({\vec p}_2+{\vec k}_2-{\vec p}_1-{\vec k}_1)\nonumber\\
& &\int d{\vec k}'_2 d{\vec p}'_2 T({\vec p}'_1,{\vec k}_1;{\vec p}'_2,{\vec k}'_2)N_\text{F}(p'_2)^{1/2}N_\text{B}(k'_2)^{1/2}\delta({\vec p}'_2+{\vec k}'_2-{\vec p}_1-{\vec k}'_1)|\tilde T|^2.\end{aligned}$$ This correlation $C({\vec k}_1,{\vec k'}_1)$ shows the wave packet nature of photons.
We compute the above function $C({\vec k}_1,{\vec k'}_1)$ numerically. The result is given in Fig. \[3500K\].
\[3500K\]
As seen from Fig. \[3500K\], the correlation shows that of a Gaussian wave packet of the width of $3.5k_\text{B}T$. The photon is regarded as a wave packet whose energy distribution is a Planck distribution but the momentum width is $3.5k_\text{B}T$. This wave packet size should be understood as a maximal possible value. The effect of the wave packet is show in Ref. .
Measurements of particle’s trajectory
-------------------------------------
When a particle is measured using an apparatus, its position and momentum are measured within certain uncertainties. Many physical processes are involved in measurements, but regardless of these processes when the position and momentum are determined within uncertainties, the final state after the measurement is expressed as the state with these uncertainties. Thus, a wave packet of suitable values of momentum width and coordinate width is used for this state. The probability for the particle to be observed within these widths of wave packet is unity, and it follows a classical motion before the next measurement.
The product of uncertainties of the momentum $\Delta {\vec p}$ and position $\Delta {\vec x}$ may be much larger than that of the minimum wave packet, $$\begin{aligned}
|\Delta {\vec x}|| \Delta {\vec p}| \gg {\hbar \over 2},\end{aligned}$$ so nonminimum wave packets $\left(\text{Eq}.~(\ref{non-minumum-wave packet})\right)$ are suitable for these states.
By successive measurements, a particle’s trajectory that follows classical motion is observed [@Schiff2]. This happens because the wave packet has a finite spatial size, and the probability for this particle to be observed in the inside of this region is unity. Actually, as discussed in a previous paper,[@Ishikawa-Shimomura] the wave packet spreads with time. The spreading velocity depends on the mass and energy. For the particle trajectory to be observed, a next successive reaction with an apparatus should occur before the wave becomes large. Unless an observation is made, the wave spreads ultimately and a straight trajectory is not tested.
Because light microscopic particles spread fast, they become momentum eigenstates easily. Hence, translational invariance is preserved for these particles. On the other hand, for macroscopic objects or extremely heavy particles, the spreading velocities are negligible and they are localized at certain positions of the initial states. Translational invariance is violated for these objects.
Potential scatterings
======================
In this section, we study the scatterings of the wave packets using simple rectangular potentials. We see that the sizes of extensions in the positions and momenta have strong correlations with the velocities of the wave packets and the products of both sizes are approximately adiabatic invariants. Minimum wave packets are changed to nonminimum wave packets in certain reactions.
Potential wall in one dimension
-------------------------------
We study the wave packets first in a simple potential, i.e., in a constant potential wall of a height or depth $V_0$ described by $$\begin{aligned}
U(x) = \begin{cases}
V_0, \ x \leq 0, \\
0, \ \ 0 < x.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We obtain a solution of Schrödinger equation, $$\begin{aligned}
& & i\hbar {\partial \over \partial t} \psi(x,t)=H\psi(x,t),\\
& &H={p^2 \over 2m}+U(x),\end{aligned}$$ of the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,t)&=&e^{Et \over i\hbar} \psi(x), \\
\psi(x) &=& \begin{cases}
e^{i k x}+ B_{-}e^{-i k x},~x < 0, \\
C_{+}e^{i k'x},~0 < x,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where at $x<0$, a right-moving plane wave comes in toward the wall and a left-moving wave of magnitude $B_{-}$ is reflected, and at $x>0$, a right-moving wave of magnitude $C_{+}$ is refracted. The parameters $k$ and $k'$ are connected with the energy as $$\begin{aligned}
& &E={p^2 \over 2m}+V_0={p'^2 \over 2m},\\
& &p=\hbar k,~p'=\hbar k'.\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients are found from the continuities of the wave function at $x=0$ as [@Landau] $$\begin{aligned}
& &B_{-}={k-k' \over k+k'},\\
& &C_{+}={2k \over k+k' }.\end{aligned}$$ The time-dependent wave packet is constructed using a linear combination of the above waves, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{wp}&=&\psi_{wp}^1+\psi_{wp}^2+\psi_{wp}^3,\\
\psi_{wp}^1&=&\int dk \tilde N(k) e^{i k (x-X_0)}e^{Et \over i\hbar}, x<0, \\
\psi_{wp}^2& &=\int dk \tilde N(k)\left( {k-k' \over k+k'}\right) e^{-i k(x-X_0)}e^{Et \over i\hbar},x<0 ,\\
\psi_{wp}^3& &=\int dk \tilde N(k)\left({2k \over k+k'}\right)e^{i k'(x-X_0)}e^{Et \over i\hbar},0<x ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde N(k)&=&N_1 e^{-{(k-k_0)^2 \over 2\sigma}},\\
\label{normalization}
N_1&=&{1 \over \sqrt{2\sigma \pi}}.\end{aligned}$$ The wave packet $\psi_{wp}^1$ is a minimum wave packet, but the wave packets $\psi_{wp}^2$ and $\psi_{wp}^3$ are not minimum wave packets owing to the momentum-dependent factors in the amplitudes, ${{ k-k' \over
k+k'},{2k \over k+k'}}$. $$\begin{aligned}
& &\delta x^1 \times \delta p^1= {\hbar \over 2},\\
& &\delta x^2 \times \delta p^2 = (1.2 \sim 1.4)\times {\hbar \over 2},\\
& &\delta x^3 \times \delta p^3= (1.0 \sim 3.0)\times {\hbar \over 2}.\end{aligned}$$ The initial wave packet is chosen to be minimum and satisfies the minimum uncertainty relation, and the reflected wave and accelerated wave have uncertainty relations of about twice the minimum. In particular, the value of $\delta x \delta p$ for the accelerated wave depends on the potential depth, as given in Fig. [\[cliff\]]{}. The product of uncertainties becomes $\frac{1}{2}\hbar$ at $V_0 \rightarrow \infty$ and $\frac{3}{2}\hbar$ at $V_0 \rightarrow 0$. This is because the wave function behaves in these regions as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{wp}^3 \propto
\begin{cases}
k\times e^{-\frac{k^2}{2\sigma}} ,\ \ V_0 \ll E_0,\\
\text{const}\times e^{-\frac{k^2}{2\sigma}}, \ \ V_0 \gg E_0,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ just like a wave function for a ground state and a first excited state of a harmonic oscillator in Eq. (\[Harmonic\]). The product of uncertainties of the accelerated wave is changed smoothly as seen in Fig. \[cliff\].
\[cliff\]
Potential barrier
------------------
We study wave packets next in a simple potential, i.e., in a constant potential barrier of finite width $a$ and height or depth $V_0$ described as $$\begin{aligned}
U(x)=\begin{cases}
0, ~x \leq 0, \\
-V_0 ,~ 0 \leq x \leq a,\\
0, ~a\leq x.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We obtain a wave function of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x)=
\begin{cases}
e^{i{1 \over \hbar}\sqrt{2mE}x}+ B_{-}e^{-i{1 \over \hbar}\sqrt{2mE}x},~x<0,\\
=A_{+}e^{{i \over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)}x}+A_{-}e^{-{i \over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)}x},~0<x<a,\\
=C_{+}e^{i{1 \over \hbar}\sqrt{2mE}x},~a<x,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where at $x<0$, a right-moving plane wave comes in and a reflected left-moving wave of magnitude $B_{-}$ is reflected, and at $x>a$, a right-moving wave of magnitude $C_{+}$ is refracted. Coefficients $A_i$ show the magnitude in the inside of potential, $0<x<a$. These coefficients are found as [@Landau] $$\begin{aligned}
& &A_{+}=2{1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E} \over (1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2-(1-\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2 e^{2{i\over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)} a}},\\
& &A_{-}=2{(-1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E})e^{2{i \over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)}a} \over (1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2-(1-\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2 e^{2{i\over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)} a}},\end{aligned}$$ and coefficients $B_{-},C_{+}$ are found as $$\begin{aligned}
B_{-}&=&1-2{{\sqrt{1+V_0/E}+1+V_0/E+(\sqrt{1+V_0/E}-1-V_0/E)}e^{2{i\over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)} a} \over (1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2-(1-\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2
e^{2{i\over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)} a}},\nonumber\\
\\
C_{+}&=&2{(1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E}) +(-1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E})e^{{i \over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)}a} \over (1+\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2-(1-\sqrt{1+V_0/E})^2 e^{2{i\over \hbar}\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)} a}}\nonumber\\
&\times& e^{{i\over \hbar}(\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)}a-\sqrt{2mE}a)}. \end{aligned}$$ Wave packets at $x>0$ and $x<0$ are computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{wp}^{1}&=&\int dk ~N(k) e^{i(kx-\frac{Et}{\hbar})},~x\ll0, \\
\psi_{wp}^{2}&=&\int dk ~N(k) B_{-}(k)e^{-i(kx + \frac{Et}{\hbar})},~x\ll 0, \\
\psi_{wp}^{3}&=&\int dk ~N(k) C_{+}(k) e^{i(kx - \frac{Et}{\hbar})},~x\gg 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $N(k)$ is given in Eq. $(\ref{normalization})$.
Wave packets $\psi_{wp}^{i}(i=1 - 3) $ are computed numerically. In the negative $x$ region, the minimum wave packet comes in, and refracted and reflected wave packets are generated. The variances of $\psi_{wp}^1$, $\psi_{wp}^2$, and $\psi_{wp}^3$ are computed numerically and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& &\delta x^1 \times \delta p^1 = \frac{\hbar}{2},\\
& &\delta x^2 \times \delta p^2 = (1.0 \sim 1.6)\times \frac{\hbar}{2},\\
& &\delta x^3 \times \delta p^3 \simeq \frac{\hbar}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The numerical result for $\psi_{wp}^3$ is shown in Fig. \[well\], where we set $\delta x^1=8.0\times 10^{-10}[\text{m}]$, and the width of the potential is taken from 0 to $1.5\times \delta x^1$ and the potential depth is of the order of the average energy of the wave packet. In this region, $\delta x^3 \times \delta p^3$ is approximately adiabatic invariant and the minimum wave packet remains nearly minimum after potential scattering. On the other hand, $\delta x^2 \times \delta p^2$ becomes large. The large change of $\delta x^2 \times \delta p^2$ from $\delta x^1
\times \delta p^1$ is generated, because there are two boundaries of the potential barrier/well.
\[well\]
Potential scatterings in three dimensions
------------------------------------------
The Schrödinger equation with a one-dimensional potential $U( z)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left[-{{\hbar}^2 \over 2m} {\vec \nabla}^2 +U(z)\right]\psi({\vec x})=E \psi({\vec x})\end{aligned}$$ has solutions of the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi({\vec x})=e^{i{\vec p}_T\cdot{\vec x}_T}u(z).\end{aligned}$$ The first part on the right-hand side is the plane wave in the transverse direction ${\vec p}_T=(p_x,p_y),{\vec x}_T=(x,y)$ and the second part is the function of $z$.
The wave packet is formed from the above wave function as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{w p}=\int d{\vec k}_T N({\vec k-k_0}_T)e^{i{\vec p}_T\cdot{\vec x}_T} \int d k_z N(k_z-k_z^0)u(z),\end{aligned}$$ where the wave packet in the transverse direction is the wave packet of the free wave, and the wave packet in the $z$ direction is the wave packet of the scattering wave in the one-dimensional potentials studied in the previous section.
The wave packet is modified by potentials in the direction of the one-dimensional potential and is not modified in the transverse directions. The time-dependent wave packet is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi({\vec x},t)=\int d{\vec k}_T N({\vec k-k_0}_T) d k_z N(k-k_z^0)
e^{i{\vec p}_T\cdot{\vec x}_T}u(z)e^{-iE({\vec p}_T,p_z)t}.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, at small $t$, the momentum width in the transverse direction is not modified, but the momentum width in the longitudinal direction is modified by the potential. The change in the width in the longitudinal direction is similar to that of one dimension.
Transformations of wave packets
===============================
In this section, we study the transformations of wave packets and find changes in wave packets under various transformations based on semiclassical treatments. We assume that the transition of wave packets is smooth and continuous in momentum, and naive treatment of the wave packet’s parameters is possible. In these calculations, singular behaviors of the scattering amplitudes such as resonances are excluded.
Lorentz transformation
----------------------
By a Lorentz transformation, a momentum $p_{\nu}$ is transformed to $p'_{\nu}$ using a matrix $$\begin{aligned}
{p_{\mu}}'=\Lambda^{\mu \nu}p_{\nu}. \end{aligned}$$ The momentum in the direction of the boost is transformed together with the energy, but the momentum in the transverse direction is unchanged. The variances of the momentum components are transformed in the same manner.
The amplitude for the plane wave is known to be covariant under the Lorentz transformation, but the present amplitude for the wave packets has a noninvariant part, because the wave packet size is not fully covariant.
Addition of potential energy
------------------------------
In a potential scattering, one particle obtains energy from a potential $V_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
E_1=E_2+V_0,\end{aligned}$$ so wave packet parameters are transformed when a wave packet passes a potential.
### Nonrelativistic case
For a nonrelativistic particle, momenta are related by $$\begin{aligned}
({\vec p}_1)^2+2mV_0=({\vec p}_2)^2.\end{aligned}$$ By decomposing the momentum vector into the longitudinal component and the transverse component and their small deviations, $$\begin{aligned}
(\delta p_1^l+p_1^{(0)})^2+({\delta {\vec p}_1^T})^2+2mV_0=(\delta p_1^l+p_2^{(0)})^2
+({\delta {\vec p}_1^T})^2,\end{aligned}$$ we have equalities for the central values and variances of the momenta $$\begin{aligned}
& &(p_1^{(0)})^2+2mV_0=(p_2^{(0)})^2,\\
& &2p_1^{(0)}\delta p_1^l=2p_2^{(0)}\delta p_2^l,\\
& &({\delta p_1^T})^2=({\delta p_2^T})^2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the variances of momenta are connected by $$\begin{aligned}
{\delta p_1^l \over \delta p_2^l}={p_2^{0} \over p_1^{0}}.
\label{mometum-extensions}\end{aligned}$$ By using the time duration $\tau$, the spatial sizes in the longitudinal direction are proportional to the central value of the velocity, $$\begin{aligned}
& &\delta x_1^l =v_1^l \tau, v_1^l={p_1^{0} \over m},\\
& &\delta x_2^l =v_2^l \tau, v_1^l={p_1^{0} \over m},\end{aligned}$$ hence, the ratio satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
{\delta x_1^l \over \delta x_2^l}={p_1^{0} \over p_2^{0}}.
\label{position-extensions}\end{aligned}$$
From Eqs. ([\[mometum-extensions\]]{}) and ([\[position-extensions\]]{}), the product of momentum extensions and position extensions becomes adiabatic invariant, $$\begin{aligned}
{\delta x_1^l \delta p_1^l \over \delta x_2^l \delta p_2^l}=\text{constant}.
\label{position-momentum-extensions}\end{aligned}$$ The momentum extensions and spatial sizes in the transverse direction are unchanged $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x_1^T ={\hbar \over \delta p_1^T}={\hbar \over \delta p_2^T}{\delta p_2^T \over \delta p_1^T}=\delta x_2^T
\label{ratio-widths-nonrelativistic-T}\end{aligned}$$ and are proportional to their energies.
### Relativistic case
For the relativistic particle, the relation is modified to $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{(\delta p_1^l+p_1^{(0)})^2+({\delta {\vec p}_1^T})^2+
m^2}=\sqrt{(\delta p_2^l+p_2^{(0)})^2+({\delta {\vec p}_2^T})^2+m^2}+V_0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sqrt{(p_1^{(0)})^2+m^2}=\sqrt{(p_2^{(0)})^2+m^2}+V_0,\\
& &2{p_1^{(0)} \over E_1}\delta p_1^l=2{p_2^{(0)} \over E_2}\delta p_2^l,\\
& & ({\vec \delta p_1}^T)^2=({\vec \delta p_2}^T)^2,\end{aligned}$$ hence, the spatial sizes of extensions in the longitudinal direction are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x_1^l ={\hbar \over \delta p_1^l}={\hbar \over \delta p_2^l}
{\delta p_2^l \over \delta p_1^l}={{p_1^l \over E_1} \over {p_2^l \over E_2}}
\delta x_2^l.\end{aligned}$$ The momentum extensions and spatial sizes in the transverse direction are unchanged $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x_1^T ={\hbar \over \delta p_1^T}={\hbar \over \delta p_2^T}{\delta p_2^T \over \delta p_1^T}=\delta x_2^T.
\label{ratio-widths-relativistic-T}\end{aligned}$$
In the low-energy region, the energy $E_1$ and $E_2$ are $mc^2$ and the relation of the spatial extensions coincides with that of the nonrelativistic case, Eq. $(\ref{ratio-widths-nonrelativistic-T})$. If both momenta are relativistic, the velocities are almost $c$, $$\begin{aligned}
{p_1 \over E_1}={p_2 \over E_2}=c\end{aligned}$$ and both sizes are almost the same, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x_1 = \delta x_2.\end{aligned}$$ The massless particle has a light velocity and does not spread in the direction of motion, and the massive particle has the same property, that is, the coherence length is not transformed in the relativistic regime. On the other hand, the massive particle expands when its energy is enlarged by the potential energy from the nonrelativistic region to the relativistic region and has a size at light velocity, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x_c={c \over v}\delta x_v\end{aligned}$$ if it has $\delta x_v$ at velocity $v$.
Scale transformation
---------------------
In scale transformation, a momentum is multiplied by a constant factor $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
{ p_{\mu}}_2=\lambda {p_{\mu}}_1,\end{aligned}$$ which is consistent with the energy and momentum relation of the massless particle. Thus, this transformation is applied only to the massless particle.
The variance is transformed then by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {p_{\mu}}_2=\lambda \delta {p_{\mu}}_1,\end{aligned}$$ hence, the spatial sizes of extensions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {x_{\mu}}_2 ={1 \over \lambda } \delta {x_{\mu}}_1.\end{aligned}$$ For $\lambda << 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta x_2 >> \delta x_1.\end{aligned}$$
Refraction and reflection
==========================
We study situations where a half space is occupied by one medium and another half is occupied by another medium. A wave packet in one half is reflected at the other half and refracted at the boundary. Wave packets of these situations are studied here.
In the situation where one half is the vacuum and another half is filled with medium, the wave in the medium has a mean free path. Thus, the wave that is produced in the medium first and emitted into the vacuum later is described using a wave of finite coherence length. Although the wave in the vacuum is described using the free Hamiltonian, this wave is the wave packet of having a finite mean free time and a finite energy width. Thus, the sizes of wave packets in vacuum are determined using the mean free path in the medium if the wave is produced in the medium and emitted into the vacuum.
Electrons from metal to vacuum
------------------------------
Electrons in the metal follow energy dispersions that are characteristic of the band structure and have a lower energy than that in the vacuum because of the value of the work function. The energy dispersion is approximately expressed by a quadratic form of an effective mass $m_\text{eff}$ that is different from the mass in the vacuum $m_0$. For a spherically symmetric band, we have the relation of energies between the momentum in metal ${\vec p}_1$ and the momentum in vacuum ${\vec p}_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
E_0+{{\vec p_1}^2 \over 2m_\text{eff}}= {{\vec p_2}^2 \over 2m_{0}},\end{aligned}$$ where $E_0$ is the work function in the metal.
By decomposing the momenta into the components and the central values $p_i^{0}$ and deviations in the longitudinal direction, $\delta p_l$, and those in the transverse directions, ${\vec \delta p}_i$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &E_0+{{p_1^{0}}^2 \over 2m_\text{eff}}= {{ p_2^{0}}^2 \over 2m_{0}},\\
& &{2 {p_1^{0}}\delta p_1^{l} \over 2m_\text{eff}}= {{ p_2^{0}}\delta p_2^{l} \over 2m_{0}},\\
& &{{\delta {\vec p}_1}^2 \over 2m_\text{eff}}= {{\delta{\vec p}_2}^2 \over 2m_{0}}.\end{aligned}$$ Electrons propagate in the form of wave packets of the above parameters.
Lights from medium to vacuum
----------------------------
### Without absorption
In an insulator medium, the dielectric constant is different from that in a vacuum and is real if there is no absorption. In this situation, a momentum in the medium ${\vec p}_1$ and a momentum in the vacuum ${\vec p}_2$ are connected by $$\begin{aligned}
& &c_m { p}_1=c { p}_2,\\
& &c_m=c\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \over \mu \epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ and $\mu_0$ are the permeabilities of the medium and vacuum and $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_0$ are the dielectric constants of the medium and vacuum, respectively. $c_m$ is the light velocity in the medium and $c$ is the light velocity in the vacuum.
### Finite absorption
In a system of absorption, the photon energy has an imaginary part $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma=\mu {1 \over \rho},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ is resistivity. The relation of the momenta at the boundary is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& &c_m { p}_1=c{ p}_2,\\
& &c_m=c\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \over \mu \epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ but owing to the imaginary part of the energy, the wave lives for a finite time $\tau$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tau={\epsilon \rho }\end{aligned}$$ in the medium. Thus, the light that is emitted from the medium into the vacuum has an uncertainty of energy $\Delta E$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E={\hbar \over \tau}.\end{aligned}$$ Lights propagate in the form of wave packets of the above parameters.
Many-body processes
===================
The coherence length of a particle in final states of many-body processes is determined on the basis of the uncertainties of the energy and momentum of the initial states. The momentum correlation (Eq. (\[correlation-wave packet\])) of a one-particle state is used for obtaining the coherence length.
Two-body decay
--------------
In a two-body decay, $A \rightarrow B+C$, the energy and magnitude of momentum of B and C are fixed in the rest system of A. The correlation function (Eq. $(\ref{correlation-wave packet})$) is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\sum_{{\vec p}_C} \langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C |T|A \rangle (\langle {\vec p}_2,{\vec p}_C |T|A \rangle)^* ,\end{aligned}$$ where the above amplitude is proportional to the amplitude $\tilde T$ and the delta function of energy momentum conservation, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C |T| A \rangle =\delta^{4}({p}_A-{p}_1-{p}_C) \tilde T\end{aligned}$$ when the state $A$ is the eigenstate of the energy and momentum. Thus, if the state $A$ is the eigenstate of the energy and momentum, the above correlation function becomes proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*}\delta^{4}({p}_1-{ p}_2).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, when the state $A$ is a wave packet of the function $F({\vec p}_A)$, the correlation function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)&=&\sum_{{\vec p}_C} \int d {\vec p}_A d {\vec p}_{A'}
\langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C |T|{\vec p}_A \rangle
(\langle {\vec p}_2,{\vec p}_C |T|{\vec p}_A' \rangle)^* F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A'})\nonumber \\
&=&\int d{\vec p}_A d{\vec p}_{A'} \delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2-{\vec p}_A+
{\vec p}_{A'})F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A'})\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*} \nonumber\\
& &\times \delta({p}_A^{0}-{p}_1^{0}-{p}_C^{0})\delta({p}_A^{0}-{p}_1^{0}-
{p}_C^{0})\nonumber \\
&=&\int d{\vec p}_A F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A}-{\vec p}_2+{\vec p}_1)
\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*} \nonumber\\
& &\times \delta({p}_A^{0}-{p}_1^{0}-{p}_C^{0})\delta({p}_A^{0}-{p}_1^{0}-
{p}_C^{0}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the momentum correlation $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ is determined using the momentum distribution function $F({\vec p}_A)$ of the initial state.
Three-body decay
----------------
In a three-body decay, $A \rightarrow B+C+D$, the energy and magnitude of momentum of B, C and D vary even in the rest system of A. If particle B is measured and the other states are not measured but summed, the result of the correlation function for $B$ is the same as that of two-body decay. The correlation function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\sum_{{\vec p}_C,{\vec p}_D} \langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C,{\vec p}_D |T|{\vec p}_A \rangle
(\langle {\vec p}_2,{\vec p}_C,{\vec p}_D |T|{\vec p}_A \rangle)^* ,\end{aligned}$$ and is proportional to the delta function if the state $A$ is the eigenstate of the energy and momentum, $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\delta^{4}({ p}_1-{ p}_2)\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, when the state $A$ is a wave packet of the function $F({\vec p}_A)$, the correlation function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)&=&\sum_{{\vec p}_C,{\vec p}_D} \int d {\vec p}_A d {\vec p}_{A'}
\langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C,{\vec p}_D |T|{\vec p}_A \rangle
(\langle {\vec p}_2,{\vec p}_C,{\vec p}_D |T|{\vec p}_{A'} \rangle)^* F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A'})\nonumber \\
&=&\int d{\vec p}_A d{\vec p}_{A'} \delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2-{\vec p}_A+
{\vec p}_{A'})F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A'})\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*} \nonumber\\
&=&\int d{\vec p}_A F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A}+{\vec p}_2-{\vec p}_1)\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the momentum correlation $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ is determined by the momentum distribution function $F({\vec p}_A)$ of the initial state $A$.
Two-body collision
-------------------
The coherence lengths of collision products are treated in the same manner as the decay products of the previous section and are determined on the basis of the uncertainties of the energy and momentum of the initial states. We study the momentum correlations (Eq. $(\ref{correlation-wave packet})$) of one particle also in the collision products. In a two-body collision, $A +B \rightarrow C+D$, we study the correlation function (Eq. $(\ref{correlation-wave packet})$) defined as $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\sum_{{\vec p}_C} \langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C |T|A,B \rangle (\langle {\vec p}_2,{\vec p}_C |T|A,B \rangle)^* ,\end{aligned}$$ where the above amplitude is proportional to the amplitude $\tilde T$ and the delta function of energy momentum conservation, $$\begin{aligned}
& &\langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C |T| A,B \rangle =\delta^{4}({p}_\text{initial}-{p}_1-{p}_C) \tilde T,\\
& &p_{\text{initial}=p_A+p_B}\notag\end{aligned}$$ when states $A$ and $B$ are the eigenstates of the energy and momentum. Thus, if the states $A$ and $B$ are the eigenstates of the energy and momentum, the above correlation function becomes proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)=\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*}\delta^{4}({p}_1-{ p}_2).\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, when states $A$ and $B$ are wave packets of finite spreads, the wave functions overlap within a finite space-time region, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta t_\text{overlap} \neq \infty ,~\Delta {\vec x} \neq \infty\end{aligned}$$ and the energy-momentum conservation is slightly violated, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E =E_i-E_f\neq 0,~ \Delta {\vec p} ={\vec p}_i-{\vec p}_f\neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ The correlation function is expressed using the wave functions $F({\vec p}_A)$ and $F({\vec p}_B)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)&=&\sum_{{\vec p}_C} \int d {\vec p}_A d {\vec p}_{A'}
\int d {\vec p}_B d {\vec p}_{B'}
\langle {\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_C |T|{\vec p}_A,{\vec p}_B \rangle
(\langle {\vec p}_2,{\vec p}_C |T|{\vec p}_{A'},{\vec p}_{B'} \rangle)^*
\nonumber \nonumber\\
&\times &F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A'})F({\vec p}_B) F^{*}({\vec p}_{B'})\nonumber\\
&=&\int d{\vec p}_A d{\vec p}_{A'} d{\vec p}_B d{\vec p}_{B'}
\delta({\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_2-{\vec p}_A+
{\vec p}_{A'}-{\vec p}_B+{\vec p}_{B'} )\nonumber\\
&\times &F({\vec p}_A) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A'})
F({\vec p}_B) F^{*}({\vec p}_{B'})\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*} \nonumber\\
&=&\int d{\vec p}_A F({\vec p}_A)d{\vec p}_B F({\vec p}_B) F^{*}({\vec p}_{A}-{\vec p}_2+{\vec p}_1)F^{*}({\vec p}_{A}-{\vec p}_2+{\vec p}_1)
\tilde T {\tilde T}^{*}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the momentum correlation $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ is determined using the wave functions of the initial state. This result is also applied to many-body scatterings. The correlation function $C({\vec p}_1,{\vec p}_2)$ was used in §2.2.
Summary
=======
In this paper, we showed that one-particle states are described using wave packets of finite coherence lengths, i.e., finite wave packet sizes in various situations. The wave packet size is determined either from a one-particle effect or from a many-particle effect. In the former, a finite mean free path is the origin of the wave packet. The finite mean free path makes one particle have a finite spatial extension and a finite momentum uncertainty. The state of a finite mean free path is a nonstationary state and is varied with time. The state is extended also in energy, and the energy width is determined either from the mean free path or from the mean free time. Two values are consistent with each other. In the latter, a one-particle state is generated as a superposition of plane waves owing to many particle effects and has a correlation with a wave packet. The situation is similar to the fact that a spherical wave is produced by a short range potential. The spherical wave is a superposition of plane waves of different orientations. Usually, a particle is detected using a detector of finite size, and the number of events is determined separately at different angles, so it is difficult to observe directly the coherence of different angles. To test the coherence of different angles directly, a particular detector that responds in a wide orientation may be necessary.
We verified in the latter sections that once particles of finite coherence are produced, the finite coherence propagates and transmits to other particles due to scatterings and many-body effects.
In the next paper, we study various applications of wave packets in interference phenomena in large-scale physics.\
\
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant No. 19540253) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area (Progress in Elementary Particle Physics of the 21st Century through Discoveries of Higgs Boson and Supersymmetry, Grant No. 16081201) provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Techonology, Japan.\
Cross Sections around the Decoupling Time
=========================================
Around the decoupling time of the early universe, the densities of photon, electron, and proton are given by $$\begin{aligned}
n_p&=&n_e=4 \times 10^{17}~[\text{m}^{-3}], \\
n_{\gamma}&=& 10^9 \times n_p.\end{aligned}$$ Scattering cross sections of Thomson scattering and Rutherford scattering are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_\text{Ru}&=&4\pi ({e^2 \over 4\pi\epsilon_0 mv^2})^2 \log
\Lambda=4.4\times 10^{-17}[\text{m}^2] \times \log \Lambda, \\
& &\Lambda={\gamma \hbar v 4\pi \epsilon_0\over e^2},~ mv^2=kT, \nonumber \\
\sigma_\text{Th}&=&{ 8 \pi r_e^2 \over 3}=0.6 \times 10^{-28}~[\text{m}^2] ,\\
& &r_e={e^2 \over 4\pi \epsilon_0 m_e c^2}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the cutoff parameter $\log \Lambda=10$ and the temperature $T=3000$ K are used. Hence, the mean free paths are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& &l_\text{Ru}=5.7\times 10^{-3}~[\text{m}],\\
& &l_\text{Th}=5~[\text{m}],\end{aligned}$$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
N_\text{T}={l_\text{Th} \over l_\text{Ru}}=10^3.\end{aligned}$$
Total Momentum Uncertainty of N Particles
=========================================
When a particle is surrounded by *N* particles and interacts with them coherently, one particle in the final state obtains a total momentum uncertainty from *N* particles. The total amplitude of this processes is written as $$\begin{aligned}
f=\int \prod_i d{\vec p}_i F({\vec p}_i)
\langle {\vec q}_1,\cdots, {\vec q}_M,|T|{\vec p}_1,\cdots {\vec p}_N \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We study the case where all the particle states of the initial state are described using the same wave packet for simplicity. In other cases, the following conclusion is the same.
The product of *N* Gaussian functions $$\begin{aligned}
& &F({\vec p}_1)F({\vec p}_2)\cdots F({\vec p}_N),\\
& & F({\vec p}_1)=Ne^{-\sigma ({{\vec p}_1-{\vec p}_1^{0}})^2}\end{aligned}$$ is decomposed into the function of the total momentum ${\vec p}_T$ and relative momenta ${\vec p}_r$ as $$\begin{aligned}
F_T({\vec p}_T-{\vec p}_T^{0}) \prod_r F_r({\vec p}_r-{\vec p}_r^{0}).\end{aligned}$$ In the above function, $F_T({\vec p}_T-{\vec p}_T^{0} )$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& &F_T({\vec p}_T-{\vec p}_T^{0})= \tilde N e^{-{\sigma \over N}({\vec p}_T-{\vec p}_T^{0})^2}, \\
& &{\vec p}_T=\sum_i{\vec p}_i,~{\vec p}_T^{0}=\sum_i{\vec p}_i^{0},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde N$ is a normalization constant. Thus, the spread of the total momentum increases with $N$ and becomes ${\sqrt N}$ times the spread of one particle. These *N* particles give the momentum uncertainty ${\sqrt N} \Delta p$ to the particle.
A Wave Function of Statistical Model
======================================
The many-body wave function that has a minimum uncertainty of field operators $\phi({\vec x})$ and $\pi({\vec x})$ for a Boson $$\begin{aligned}
& &\delta \phi_g^2 \delta \pi_g^2 \geq {\hbar^2 \over 4}\int d{\vec p}g^2({\vec p}),
\\
& &\delta \phi_g^2=\langle \phi_g^2\rangle-\langle \phi_g\rangle^2,~\delta \pi_g^2=\langle \pi_g^2\rangle-\langle \pi_g\rangle^2,~\nonumber \\
& &\phi_g=\int d{\vec p}\phi({\vec p})g({\vec p}),\\
& &\pi_g= \int d{\vec p}\pi({\vec p})g({\vec p}), \end{aligned}$$ is a coherent state $$\begin{aligned}
& &|\psi \rangle=Ne^{\int d{\vec p} g({\vec p})a^{\dagger}({\vec p}) }|0\rangle,\\
& &N^2=e^{-\int d{\vec p} |g({\vec p})|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ This coherent state satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& &\langle \psi| a({\vec q})|\psi \rangle=g({\vec q}), \\
& &\langle \psi |a({\vec q})^{\dagger} a({\vec q})|\psi \rangle
=| g({\vec q})|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and the number density agrees with that of our statistical model if $$\begin{aligned}
|g({\vec p})|^2=n_P({\vec p}).\end{aligned}$$ An example of the weight is $$\begin{aligned}
g({\vec p},{\vec X})=\sqrt {n_P({\vec p})}e^{-i{\vec p}\cdot{\vec X}},\end{aligned}$$ where we choose a suitable vector ${\vec X}$. For Fermion $b^{\dagger}({\vec p})$, a wave function is chosen in the same manner, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi \rangle=N \prod_i e^{\int d{\vec p} (f({\vec p},{\vec X}_i) a^{\dagger}({\vec p}) + g({\vec p},{\vec X}_i)b^{\dagger}({\vec p}) )}|0 \rangle. \end{aligned}$$
J. A. Yeazell and T. Uzer, *The Physics and Chemistry of Wave Packets* (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 2000).
M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, *Collision Theory* (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1965).
R. G. Newton, *Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982).
T. Sasakawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. No. 11, (1959),69. See also, T. Sasakawa, *Scattering Theory(in Japanese)*, (Shokabou, Tokyo, 1991).
K. Ishikawa and T. Shimomura, Prog. Theor. Phys. **114** (2005), 1201.
L. Brillouin, *Wave Propagation and Group Velocity* (Academic Press, New York, 1960).
C. Giunti, C. W. Kim and U. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D **44** (1991), 3635. S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. B **63** (1976), 201.
K. Kiers, N. Nussinov and N. Weisis, Phys. Rev. D **53** (1996), 537. L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D **58** (1998), 036006.
A. Asahara, K. Ishikawa, T. Shimomura, and T. Yabuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. **113** (2005), 385; T. Yabuki and K. Ishikawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. **108** (2002), 347.
K. Ishikawa and T. Shimomura, “Coherent lunar effect on solar neutrino” Hokkaido University preprint (2005).
K. Ishikawa and Y. Tobita, “Coherence length of cosmic background radiation enlarges the attenuation length of the ultra-high energy proton” Hokkaido University preprint (2005); “Neutrino mass and mixing” in the 10th Inter. Symp. on “Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies” AIP Conference proceedings 1016 (2008), 329.
A. Goldberg, H. Schey, and J. L. Schwartz, Am. J. Phys. **35** (1967), 177; L. Schiff, *Quantum Mechanics* 3rd. ed.(McGraw Hill, New York, 1968) p.106.
L. Schiff, *Quantum Mechanics* 3rd. ed.(McGraw Hill, New York, 1968) p.335.
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Quantum Mechanics* 3rd. ed. Translated by J. B. Sykes and J. S. Bell (Butterworth Heinemann, New York, 2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the eikonal model for the nuclear-induced breakup of Borromean nuclei, using and 6 as examples. The full eikonal model is difficult to realize because of six-dimensional integrals, but a number of simplifying approximations are found to be accurate. The integrated diffractive and one-nucleon stripping cross sections are rather insensitive to the neutron–neutron correlation, but the two-nucleon stripping does show some dependence on the correlation. The distribution of excitation energy in the neutron–core final state in one-neutron stripping reactions is quite sensitive to the shell structure of the halo wave function. Experimental data favor models with comparable amounts of $s$- and $p$-wave in the halo.'
address:
- 'Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195'
- 'Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439'
author:
- 'G. F. Bertsch, and K. Hencken'
- 'and H. Esbensen'
title: Nuclear Breakup of Borromean Nuclei
---
= 10000
6[$^6$He]{} 12[$^{12}$C]{}
Introduction
============
Halo nuclei having a very weakly bound neutron pair (often referred to as Borromean nuclei) are interesting objects but they are difficult to study experimentally. Secondary interactions in radioactive beams have been an important tool, with Coulomb excitation providing quantitative data about the excitation properties[@sa93; @sh95]. Nuclear excitation is also important from an experimental point of view, but the theoretical interpretation of nuclear reaction cross sections deserves closer attention. In this work we attempt to make a link, as quantitative as possible, between the nuclear excitation observables and the fundamental properties of a Borromean nucleus. The fact that correlations can play an important role makes this goal more difficult than for a nucleus with a single-nucleon halo. On the experimental side, we have been inspired by the work on carried out at Ganil, NSCL, RIKEN and most recently at GSI. The extremely large Coulomb breakup cross section shows the halo character of the nucleus, but the details of its wave function have been controversial. Starting from the shell model, two of us [@be91] constructed a wave function that fit many Coulomb excitation measurements [@es93]. It had a dominant $p_{1/2}^2$ shell configuration, as one expects from Hartree-Fock theory. However, several measurements (see for example ref. [@kr93]) and also the spectroscopy of the nearby nucleus $^{11}$Be suggest a leading $s_{1/2}^2$ configuration in $^{11}$Li.
In principle, a nuclear-induced breakup gives independent information, and so it is desirable to calculate the various cross sections and compare with experiment. A recent experiment [@zi97] was carried out on a 12 target at 280 MeV/n. At that energy it is justified to treat the target-projectile interaction in the sudden approximation, using the NN forward scattering amplitude for the interaction. Thus we may neglect the evolution of the wave function during the interaction time, provided we take the interaction from nucleon-nucleon scattering. The energy domain around 250 MeV has an additional advantage from a theoretical point of view: the real part of the NN forward scattering amplitude goes through zero in this vicinity, so only the absorptive part of the interaction needs to be treated in the theory.
The nuclear excitation of Borromean nuclei have been considered by a number of authors [@og92; @ba93; @ba96; @th94; @ba95; @og94; @ga96]. In treating the differential cross sections, it common to make a number of simplifying assumptions. We list them here:
- Ground state wave function. Neutron–neutron correlations were neglected in ref. [@ba93]. We shall apply wave functions that have the full three-particle correlations. It turns out that differential cross sections are quite insensitive to these correlations, except the two-neutron stripping which does show an effect. Independent particle models can only describe pure configurations, so a mixture of [*s*]{}- and [*p*]{}-waves requires a correlated model.
- Reaction model. In this work we use an eikonal model description of the nuclear reaction, improving on the black disk model of ref. [@ba93].
- Neutron–core potential. It is important to include the final state neutron-core potential in calculating the energy or momentum spectra, as demonstrated in ref. [@ga96]. Ref. \[7\] made use of simplified two-body wave functions which were based on a zero range neutron–core potential. We shall use a more realistic, finite range potential, both in the initial and final states.
We shall investigate the validity of these as well as other approximations that are often made. Our main interest is the sensitivity of experiments to the properties of the halo nucleus. In a previous work [@es97] we developed models of the ground state wave function with differing amounts of $s$-wave. One of our objectives is to see how well the amount of $s$-wave can be determined by the observables in a breakup reaction. The observables we consider are integrated cross sections for diffraction and one- and two-nucleon removal, and the differential cross section for the excitation energy in the $^9$Li + n final state when one neutron has been removed.
Reaction model {#sec:reaction}
==============
The sudden approximation leads to the eikonal model for nucleus-nucleus interactions. In previous studies, we have applied the model to the nuclear-induced breakup of single-nucleon halo nuclei [@he96]. Here we apply it to the breakup of a two-neutron halo nucleus. The effect of the interaction with the target to multiply the halo wave function by the profile functions $S(R_i)$ for each particle, where $R_i$ denotes the impact parameter of particle $i$ with respect to a target nucleus. The halo nucleus has two neutrons and a $^9$Li core, requiring two types profile functions, $S_n$ and $S_c$, associated with a neutron and the core, respectively. There are three integrated cross sections that leave the core intact, namely the diffractive, the one-nucleon stripping, and the two-nucleon stripping cross sections. These can be written
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma-difa}
\sigma_{dif} &=&
\int d^2R_{cm} \biggl[\langle \left(1-S_c(R_c)S_n(R_1)S_n(R_2)\right)^2
\rangle - \langle \left(1-S_c(R_c)S_n(R_1)S_n(R_2)\right)\rangle^2\bigg]
\\
\label{sigma-difb}
&=& \int d^2R_{cm} \biggl[\langle S_c^2(R_c)S_n^2(R_1)S_n^2(R_2)
\rangle - \langle S_c(R_c)S_n(R_1)S_n(R_2)\rangle^2\biggr],\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{1n-st}
\sigma_{1n-st} &=& 2\int d^2R_{cm} \langle S_c^2(R_c)S_n^2(R_2)
(1-S_n^2(R_1)) \rangle,
\\
\sigma_{2n-st} &=& \int d^2R_{cm} \langle S_c^2(R_c)(1-S_n^2(R_1))
(1-S_n^2(R_2)) \rangle, \end{aligned}$$
where $R_{cm}$ is the impact parameter of the halo nucleus with respect to the target nucleus, and $\langle...\rangle$ denotes a ground state expectation value. Our ground state wave function $\Psi_0$ is expressed in terms of the relative neutron–core distances, $r_1$ and $r_2$. An example of the needed expectation values is the one-nucleon stripping integral S\_c\^2 S\_n\^2(1-S\_n\^2)= d\^3r\_1 d\^3 r\_2 |\_0(r\_1,r\_2)|\^2 S\_c\^2(R\_c) S\_n\^2(R\_c+r\_[2]{}) (1-S\_n\^2(R\_c+r\_[1 ]{})) . \[sixdim\] The integrations are here performed for fixed $R_{cm}$ so one should use $R_c=R_{cm}-(r_{1\perp}+r_{2\perp})/(A_c+2)$, where $A_c$ is the mass number of the core nucleus.
The six-dimensional integration in eq. (\[sixdim\]) is very time consuming to carry out unless some simplification are made in the wave function or in the profile functions. We shall consider two simplifying approximations. The first is the [*no-recoil limit*]{} in which the impact parameter of the core, $R_c$, is assumed to coincide with the impact parameter $R_{cm}$ of the halo nucleus. The core profile function $S_c$ can then be taken outside the expectation value. In addition, the integrations over $r_1$ and $r_2$ become independent and the six-dimensional integral separates into a product of two three-dimensional integrals.[^1] Another simplifying approximation is the [*transparent limit*]{}, defined here by setting the factor $S^2_n(R_2)$ equal to one inside the expectation value of eq. (\[1n-st\]), thus neglecting the absorption of the second neutron. These two assumptions yield the cross section \_[1n-st,trans]{} = 2 d\^2 R S\_c\^2(R)1-S\_n\^2(R+r\_[1]{}). Note that this cross section is identical to the sum of the one- and two times the two-neutron stripping cross section, \_[1n-st,trans]{} = \_[1n-st]{} + 2 \_[2n-st]{}. We will see later that the two-neutron stripping cross section is rather small, so the transparent limit is a good approximation for this cross section.
Of course, much more information about the halo is contained in differential final state distributions. The diffractive cross section has three particles in the final state, but that distribution is beyond what we can calculate, requiring three-particle continuum wave functions for many partial waves. The one-neutron stripping leaves two particles in the final state, and the differential cross section for that state is amenable to computation. The expression for the momentum distribution associated with the relative motion of the two surviving particles is \[dif-strip-full\] [d \_[st]{} d\^3 k]{} = 2 d\^2R\_1 d\^3r\_[2c]{} | M(R\_1,r\_[2c]{},k) |\^2, where $r_{2c}$ is the center-of-mass coordinate of the remaining neutron–core system with respect to the stripped neutron; the associated impact parameter with respect to the target nucleus is denoted by $R_{2c}$, $R_{2c}=R_1+r_{2c\perp}$. The amplitude $M$ is given by M = d\^3r\_2 \_c\^\*(k,r\_2) S\_c(R\_c) S\_n(R\_2)\_0(r\_1,r\_2) . \[mstrip\] Here $\psi_c(k,r_2)$ is the continuum wave function of the surviving neutron–core system, normalized to a plane wave at infinity. The coordinates $R_c$, $R_2$ and $r_1$ are expressed in terms of the integration variables as $R_c=R_{2c}-r_{2\perp}/(A_c+1)$, $R_2=R_{2c}+r_{2\perp}A_c/(A_c+1)$, and $r_1=-r_{2c}+r_2/(A_c+1)$.
The numerical calculation of eq. (\[mstrip\]) is rather difficult because of the form of the ground state wave function that we apply (see the next section). A major simplification is achieved by adopting the approximation $r_1$ = $-r_{2c}$ in the ground state wave function. The amplitude is then given by \[appm’\] M’ = d\^3r\_2 \_c\^\*(k,r\_2) S\_c(R\_c)S\_n(R\_2) \_0(-r\_[2c]{},r\_2) . An even simpler approximation is to also ignore the recoil correction in the argument of the core profile function, i. e. setting $R_c=R_{2c}$, and to use the transparent limit for the second neutron, i. e. setting $S_n(R_2)=1$. We shall refer to these approximations as the [*no-recoil, transparent limit*]{}, where the amplitude reduces to \[appm”\] M” = S\_c(R\_[2c]{}) d\^3r\_2 \_c\^\*(k,r\_2) \_0(-r\_[2c]{},r\_2) . This approximation is used in ref. [@ba96] and [@ga96]. We will discuss the validity of the various approximations in Sec. \[sec:stdist\] below.
The three-body wave function
============================
In ref. [@es97] we constructed several three-body models of . The models are based on Hamiltonians that all reproduce the empirical neutron–neutron scattering length and all have a binding energy of the three-body system close to the empirical value of 295 $\pm$ 35 keV [@yo93]. The single-particle potentials and the density-dependence of the neutron–neutron interaction are varied to produce different probabilities of $s$- and $p$-waves in the different models. We will specifically examine the observables for models having 4.5%, 23%, and 50% $s$-wave. The first model is similar to the one used in ref. [@be91]. The second and third models are constructed with a deeper neutron–core potential for even parity, single-particle states to increase the $s$-wave component in the ground wave function. Details of the procedure and the first two models are given in ref. [@es97]. The wave functions are calculated in the form of single-particle states $u(r)$ and amplitudes $\alpha$ as \_0(r\_1,r\_2) = \_[lj]{} \_[n,n’]{}\_[ljnn’]{} u\_[ljn]{}(r\_1) u\_[ljn’]{}(r\_2) \^0 where $\vec r_1$ and $\vec r_2$ are neutron–core separation vectors. The indices $(ls)^j$ label the single-particle, spin-angle wave functions which are coupled to zero total angular momentum as indicated by the superscript on the bracket. The indices $n,n'$ label the radial quantum numbers of the single-particle basis states. These states are discretized by putting the system into a spherical box of large radius (typically 40 fm).
In Table \[tab:models\] we give some characteristics of the Hamiltonians and the resulting ground state wave-functions. A useful quantity is the $s$-wave scattering length. Within the constraints of our three-body model, we can only produce wave functions that are predominantly $s$-wave by using neutron–core potentials that produce extremely large $s$-wave scattering lengths. The parameters of the potential for the odd-parity states are fixed by the position of the $p_{1/2}$ resonance, which we assume to be at $E_r=540$ keV as suggested by measurements [@yo94]. Besides the $s$-wave probability, these wave functions show significant differences. The single-particle densities of the three models are shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]. It may be seen that the halo is more extended the larger the $s$-wave probability. This is also apparent from the mean square neutron radii computed in Table \[tab:models\].
The integrated dipole strength for Coulomb breakup is proportional to the mean square radius of the two-neutron center of mass, given in the last column of Table I. The value obtained with the p89 wave function is consistent with the experimental Coulomb breakup, but the s50 value is much too high. Thus, we cannot regard that wave function as realistic.
Another important property of the wave function is the correlation between the two neutrons. The integrated dipole strength is proportional to the dineutron–core mean square radius, which in turn depends on the matrix element of $\vec r_1 \cdot \vec r_2$, as shown in [@be91]. In that work it was found that the correlation increased the dipole strength by 43 %. This enhancement does not depend very much on the model; with the present wave functions it is in the range of 30-40%, which may be extracted from the mean square radii computed in Table \[tab:models\].
We also constructed $s$- and $p$-wave independent-particle models for comparison purposes. In these models, the single-particle potential is adjusted to match the exponential fall-off of the single-particle density that is obtained with the three-body model s23 mentioned in Table \[tab:models\]. We see from Fig. \[fig:1\] that the pure $s$-wave model gives a much more diffuse halo than the $p$-wave model or the correlated models.
Profile functions
=================
We now specify the profile functions $S_n$ and $S_c$ that we use for our cross section calculations. The neutron profile function $S_n$ in the eikonal approximation is expressed in terms of the density of the target $\rho_t$ and the nucleon-nucleon cross section $\sigma_{nn}$ as S(b) = \]. We model the density of the 12 target with the harmonic oscillator fit to the charge density of ref. [@de74], \[rhoho\] (r) = \_0 e\^[-(r/a)\^2]{}, with $a = 1.687$ fm and $\alpha = 1.067$. The nucleon-nucleon cross section is taken from ref. [@ch90]; it is 29.2 mb at 280 MeV beam energy.
The reliability of the model can be checked against the nucleon-carbon cross sections. The predicted reaction and elastic cross sections in the eikonal model are $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{re} &=& \int d^2b \Bigl[1-S_n^2(b)\Bigr],
\\
\sigma_{el} &=& \int d^2b \Bigl[1-S_n(b)\Bigr]^2.\end{aligned}$$ These are compared with experiment in Fig. \[fig:2\]. The nucleon-carbon reaction cross section is taken from the proton cross section data tabulated in ref. [@ba88], quoting ref. [@re72]. The total cross section for nucleon-carbon scattering is taken from the neutron measurements of ref. [@fr88]. The experimental elastic cross section is deduced from the difference between total and reaction cross section. The agreement between our parameterization of $S_n$ and experiment is close enough that we will not attempt to adjust the profile function to make a better fit. In the next section we will discuss how the cross sections in halo nuclei depend on the nucleon-target cross sections.
The core-target profile function requires the convolution of both densities, $$S_c(b) = \exp \Bigg[ -{\sigma_{nn}\over 2} \int dx dy
\int dz \rho_c\Big(\sqrt{(x-b)^2+y^2+z^2}\Big)
\int dz' \rho_t\Big(\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z'^2}\Big)\Bigg].$$ For the density of $^9$Li, we note that it has the same number of neutrons as 12 and we will accordingly take the same parameters for the neutrons. The proton density does not have as many particles in the $p$ shell, and we apply the pure harmonic oscillator model to determine $\alpha$ ($=1/3$), and keep $a$ the same as in 12. The resulting $^9$Li density is parameterized as in eq. (\[rhoho\]) with $a=1.687$ and $\alpha=0.726$. This model gives an rms charge radius of 2.28 fm, slightly smaller than the empirical charge radius of $^7$Li which is 2.39 fm. However, the predicted cross section at 800 MeV/n is 840 mb (assuming $\sigma_{nn}= 40$ mb), just 5% larger than the measured cross section of $796\pm6$ mb from ref. [@ta85]. The cross section at 280 MeV/n has been measured for the mirror nucleus $^9$C by Blank et al. [@bl97]. They find a cross section of $812
\pm 34$ mb to be compared with 796 mb obtained by our model.
For the $^4$He core of 6 we use a 3-parameter-Fermi density function [@de74], $$\rho_c(r)=(1+w r^2/c^2)/\left[1+\exp((r-c)/z)\right],$$ with $w=0.517$, $c=0.964$ fm, and $z=0.322$ fm. At 800 MeV/n we find a total cross section of 546 mb (486 at 280 MeV/n) again comparable with the experimental result of $503 \pm 5$ mb [@ta85a].
Integrated cross sections
=========================
In this section we examine the integrated cross sections and compare with experimental data. It is important to understand the dependence of the cross sections on the interaction and on the properties of the halo, and to this end we first discuss some estimates and bounds on the cross sections.
Cross section bounds
--------------------
Let us first consider the (unrealistic) limit where the core-target interaction is ignored[^2]. For a single-nucleon halo the stripping cross section would then be identical to the reaction cross section $\sigma_{re}$ between the nucleon and the target. In the case of a two-nucleon halo, the stripping cross section is just doubled. Split into 1n- and 2n-stripping components, the relation is \[strip-noshadow\] \_[1n-st]{}\^0 +2 \_[2n-st]{}\^0 = 2 \_[re]{}. The symbol $\sigma^0$ is a reminder that the core shadowing is neglected, i.e. the factor $S_c$ is set equal to one. Eq. (\[strip-noshadow\]) is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:3\], showing the comparison of the left- and right-hand sides of the equation for the case of breakup on a 12 target. We used the s23 model to evaluate the unshadowed cross section. The relative amounts of 1n- and 2n-stripping depends of course on the wave function and details of the interaction; in the case considered here, the 1n-stripping cross section is an order of magnitude larger than the 2n stripping.
The diffraction cross section is much more difficult to bound or estimate without full calculation of the integrals. In the case of a one-nucleon halo, a bound can be obtained by dropping the second term in the equation analogous to eq. (\[sigma-difa\]). The first term is just the elastic nucleon-target cross section, so the bound is $\sigma^0_{dif}\le \sigma_{el}$. For $^{11}$Be at 800 MeV/n and using the model of [@he96] we get $\sigma^0_{dif}=68$ mb, smaller than the bound $\sigma_{el}=85$ mb. This shows that the neglected term is not necessarily small. For the two-nucleon diffraction formula eq. (\[sigma-difa\]) the first term does not reduce to the elastic scattering, so no strict bound can be obtained this way.
Instead, we shall analyze diffractive cross section qualitatively using a grey-disk model for the nucleon-target interaction. Thus, we take the nucleon profile function to be of the form $S_n(b) = 1-t
\theta(b_0-b)$, $0\le t\le 1$. We also need to assume that the two nucleons are uncorrelated in the halo wave function. The diffraction cross section may then be expressed as \[dif-noshadow\] \_[dif]{}\^0 = 2 \_[el]{}, where $\langle\rho_t^n\rangle$ is the $n$-th moment of the transverse nucleon density in the halo[^3] and $a=\pi b_0^2$. The leading term is twice the nucleon-target elastic cross section and the corrections are controlled by the parameter $a\langle\rho_t\rangle$. The coefficient of the first correction is negative, so the first term gives a bound that is valid for large halos and small targets, \[difelb\] \_[dif]{}\^0 2 \_[el]{}. In the case of a 12 target, the experimental elastic and reaction cross sections may be fit with $a=30 $ fm$^2$ and $t=0.5$. The transverse halo density for the wave functions has the order of magnitude $\langle\rho_t\rangle\approx 1/100$ fm$^{-2}$ and the second term makes about a factor of two correction; the higher terms are less important. The actual numbers for our model of the –12 reaction are shown in Fig. \[fig:3\]. We find $\sigma^0_{dif}=75$ mb, reduced from $2\sigma_{el}$ by about a factor $2/3$, as expected from the above analysis.
Core shadowing
--------------
In this section we examine the effect of the core shadowing on the cross sections, and use again the model s23 for the ground state wave function. Fig. \[fig:3\] shows on the right the shadowing effect of the carbon target in the breakup reaction. The 1n-stripping cross section is reduced to 43% of the unshadowed value $\sigma^0_{1n-st}$. The shadowing factor for the diffractive cross section is very similar (44%) to that for the 1n-stripping.
The shadowing factor for two-nucleon stripping is much stronger than for the other processes; it reduces the cross section to 20% of the unshadowed value. The difference may be understood qualitatively as follows. The one-nucleon stripping and the diffractive excitation require avoiding an absorptive interaction with a least one of the halo nucleons, favoring moderately large impact parameters. On the other hand, the two-nucleon absorption has no such restriction and would be concentrated entirely at small impact parameters but for the presence of $S_c$. The different dependences on impact parameter is shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]. Here we see that the 2n-stripping probability is more concentrated at small impact parameter than the 1n-stripping and the diffractive probabilities, which are very similar to each other.
The shadowing factor varies, of course, with target size. This dependence is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:5\], where the target densities were taken from [@de74; @de87]. We see that the shadowing changes by a factor of 2 both for diffraction and 1n-stripping, going from a $^4$He target to a heavy target, and by a factor of 4 for the 2n-stripping.
Wave function sensitivity
-------------------------
We next consider the sensitivity of the cross sections to properties of the halo wave functions. The various cross sections for different models are given in Table \[tab:xs\]. For the single-nucleon stripping cross section, the shadowing factor varies, depending on how extended the single-particle density is. From Table \[tab:models\], we see that the mean square radius of the halo increases as the $s$-wave probability increases. Thus we expect less shadowing and a larger cross section for the models with a larger $s$-wave. This is indeed born out by the numbers in Table \[tab:xs\]. For the two-nucleon stripping, the correlation between the neutrons should be important as well, as they must both interact with the target. Indeed, we see from Table \[tab:xs\] that the two-nucleon cross sections doubles going from an uncorrelated $p$-wave model to the model with correlations and $p$-wave dominance. This may be compared with the effect of the correlations on the dipole transition strength which, as was mentioned in the last section, gives only a 30-40% enhancement.
6 cross sections
----------------
Here we report corresponding cross sections for the breakup of 6 on a 12 target, using the 6 wave function from ref. [@es97], line 5 of Table II. The cross sections for two different beam energies are shown in Table \[tab:he6\]. 6 is more tightly bound than , so the halo density does not extend out as far. Another difference is that 6 has a dominant $p_{3/2}$ shell configuration which allows a stronger spatial correlation; pure $s_{1/2}$ or pure $p_{1/2}$ configurations, on the other hand, have uncorrelated densities. The larger correlation implies that the 2n-stripping will be relatively stronger. This is indeed seen to be the case in Table \[tab:he6\]; the 2n-stripping cross sections is about a factor of two larger for 6 than for . Otherwise, the cross sections are about the same as for . The shadowing factors are similar, due to balancing features of a smaller core and a less extended halo.
Shape of the stripping spectrum {#sec:shape}
===============================
In this section we discuss analytic forms for the shape of the spectrum in the neutron–core system produced by the 1n-stripping reaction. The standard parameterization of a peaked distribution by the Breit-Wigner function is not justified at energies close to zero, or for the overlaps with extended wave functions. We shall propose parameterizations that take into account the threshold behavior and the halo character of the initial state. Throughout this section we make use of the no-recoil, transparent limit defined in eq. (\[appm”\]).
To treat the one-neutron removal from a Borromean nucleus, we simply take the overlap of the initial ground state wave-function with the continuum final state of the neutron–core system (cf. eq. (\[appm”\])), fixing the position $r_1=-r_{2c}$ of the stripped neutron. The stripping model assumes that the process is incoherent in $r_1$. Thus we consider matrix elements of the form \[appmk\] M”(r\_1,k) = d\^3 r\_2 \_k\^\*(r\_2) \_0(r\_1,r\_2) and a probability distribution of the form $$|M''(r_1,k)|^2 d n_k.$$ Here $d n_k\sim k^2 dk$ for a differential momentum distribution and $d n_k \sim k d E$ for a differential distribution in excitation energy of the neutron–core system.
Different partial waves of the continuum wave function are incoherent if we integrate over the direction of the decay distribution. At low energies the $s$- and $p$- waves will be most important, and we now discuss their functional behavior.
$s$-Wave distribution
---------------------
The $s$-wave distribution can be described analytically in the limit where the wave functions are dominated by their asymptotic behavior[^4]. The continuum $s$-wave is then given by $$\psi_0 \sim {\sin(k r + \delta) \over k r}.$$ Here $\delta$ is the $s$-wave phase shift; the scattering length is the linear coefficient in the expansion $$\delta = -a k + O(k^3).$$ The two-particle initial state wave function has no exact analytic limit, but the general exponential fall-off at large distances suggests the approximation $$\psi(r_2,r) \approx f(r_2) {e^{-\alpha r}\over r}.$$ Then the integral in eq. (\[appmk\]) can be carried out to give $$M''\sim {\cos(k a) -\alpha/k \sin ( k a)\over k^2 + \alpha^2},$$ and therefore the cross section for the $s$-wave is given by \[s-analytic\] \~k \^2 \^2. This depends on the initial state potential through the fall-off parameter $\alpha$ and on the final state potential through the scattering length $a$. If the two potentials are the same, then the orthogonality of initial and final states requires the matrix element to vanish. This comes about in eq. (20) to leading order in $k$ by the well-known relation between binding energy and scattering length [@el59].
The $s$-wave energy distribution for is shown in Fig. \[fig:6\]. Here we have fitted both parameters $\alpha$ and $a$ to give the best agreement with the calculated curve, which was obtained in the no-recoil, transparent limit (cf. eq. 10) using the model s23. In principal $\alpha$ is given by the binding energy as $\alpha\approx \sqrt{2 m E_B}$. Our fit has $\alpha=24.5$ MeV/c. The corresponding binding energy is 0.32 MeV, almost equal to the binding energy of the independent particle model. Also our fitted value $a=-4.7$ fm is very close to the actual scattering length of $-5.6$ fm.
The distribution in Fig. \[fig:6\] peaks at very low energies; the peak position is close to the momentum $k=\alpha/2$ for a fairly wide range of scattering lengths $a$ between $-1/\alpha<a<1/\alpha$. This corresponds to an energy peak $E_{peak}$ at $$E_{peak} = E_B/4.$$ With our theoretical fit, $E_{peak}\approx 0.08$ MeV. It should also be mentioned that for models with very large scattering lengths, such as the s50 model, the scattering length sets the momentum scale and the predicted peak is lower in energy.
The corresponding $s$-wave distribution for 6 is shown in Fig. \[fig:7\]. Here the best scattering length parameters is $a=1.6$ fm, to be compared with the actual scattering length of $a=2.4$ fm associated with the $^5$He potential. The best fit value of $\alpha$ is $\alpha=55$ MeV/c; this may be compared with the binding energy estimate $\sqrt{2 m E_B} = 43$ MeV/c.
$p$-Wave distribution
---------------------
For the $p$-wave, measurements of the $^{11}$B($^7$Li,$^8$B)$^{10}$Li reaction have suggested the existence of a resonance at about 540 keV [@yo94]. In our recent study of the wave function we used this data to fix the $p$-wave potential for the neutron–core system. In this section we wish to establish a simple function to represent the distributions that we calculate. After trying different functional forms, we found that one could get acceptable fits with the Breit-Wigner resonance form but using an energy-dependent width. The threshold behavior of a $p$-wave resonance requires a width depending on energy as $\Gamma \sim E^{3/2}$. However, the width cannot continue to grow as the $3/2$ power at energies above the resonance. We shall account for this by using the form of the $p$-wave width obtained in potential scattering[@bm69] \[p-analytica\] =([EE\_R]{})\^[3/2]{} [\_0 1+c E/E\_R]{}. The Breit-Wigner function for the decay of a resonance is then given by \[p-analyticb\] [d dE]{} = A [ (E-E\_R)\^2 + \^2/4]{}. There are four parameters here, namely the resonance energy $E_R$, the width on resonance $\Gamma_0$, the overall strength $A$, and a cutoff parameter $c$. One might think that $\Gamma_0$ and $c$ could be determined by the radius of the potential forming the resonance, but the fact that we are considering a transition from a halo state implies that the length scales are larger than the nuclear radius. We shall treat them as adjustable parameters. Fig. \[fig:6\] shows a fit with parameter values $\Gamma_0=1$ MeV, $E_R = 0.51$ MeV, and $c=1.7$. When we make an unconstrained fit, the parameters $\Gamma_0$ and $c$ acquire large values, showing that the function $\Gamma$ is close to the $E^{1/2}$ dependence, except at extremely low energies. The deviation from the 3/2 power law is quite understandable; although the single-particle wave function is in a $p$-wave, the fact that the initial state is a halo means that the extension of the wave function rather than the radius of the barrier sets the scale for the threshold region.
In Fig. \[fig:7\] we show similar a comparison for 6 stripping. In this case, the peak of the $p$-wave distribution is located at 0.83 MeV which corresponds quite well to the resonance energy of the $p_{3/2}$ scattering state (0.89 MeV). Nevertheless, the best fit again favors large values of $c$, indicating that the 3/2 power law for the width is only valid very close to the threshold.
Stripping Distributions {#sec:stdist}
=======================
In this section we treat the full stripping cross section as defined by eqs. (\[dif-strip-full\]) and (\[appm’\]). There are a number of questions one can ask: i) How reliable is the transparent limit to deduce the shape of the differential cross section? Do we get the right shape for the $s$ and $p$-wave and also the right ratio between them? ii) Can a decomposition of the differential cross section into $s$- and $p$-wave components be used to infer the $s/p$ ratio in the ground state wave function?
The energy distribution for the full calculation is compared in Fig. \[fig:8\] to the no-recoil, transparent limit for stripping, using the s23 ground state wave function. We see that the effect of the neutron shadowing is to reduce the cross section without affecting the energy distribution. Thus we can use the transparent limit with confidence in describing these distributions.
The 1n-stripping calculation involves integrations of the probability over the impact parameters of the absorbed neutron and the center of mass of the second neutron with respect to the core. These integrals are incoherent, and can be performed on a coarser mesh than the wave function integral over the internal coordinate. It is of interest to see how much the shape depends on the impact parameters, to make this integration as coarse as possible. Fig. \[fig:9\] shows the distribution with the s23 wave function, comparing the full calculation with the distributions at typical impact parameters. Here we fix the value of the transverse radii $R_{2c}$ and $R_1$ and integrate over the angle between them, and also over the longitudinal component of $r_{2c}$. The curves have been normalized to the same area. We see that the ratio of cross sections at low energy to that at the $p$-wave peak varies by the order of 20%. Thus the impact parameter integration mesh cannot be coarser than 1 fm or so.
Next we consider the relation of the $s$- and $p$-wave probabilities in the wave function to the corresponding probabilities in the stripping distributions. In principle, the stripping distributions for $s$- and $p$-waves are sufficiently dissimilar that one should be able to extract their relative probabilities from the data. In Fig. \[fig:10\] we show the percentage of these waves as would be found in the energy distributions for the full calculation and also in the no-recoil, transparent limit, using the s23 wave function. As found before, the transparent limit is very accurate for purposes of extracting these ratios. As could be anticipated from Fig. \[fig:9\], it is necessary to do a complete integration over all impact parameters to determine the theoretical ratios. Finally, the amount of $s$-wave in the final state stripping distribution is systematically larger than in the initial ground state wave function. This is due to the larger extension of the $s$-wave, and the resulting decreased shadowing by the core. In Fig. \[fig:11\] we compare the $s$- and $p$-wave probabilities of the three correlated models with the final state probabilities for 1n-stripping. In all cases the $s$-wave probability is somewhat larger in the final state than in the wave function, for the reason given above.
The no-recoil approximation
===========================
In this section we examine the no-recoil approximation, and will find that it is very accurate for the reaction. The no-recoil approximation is in fact exact for the integrated stripping reactions, because the outer integration over $R_{cm}$ can be changed to an integration over the core coordinate by a simple change of variable. This separation cannot be made for the diffractive cross section, so there will be some effect of including core recoil. We discuss it immediately below. Following that, we discuss the energy distribution of the single-particle stripping, which is also subject to recoil corrections.
Diffraction
-----------
Diffraction arises from the fluctuations in the expectations of powers of the profile operators (see eq. (1b)), and will only be significant at impact parameters where the operators vary. There are two effects that make the diffractive scattering dependent on the distinction between the center-of-mass coordinate and the core coordinate. The first is that there are no fluctuations associated with the core profile function in the no-recoil limit, and including those fluctuations might be expected to increase the diffractive cross section. However, there is another effect that goes in the opposite direction. That is that the spatial extension of the neutrons is smaller measured with respect to the center of mass than with respect to the core. One might expect a smaller fluctuation of $S_n$ if the neutron wave functions are more confined. Another way to look at the question is with eq. (\[sigma-difa\]). The first term in this formula can be evaluated in either coordinate system. The effect of the no-recoil approximation is thus confined to the evaluation of the second term. We have evaluated the integral numerically for the uncorrelated $p$-wave model, and we find that the effect of recoil is to reduce the diffractive cross section by about 20%. Since the corrections are expected to scale as $1/A$, one should not ignore them for nuclei lighter than .
Stripping distributions {#stripping-distributions}
-----------------------
As shown in Sec. \[sec:reaction\] we include the main recoil effect (the difference in the profile functions between $R_c$ and $R_{2c}$) in our calculation. The only approximation is then to replace the position $r_1$ of the stripped neutron by $-r_{2c}$, cf. eq. (\[appm’\]). As this neutron is absorbed, whereas the other neutron and the core must survive, the major contribution to the spectrum comes from a region where $r_1$ is not small. Therefore we do not expect to get a big effect from this. Nevertheless, we have also calculated the exact spectrum from eq. (\[mstrip\]) in the independent $p$-wave model for fixed impact parameters $R_{2c}$ and $R_1$. The overall relative deviation of the two spectra is smaller than 3% with deviation near the peak being only of the order of 1/2%. The recoil effect on the spectrum therefore seems to be negligible.
Comparison with Experiment
==========================
Integrated cross sections
-------------------------
In Table \[tab:xs\] we compare the integrated cross sections with the experimental data of ref. [@zi97], Table 3. The yields of events having zero, one, or two neutrons in coincidence with the $^9$Li fragment give respectively the cross sections labeled 2n-stripping, 1n-stripping, and diffraction. The first thing to note in the comparison with theory is that the total two-neutron removal cross section measured, 280 mb, is much larger than the eikonal model predicts. There are also data on the two-neutron removal cross section at 800 MeV/n [@ko89]. Applying the eikonal model[^5] at this energy gives a cross section of 187 mb (s23 wave function), only 15% lower than the experimental value of $220\pm10$ mb. At the lower energy the s23 model gives 179 mb. This is close to the theoretical value at the higher energy, which is certainly to be expected in view of the mild change in the nucleon-nucleon cross section between the two energies. The direction of the change in both the nucleon-nucleon and the eikonal removal cross section is a decrease at the lower energy. In contrast the experimental value is larger at the lower energy. The theoretical two-neutron removal cross section behaves the same way in the case of $^6$He, as may be seen in the bottom line of Table III. Here also there is fair agreement with the experimental value at the higher energy.
Let us now turn to the individual components. The diffractive and 1n-stripping cross sections are within experimental error of the most extreme wave function, s50, but the 2n-stripping cross section far exceeds any of the models. In principle, additional contributions to the cross section could come from processes outside the scope of the eikonal model. The flux that is absorbed in the eikonal can reappear, e.g. by multistep or rearrangement processes. This might first show up in cross sections that are very small in the eikonal model–such as the 2n-stripping. On the experimental side, the definition of the cross sections requires some momentum cut on the neutrons to be considered as part of the projectile fragmentation. In ref. \[6\], the detector acceptance allowed neutrons with transverse momenta of up to 60 MeV/c to be included; the authors also quoted cross sections assuming that 20% of all fragmentation neutrons were outside that momentum range. The deduced cross sections are given in the last column of Table III, labeled “modified data”.
As may be seen from the table, adding the detector acceptance correction explains the small 2n-stripping cross section, but only at the expense of greater disagreement with theory for the other two cross sections. Thus, for the diffractive cross section, we obtain only between 33% and 51% of the experimental value. We believe that it not possible to explain this discrepancy within the framework of the eikonal model. Recall that the unshadowed diffractive cross section has a quasibound, $\sigma_{dif}^0 < 2 \sigma_{el}\approx 120$ mb, valid for very extended halos, and the actually computed cross section is reduced from this by two factors of two. The first reduction, seen in eq. (\[dif-noshadow\]), is associated with the fact that the nucleon-target profile function blocks a significant fraction of the halo density. The second factor is the shadowing of the halo density by the core-target profile function. This shadowing is unavoidable and reduces the diffraction cross section by an additional factor of two.
For the 1n stripping cross section with an assumed 20% acceptance correction, the eikonal model gives— depending on the wave function— between 63% and 83% of the experimental result. The cross section increases with larger $s$-wave contribution in the wave function. But we believe that the model that comes closest, s50, is unrealistic on other grounds. Until the cross sections are better understood, it will not be possible to use this sensitivity to test the $s$-wave probability in the wave function.
Relative energy spectrum
------------------------
In the analysis made in [@zi97] two Breit-Wigner resonances were fitted, at $0.21\pm0.05$ and $0.62\pm0.10$ MeV, and the relative amounts of $s$- and $p$-waves in the wave function were extracted. Let us see how this compares with our analysis with the calculated distributions. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:shape\], we find a peak for the final $s$-wave at a much lower energy than the experimental spectrum shows. However, the finite angular and energy resolution of the experimental detectors will inevitably smear out the distribution of the extracted relative momentum or energy, shifting the apparent peak to higher energy. This should be taken into account in comparing our spectrum with the experiments.
The authors of ref. [@zi97] give a table of transverse momentum and longitudinal velocity resolution widths, and we have folded these widths with the theoretical spectra to compare with experiment [^6]. The folding is done by Monte Carlo sampling. We generate events, sampling the theoretical distribution of $E$ in the center-of-mass system of the neutron–core system, and assuming that the angular distribution is isotropic there. We add a Gaussian-distributed center of mass momentum. As we do not have any cuts in our simulation, this center of mass momentum is not important. We transform then from the projectile frame to the lab frame, determining the transverse momentum as well as the Lorentz $\beta$ in the lab frame. To these we add random errors from a Gaussian distribution with a full width at half maximum given by Table 2 in [@zi97]. The relative energy (eq. in (3.2) of [@zi97]) is reconstructed using these values, which are then binned into the same energy intervals as the experiment.
Fig. \[fig:12\] shows the result of this procedure for the $s23$ model. The experimental resolution increases the position of the $s$-wave peak from 0.08 MeV to 0.15 MeV, which is close to the value $0.21\pm0.05$ deduced by the Breit-Wigner fit. However, with our shapes for the individual components, the measured peak at 0.21 MeV is a combined effect of both $s$- and $p$-wave. The individual spectra are strongly overlapping, and require a realistic model of the shapes to separate them with confidence.
In our treatment, there is no indication of a sharp $p$-wave resonance. Our shape has a long tail which explains most of the higher energy data. This fact can be demonstrated by fitting the experimental data at low energies directly to this shape. One then finds that this curve alone is capable of explaining almost all of the higher energy data, leaving no room for a resonance there.
One of our main goals is to find out what we can conclude from this spectrum about the $s$-wave contribution in the ground state and also about the position of the $p$-wave resonance. We investigate this in the following way. The shapes of the distributions are assumed to be the same as we found in Sec. \[sec:shape\], using the parameters of the s23 model. We allow the ratio of $s$ to $p$ to vary, as well as the position of the $p$-wave resonance (that is $E_R$ in eq. (\[p-analyticb\])). Using this as the input to our Monte-Carlo code we calculate the simulated spectrum. Minimizing the $\chi^2$ with the experimental result, we get the most likely result together with some range which we still consider likely. Fig. \[fig:13\] shows the best fit to the experiment we get in this way. It is for an energy of $E_R=0.45$ MeV and an $s$-wave component of about 40%. From the variation of $\chi^2$ we estimate the uncertainty in the position to be $0.1$ MeV and the $s$-wave contribution between 30% and 50%. From Fig. 11 we estimate the $s$-component in the wave function to be between 20% and 40% and the most likely value to be about 30%.
Transverse momentum distribution
--------------------------------
In order to test our final state spectrum, we also make comparisons to a measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of neutrons. Such a measurement has recently been performed at the same energy [@zi96]. In our analysis we assume that the momentum distribution of the neutrons is isotropic and identical to the relative momentum distribution of the neutron and the core fragment. The relative energy spectrum can then be transformed into a transverse momentum distribution: $$\frac{d\sigma}{d^2k_\perp} = \int_0^\infty dk_l \frac{1}{2\pi m k}
\frac{d\sigma}{dE}.$$
In Fig. \[fig:14\] we compare the result of our “best” model with the experimental result. In this figure we made no attempt to include the experimental resolution in the theory curve. The agreement between theory and experiment is reasonable especially for medium and larger momenta, whereas we have difficulties at the very low momenta. At these momenta we expect our approximation of using the relative momenta instead of the neutron momenta to be invalid, as center of mass correction should play a role. Also in this analysis we have ignored diffraction.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
In this paper we applied the eikonal theory to nuclear reactions of Borromean nuclei, with the object of developing a quantitative tool for interpreting reaction cross sections. Because the full theory is quite demanding from a numerical point of view, we examined the approximations that are commonly made. In particular, the theory simplifies if one neglects correlations in the ground state wave function, the final state interaction, the distortion effects of the profile functions on unstripped particles, or the difference between vectors referred to various center-of-mass systems.
The easiest cross section to interpret is the one-particle stripping, which leaves a particle and the core in a final state of low excitation energy. The integrated one-particle stripping cross section can be calculated with rather rough approximations. The correlations in the ground state play no role except to determine occupation probabilities for the shell orbitals. In the differential cross section, the distributions of $s$- and $p$-waves are quite distinct, allowing the occupation probabilities of the halo orbitals to be extracted with 10-20% accuracy. Many of the simplifying approximations can be used here without significant error. The distortion introduced by the profile functions have practically no effect on the shape of the distributions, and a moderate effect on the extracted relative probabilities. However it is important to include the final state interaction in the particle-plus-core system [@ga96]. We proposed parameterizations of the $s$- and $p$-wave distributions that take both the initial halo character and the final state interaction into account. The $s$-wave distribution, given by eq. (\[s-analytic\]), is derived from the asymptotic wave functions. The $p$-wave distribution, given by eqs. (\[p-analytica\]-\[p-analyticb\]), is in the form of a Breit-Wigner function with an energy-dependent width. The width varies with energy as $\Gamma\sim E^{3/2}$ at threshold, but the threshold region is very narrow due to the extended initial wave function. At higher energies the width grows more like $\Gamma\sim E^{1/2}$, which is the characteristic behavior in the absence of a barrier.
The other two integrated cross sections are more sensitive to the correlations in the wave function. The two-particle stripping cross section is sensitive to the pairing correlation, nearly doubling when pairing is included. If the two-nucleon stripping could be measured well, it could be used to study this aspect of the wave function. The other integrated cross section, the diffractive cross section, is not only sensitive to the eikonal distortions, but we found that it changes significantly if the recoil correlation is included in the wave function. The differential diffractive cross section is presently beyond our computational powers.
As a specific example, we have applied the eikonal analysis to the data of ref. [@zi97]. The total two-neutron removal cross section is larger than our calculation, and also larger than the experimental value at a higher energy (800 MeV/n). This is surprising because the difference in nucleon-nucleon cross sections at the two energies demands the opposite trend in the eikonal model. Our calculated one-neutron stripping and diffractive cross sections are only 75% and 50% of the measured values, respectively. The experimental diffractive cross section is nearly high enough to be in conflict with the bound given by eq. (\[difelb\]).
In analyzing the differential cross section, we found that both $s$ and $p$-waves are needed. The $p$-wave cross section does not give a sharp resonant peak, due to the fact that the initial wave function is largely outside the centrifugal barrier. The $s$-wave distribution peaks at a very low energy, and the experiment does not show as much of a threshold enhancement as we predict. While we are not able to get a perfect fit to the data, our best fit has a $p$-wave resonance near 0.45 MeV, only slightly lower than the measurement of ref. [@yo94]. The peak in the stripping distribution found by [@zi97] is at 0.2 MeV, and is most likely due to the combined effect of $s$- and $p$-waves. Again, we found that simplifying approximations of no recoil and the transparent limit give a rather good account of the one-particle stripping distribution. Our analysis with the full eikonal theory gives an $s$-wave component of between 30% and 50% in the cross section, which corresponds to an $s$-wave probability in between about 20% and 40%. This range also gives a good fit to the transverse momentum distribution of neutrons measured by ref. [@zi96]. A number of other experimental[@kr93; @yo94; @zi96; @zi97; @ao96] and theoretical studies[@th94; @vi96] have extracted $s$-wave probabilities of about 50%. An even larger value is apparently obtained by ref. [@ga96], who report a $p$-wave probability of 26%.
In conclusion, the eikonal theory has considerable promise for interpreting the distributions and cross sections in nuclear breakup, but it has not yet proved to be a quantitative tool for the reaction we studied.
Acknowledgment
==============
We would like to thank W. Dostal and H. Emling for discussions and for providing unpublished data from the experiment in ref. [@zi97]. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), the “Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft” (FAG) of the University of Basel, the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG), and the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG and DE-FG-06-90ER-40561.
D. Sackett, et al., Phys. Rev. C48 (1993) 118. S. Shimoura, et al., Phys. Lett. B348 (1995) 29. G. F. Bertsch and H. Esbensen, Ann. Phys. [**209**]{} (1991) 327. H. Esbensen, G.F. Bertsch, and Ieki, Phys. Rev. C48 (1993) 326. R. A. Kryger, et al., Phys. Rev. C46 (1993) 2439. M. Zinser, et al., Nucl. Phys. A619 (1997) 151. Y. Ogawa, K. Yabana, and Y. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. A543 (1992) 722. F. Barranco, E. Vigezzi, and R.A. Broglia, Phys. Lett. 319 (1993) 387 F. Barranco, E. Vigezzi, and R.A. Broglia, Zeit. Phys. A356 (1996) 45. I.J. Thompson and M. V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{} (1994), 1904. Y. Ogawa, Y. Suzuki, and K. Yabana, Nucl. PHys. A[**571**]{} (1994), 784. P. Banerjee and R. Schyam, Phys. Lett.[**B349**]{} (1995), 421. E. Garrido, D.V. Fedorov, and A.S. Jensen, Phys. Rev. C53 (1996) 3159. H. Esbensen, K. Hencken and G.F. Bertsch, submitted for publication, 1997. K. Hencken, G. F. Bertsch and H. Esbensen, Phys. Rev. C54 (1996) 3043. B. M. Young, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 4124. B. M. Young, et al., Phys. Rev. C49 (1994) 279. C. DeJager, H. DeVries, and C. DeVries, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 17 (1974) 479. K. Charagi and S.K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. C41 (1990) 1610. W. Bauhoff, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 35 (1986) 429. P.U. Renberg, et al., Nucl. Phys. A183 (1972) 81 J. Franz, et al., Nucl. Phys. A490 (1988) 667. I. Tanihata, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 2676. B. Blank, et al., to be published (1997). I. Tanihata, et al., Phys. Lett. 160B (1985) 380. H. DeVries, C. DeJager and C. DeVries, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 36 (1987) 495. S. deBenedetti, “Nuclear Interactions", (Wiley, N.Y., 1964), p. 274. L. Elton, “Introductory Nuclear Theory’, (Pitman, London, 1959), eq. (3.75). A. Bohr and B. Mottelson “Nuclear Structure”, Vol. I, (Benjamin, 1969), eq. (3F-38–44). T. Kobayashi, et al., Phys. Lett. B 232 (1989) 51. I. Tanihata, D. Hirata, T. Kobayashi, S. Shimoura, K. Sugimoto, and H. Toki, Phys. Letts B 289 (1992) 261. M. Zinser, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1996) 1719. N. Aoi et al., IV Int. Conf. on Radioactive Nucl. Beams, Omiya, Japan (June 1996). N. Vinh Mau and J.C. Pacheco, Nucl. Phys. A607 163 (1996).
Model $E_B$ $V_{s}$ (MeV) $a_0$ (fm) % $s_{1/2}$ % $p_{1/2}$ $r^2$ (fm$^2$) $(r_1-r_2)^2$ (fm$^2$) $\left(\frac{r_1+r_2}{2}\right)^2$ (fm$^2$)
------- ---------- --------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------------------
p89 $-0.295$ $-35.4$ $+1.7$ 4.5 89.1 29.4 42.8 18.7
s23 $-0.295$ $-47.5$ $-5.6$ 23.1 61.0 37.7 45.9 26.2
s50 $-0.292$ $-51.5$ $-90.$ 49.9 33.9 53.8 70.1 36.2
s 100 45.0 90.0 22.5
p 100 27.5 55.0 13.8
: Parameter of the different models used in comparing the different cross sections. The first model (“p89”) uses the same potential for $s$ and $p$ wave, whereas the other two use a deeper potential for the $s$-wave (and all other even $L$ waves). The strength of the $p$-wave potential is essentially fixed by the position of the $p_{1/2}$ resonance. The lowest two entries give the properties of the uncorrelated pure $s$ and $p$-wave models described in the text.[]{data-label="tab:models"}
uncor. s uncor. p p89 s23 s50 data [@zi97] modified data
------------------- ---------- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -------------- ---------------
diffraction 38 26 27 33 40 $50\pm10$ 77
1n-stripping 174 123 121 137 162 $170\pm20$ 195
1n-str. (transp.) 182 129 134 155 182
2n-stripping 4 3 6 9 10 $60\pm20$ 8
2n-removal 216 152 154 179 212 $280\pm30$ $280\pm30$
: Integrated cross sections (mb) with different models of the halo nucleus . []{data-label="tab:xs"}
---------------- ------------ ----------- --------------------------- ------------ ----------- ---------------------------
with $S_c$ w/o $S_c$ with $S_c$ w/o $S_c$
dif 32.3 64.5 $<2\sigma_{el}=119$ 42.7 89.7 $<2\sigma_{el}=168$
1n-st 136 286 144 319
1n-st,trans 170 409 $\approx2\sigma_{re}=414$ 184 488 $\approx2\sigma_{re}=493$
2n-st 16.7 61.6 19.8 84.1
$\sigma_{-2n}$ 185 206 $\sigma_{exp}=189\pm14$
---------------- ------------ ----------- --------------------------- ------------ ----------- ---------------------------
: Integrated cross sections (mb) for [6]{} breakup on 12. The experimental number is from ref. [@ta92].[]{data-label="tab:he6"}
[^1]: As discussed later on, the no-recoil limit differs from the exact calculation only in the case of diffraction.
[^2]: This is commonly referred to as the transparent limit but we have reserved that concept for the transparency of the second neutron in a 1n-stripping reaction, c. f. Sec. \[sec:reaction\].
[^3]: More precisely, it is the $n$-th moment of an averaged transverse density, the averaging being over the shape of the nucleon profile function.
[^4]: The formula derived gives an excellent description of the magnetic photo-disintegration of the deuteron at low energy[@de64].
[^5]: We note that ref. [@og92] obtained 241 mb, i.e., 10% higher than experiment, in their eikonal model.
[^6]: Ref. \[6\] also quotes an energy resolution function, ($\Delta E \sim E^{0.75}$) but this does not go to a finite value near $E=0$, so we prefer to construct the resolution as described.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Yang Liu\
Center for Integrated Systems,\
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4075\
E-mail: [email protected]
title: On the calculation of Schottky contact resistivity
---
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
This numerical study examines the importance of self-consistently accounting for transport and electrostatics in the calculaiton of semiconductor/metal Schottky contact resistivity. It is shown that ignoring such self-consistency results in significant under-estimation of the contact resistivity. An explicit numerical method has also been proposed to efficiently improve contact resistivity calculations.
Introduction
============
In modern MOSFET designs, silicon/silicide Schottky hetero-interfaces are commonly used to form source/drain contacts. As the device size continues to shrink with each generation, the resistance associated with the silicon/silicide contacts begins to have its impact on the device performance [@Hu]. Therefore, it becomes important to achieve an accurate yet efficient method to evaluate silicon/silicide contact resistivity at different doping concentrations and temperatures. Some widely refered earlier work on J-V relation and contact resistance of Schottky contact are due to [@Padovani; @Crowell; @Yu]. They identified three regimes where the major current contribution comes from field emission, thermionic field emission or thermionic emission, depending on doping concentration and temperature. Analytical expressions of contact resistivity were obtained for each of the three regimes. However, their works were based on two assumptions. Firstly, Poisson equation was only solved by assuming fully depletion of free carriers within the depletion region, i.e. the band-bending of silicon near the interface is parabolic. Secondly, the continuity equation was not solved, and therefore the carrier quasi-Fermi level was assumed to be flat across the depletion region. To examine the validity of those two assumptions, we have implemented in our device simulator Prophet a self-consistent Schottky barrier diode simulation model proposed by [@Matsuzawa]. In this physical model, Poisson and continuity equations are simultaneously solved with the distributed tunneling current self-consistently included. By comparing analytical models against this physical model, we are able to demonstrate that those two assumptions lead to significant deviation in contact resistivity calculations, particularly at high doping concentration of modern device and high temperature under ESD condition. In this work, we also extend the analytical model by removing those two assumptions. In the improved model, a unified contact resistance expression is explicitly obtained[^1], and the results show excellent match with those from the physical model.
Models and Results
==================
In Fig.1 is a schematic energy band-diagram of a silicon/silicide Schottky contact. In this work, we assume the majority carriers are electrons. The hetero-interface in this plot is at location $w$ and the depletion region is between $0$ and $w$. The difference of silicon/silicide affinity is $q\phi_b$ where $q$ is the elementary charge. The doping density in silicon region is $N_D$ and the effective density of states is $N_c$. The difference between conduction band and quasi-fermi level at charge neutral region is $q\phi_s$. The applied forward bias is $V_f$. If we only consider the contact resistance at very low bias, we have $V_f\rightarrow 0$. The barrier height $E_b$ can be expressed as $E_b=q(\phi_b-\phi_s-V_f)$. We base this work on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics for mathematical simplicity [^2]. All the derivations below can be readily extended to Fermi-Dirac statistics, and the effects investigated in this work should still be present in that case. It can be shown that $exp(-q\phi_s/kT)=N_D/N_c$ under M-B statistics.
Following the treatment of [@Bardeen; @Harrison], the general tunneling probability at loaction $x$ within the depletion region is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(E(x))&=&exp\Bigl(-\frac{4\pi}{h}\int_x^w\sqrt{2m^*[E(x')-E(x)]}dx'\Bigr) \nonumber \\
&=&exp\Bigl(-\frac{4\pi}{h}\int_{E(x)}^{E_b}\sqrt{2m^*[E(x')-E(x)]}\frac{dx'}{dE(x')}dx'\Bigr)
\label{eq:tau_E}\end{aligned}$$ where $m^*$ is the tunneling effective mass, $E(x)$ is the conduction bandedge energy at position $x$. The electro-static potential $\phi(x)$ is given by $\phi(x)=-E(x)/q$. It can be seen that, if $dx/dE(x)$ is known, the tunneling probability $\tau(E)$ can be evaluated explicitly by performing the numerical integral in Eqn. 1. Since the bandedge energy $E(x)$ is a monotonic function of position $x$, it is convenient to use a dimensionless quantity $\alpha\equiv E(x)/E_b$ as the basic variable [@Crowell]. In doing so, the general expression for the tunneling probability is re-written as $$\tau(\alpha)=exp\Bigl(-\frac{E_b}{E_{00}}\int_{\alpha}^{1}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha'-\alpha}{F(\alpha')}}d\alpha'\Bigr),
\label{eq:tau_alpha}$$ where $E_{00}\equiv (qh/4\pi)\sqrt{N_D/m^*\epsilon}$. The function $F(\alpha)$ carries the information of potential variation in the depletion region and is defined as $$F(\alpha)\equiv \frac{\epsilon}{2q^2N_DE_b}\bigl(\frac{dE}{dx}\bigr)^2=\frac{\epsilon E_b}{2q^2N_D}
\bigl(\frac{d\alpha}{dx}\bigr)^2.
\label{eq:F_alpha}$$
In the literatures, different energy band-diagrams ($E(x)$) have been assumed to calculate $\tau(\alpha)$. In the work of [@Crowell], they based their calculation completely on the parabolic band-bending relation $$E(x)=qN_Dx^2/(2\epsilon)
\label{eq:E_x}$$ and obtained an analytical expression $$\tau^{C.R.}(\alpha)=exp[-\frac{E_b}{E_{00}}y(\alpha)],
\label{eq:tau_CR}$$ where $y(\alpha)\equiv \sqrt{1-\alpha}-\alpha log[(1+\sqrt{1-\alpha})/\sqrt{\alpha}]$. However, the work in [@Padovani; @Matsuzawa] was based on another widely used formular for tunneling probability: $$\tau^{P.S.}(E)=exp\Bigl[-\frac{8\pi}{3}\frac{\sqrt{2m^*}}{h}\frac{(E_b-E)^{3/2}}{|\mathbf{F}|}\Bigr],$$ where $\mathbf{F}$ is the electrical field perpendicular to the interface. Matsuzawa et al. used $|\mathbf{F(x)}|=(E_b-E(x))/(w-x)$ in their work [@Matsuzawa], and therefore the tunneling probability can be re-written as $$\tau^{P.S.}(E)=exp\Bigl[-\frac{8\pi}{3}\frac{\sqrt{2m^*}}{h}\sqrt{E_b-E}\cdot(w-x)\bigr].
\label{eq:tau_PS}$$ This expression can also be directly derived from the general expression (Eqn. \[eq:tau\_E\]) by assuming linear relation between $E$ and $x$. It should be noted that although triangular potential barrier was assumed in obtaining Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\], the position $x$ appears explicitly in the formula, which still contains the band-bending information. In our physical model, the treatment follows that of [@Matsuzawa], and Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\] is adopted. In the simulation, the realistic potential variation enters through the relation of $x(E)$ by solving the Poisson and continuity equations. In order to have fair comparisons between numerical models and the physical model, we use Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\] for the numerical models in most cases throughout this work.
The general expression for the forward current density (electrons inject from silicon to silicide) is given by $$J_f=\frac{A}{kT}e^{-q\phi_s/kT}\Bigl[\int_{0}^{E_b}\tau(E)e^{-\frac{E+q\eta}{kT}}dE+e^{-\frac{E_b+q\eta_b}{kT}}\Bigr],
\label{eq:Jf}$$ where $A\equiv A^*T^2$ for Richardson constant $A^*\equiv 4\pi m^*qk^2/h^3$, $\eta$ is the local electron quasi-Fermi level variation compared with that at charge neutral region. Therefore, if constant quasi-Fermi level is assumed, $\eta$ is always zero within the entire silicon region. The first term in the bracket of Eqn. \[eq:Jf\] corresponds to field emission and thermionic field emission, while the second term is from the thermionic emission. Similarly, the reverse current density (electron inject from silicide to silicon) is given by $$J_r=\frac{A}{kT}e^{-q\phi_s/kT}\Bigl[\int_{0}^{E_b}\tau(E)e^{-\frac{E+qV_f}{kT}}dE+e^{-\frac{E_b+qV_f}{kT}}\Bigr].
\label{eq:Jr}$$ The total net current density as a function of $V_f$ is therefore obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
J &\equiv& J_f-J_r \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{A}{kT}e^{-q\phi_s/kT}\Bigl[\int_{0}^{E_b}\tau(E)e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}
\bigl(e^{-\frac{q\eta}{kT}}-e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}}\bigr)dE
+e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}}\bigl(e^{-\frac{q\eta_b}{kT}}-e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}}\bigr)\Bigr],
\label{eq:J_tot}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_b$ is the value of $\eta$ at the interface. The contact resistivity at zero bias is then obtained as $R\equiv (dJ/dV_f)^{-1}|_{V_f\rightarrow 0}$ [@Yu]. In previous work [@Padovani; @Crowell], continuity equation was not solved. Therefore, the variation of $\eta$ within the depletion region was ignored. Under such an assumption, the total current density is obtained as $$J=\frac{A}{kT}e^{-q\phi_s/kT}\Bigl[\int_{0}^{E_b}\tau(E)e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}dE+e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}}\Bigr]
\Bigl[1-e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}}\Bigr].
\label{eq:J_tot_const}$$ Hence, the inverse of contact resistivity at zero bias is $$\begin{aligned}
R^{-1}&=&\frac{Aq}{(kT)^2}e^{-q\phi_s/kT}\Bigl[\int_{0}^{E_b}\tau(E)e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}dE+e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}}\Bigr] \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{AqE_b}{(kT)^2}e^{-q\phi_s/kT}\Bigl[\int_{0}^{1}\tau(\alpha)e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha}d\alpha+e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}}\Bigr].
\label{eq:R_1}\end{aligned}$$
In Fig.2 is the contact resistivity obtained from simulations of the physical model for $N_D=1e20cm^{-3}$ and $T=300,500,700,900K$, respectively. We firstly compare it with results from a numerical model, namely model A. In model A, the parabolic potential variation is assumed by substituting Eqn. \[eq:E\_x\] into Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\], which gives $$\tau^A(\alpha)=exp[-\frac{4}{3}\frac{E_b}{E_{00}}\sqrt{1-\alpha}\cdot (1-\sqrt{\alpha})].
\label{eq:tau_A}$$ In this model, quasi-Fermi level is regarded as flat in silicon, i.e. Eqn. \[eq:R\_1\] is used. It can be seen in Fig. 2 that severe discrepancy of calculated resistivity exists between the numerical model A and the physical model throughout the entire temperature range. In order to investigate its cause, we compare the potential variation computed from these two models in Fig. 3. It is clearly observed that, the assumption of fully depletion becomes invalid at energies near the quasi-Fermi level. Since the tunneling probability exponentially depends on the tunneling distance, this discrepancy in $x-E$ relation leads to significant difference in the tunneling probability, as shown in Fig. 4. By removing the parabolic band-bending assumption in model A, the accuracy of contact calculation can be greatly improved. For this purpose, the one-dimensional Poisson equation needs to be solved for the depletion region. For M-B statistics, the Poisson equation is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{q}\frac{d^2E}{dx^2}&=&\frac{q}{\epsilon}(N_D-n) \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{qN_D}{\epsilon}(1-e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}).
\label{eq:poisson}\end{aligned}$$ Multiply $dE/dx$ on both sides of Eqn. \[eq:poisson\] and integrate from $0$ to $E$, and we obtain $$\frac{dE}{dx}=\Bigl[\frac{2q^2N_D}{\epsilon}\int_0^E(1-e^{-\frac{E}{kT}})dE\Bigr]^{1/2}.$$ Express it in terms of $\alpha$ and we have $$F(\alpha)=\int_0^{\alpha}\Bigl(1-e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha}\Bigr)d\alpha,
\label{eq:F_alpha_poisson}$$ according to the definition of $F(\alpha)$ in Eqn. \[eq:F\_alpha\]. Eqn. \[eq:F\_alpha\_poisson\] therefore defines the potential variation from the exact solution to Poisson equation[^3]. Apply Eqn. \[eq:F\_alpha\] and \[eq:F\_alpha\_poisson\] to Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\] and it is obtained that $$\tau^B(\alpha)=exp\Bigl[-\frac{2}{3}\frac{E_b}{E_{00}}(1-\alpha)^{1/2}\int_{\alpha}^1\frac{d\alpha}
{\sqrt{F(\alpha)}}\Bigr].
\label{eq:tau_B}$$ We then have an improved numerical model, namely model B, in which Eqn. \[eq:F\_alpha\_poisson\] and \[eq:tau\_B\] are used to compute the tunneling probability, and constant quasi-Fermi level (Eqn. \[eq:R\_1\]) is still assumed. We also plot the $x-E$ relation and the tunneling probability of model B in Fig.3 and Fig.4, respectively. They show excellent match with those of the physical model. The computed resistivity from model B is also plotted in Fig.2. It can be seen that qualitative improvement is obtained over model A with reference to the physical model. At moderate temperature, the match between model B and the physical model is fairly good. However, an evident discrepancy between them is still observed at high temperature, which is addressed in the next paragraph. As we previously mentioned, our numerical model A, B and the physical model are all based on Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\], which partially assumed triangular potential barrier [*a priori*]{}. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what the effect of the potential variation is based on the the more general expression of tunneling probability (Eqn. \[eq:tau\_alpha\]). As mentioned earlier, the expression used in [@Crowell] (Eqn. \[eq:tau\_CR\]) is derived from Eqn. \[eq:tau\_alpha\] by assuming parabolic band-bending completely. We use their expression Eqn. \[eq:tau\_CR\] in numerical model $\tilde{A}$. In another numerical model $\tilde{B}$ we use the general expression Eqn. \[eq:tau\_alpha\] and the realistic band-bending formula Eqn. \[eq:F\_alpha\_poisson\]. The contact resistivity computed using these two models are plotted in Fig.5, and similar trend is observed: the assumption of the parabolic band-bending severely under-estimates the resistivity at all temperature range.
As shown in Fig.2, significant discrepancy in calculated resistivity exists at high temperature between numerical model B and the physical model. However, it can be seen from Fig.4 that the tunneling probability matches for the two models. Therefore, the source of this discrepancy originates from the assumption of constant $\eta$ in the derivation from Eqn. \[eq:J\_tot\] to Eqn. \[eq:J\_tot\_const\]. In Fig.6 is the band-diagram of a Schottky contact simulated by the physical model for forward bias $V_f=0.1V$. The variation of the electron quasi-Fermi level within the depletion region is evident due to finite carrier supply rate by drift-diffusion. If we let $V_f\rightarrow 0$, we expect this variation $\eta$ to approach zero at the same time. But the ratio $\eta/V_f$ can be finite in this limit. Since the resistivity is a differential quantity, it can be affected by this effect. However, it should be noted that the validity of drift-diffusion model in the depletion region is an open question itself, since the depletion width is comparable to electron mean free path. If the carrier supply is not limited by the drift-diffusion process, the variation of quasi-Fermi level can be negligible. A possible way to examine this problem is Monte Carlo simulation. The electron continuity equation is $$\frac{dj}{dx}+U=0,
\label{eq:con}$$ where $j$ is electron flux due to carrier transport in the depletion region, and $U$ is tunneling flux density. Plug in the tunneling probability and integrate from $0$ to $w$ and we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
j(\alpha)&=&\frac{AE_b}{qkT}e^{-\frac{q\phi_s}{kT}}\Bigl[\int_0^{\alpha}\tau(\alpha')e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha'}
(e^{-\frac{q\eta(\alpha')}{kT}}-e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}})d\alpha'+e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}}(e^{-\frac{q\eta_b}{kT}}-
e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}})\Bigr] \\
&\approx&\frac{AE_b}{qkT}e^{-\frac{q\phi_s}{kT}}(e^{-\frac{q\eta}{kT}}-e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}})
\Bigl[\int_0^{\alpha}\tau(\alpha')e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha'}d\alpha'\Bigr] \\
&\equiv& \frac{A}{q}e^{-\frac{q\phi_s}{kT}}(e^{-\frac{q\eta}{kT}}-e^{-\frac{qV_f}{kT}})P(\alpha).
\label{eq:j_con}\end{aligned}$$ If we assume the electron transport in the depletion region can be modeled as drift-diffusion, as in the physical model, the electron flux can also be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
j(\alpha)&=&\mu N_De^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha}e^{-\frac{q\eta}{kT}}\frac{d\eta}{dx} \nonumber \\
&=& \mu N_De^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha}e^{-\frac{q\eta}{kT}}\sqrt{\frac{2q^2N_D}{\epsilon E_b}F(\alpha)}\cdot \frac{d\eta}{d\alpha},
\label{eq:j_dd}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is electron mobility. Compare Eqn. \[eq:j\_con\] and \[eq:j\_dd\] and let $V_f,\eta \rightarrow 0$, then we obtain $$\frac{dlog(1-\eta/V_f)}{d\alpha}=-\frac{A}{kTq\mu}e^{-\frac{q\phi_s}{kT}}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon E_b}{2N_D^3}} \cdot
\frac{P(\alpha)}{e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha}\sqrt{F(\alpha)}},$$ or equivalently, $$1-\eta/V_f=exp\Bigl[-\int_0^{\alpha}-\frac{A}{kTq\mu}e^{-\frac{q\phi_s}{kT}}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon E_b}{2N_D^3}} \cdot
\frac{P(\alpha')}{e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha'}\sqrt{F(\alpha')}}d\alpha'\Bigr].$$ The inverse of resistivity near zero bias is then revised as $$R^{-1}=\frac{AqE_b}{(kT)^2}e^{-\frac{q\phi_s}{kT}}\Bigl[\int_0^1\tau(\alpha)e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}\alpha}(1-\eta/V_f)d\alpha
+e^{-\frac{E_b}{kT}}\Bigr].$$ The resistivity calculated using this improved model (model C) is also plotted in Fig.2, and excellent match with the results of the physical model is observed.
[10]{} M.-C. Jeng, J. E. Chung, P.-K. Ko, and C. Hu, IEEE Trans. Elec. Dev. [**37**]{}, 2408 (1990).
F. A. Padovani and R. Stratton, Solid-State Electronics [**9**]{}, 695 (1966).
C. R. Crowell and V. L. Rideout, Solid-State Electronics [**12**]{}, 89 (1969).
A. Y. C. Yu, Solid-State Electronics [**13**]{}, 239 (1970).
K. Matsuzawa, K. Uchida, and A. Nishiyama, IEEE Trans. Elec. Dev. [**47**]{}, 103 (2000).
J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**6**]{}, 57 (1961).
W. A. Harrison, Physcal Review [**123**]{}, 85 (1961).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig\_1\] A schematic plot of energy diagram of a silicon/silicide Schottky contact. ](fig1.eps "fig:"){height="10cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig\_2\] Contact resistivity vs. temperature calculated by various numerical models and the physical model. ](fig2.eps "fig:"){height="10cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig\_3\] Distance to the interface vs. barrier energy (x-E relation) calculated by various numerical models and the physical model. ](fig3.eps "fig:"){height="10cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig\_4\] Tunneling probability vs. barrier energy calculated by various numerical models based on Eqn. \[eq:tau\_PS\] and the physical model. ](fig4.eps "fig:"){height="10cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig\_5\] Contact resistivity calculated by two numerical models based on Eqn. \[eq:tau\_alpha\]. ](fig5.eps "fig:"){height="10cm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig\_6\] Energy band diagram of a Schottky contact at $0.1V$ forward bias simulated by the physical model. ](fig6.eps "fig:"){height="10cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[^1]: Numerical integrations are involved in the expression.
[^2]: Also because the physical model is currently implemented based on M-B statistics.
[^3]: After assuming constant quasi-Fermi level and ignoring hole concentrations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We inductively construct an explicit (common) orthogonal eigenbasis for the elements of the Bose-Mesner algebra of the Grassmann scheme. The main step is a constructive, linear algebraic interpretation of the Goldman-Rota recurrence for the number of subspaces of a finite vector space. This interpretation shows that the up operator on subspaces has an explicitly given recursive structure. Using this we inductively construct an explicit orthogonal symmetric Jordan basis with respect to the up operator and write down the singular values, i.e., the ratio of the lengths of the successive vectors in the Jordan chains. The collection of all vectors in this basis of a fixed rank forms a (common) orthogonal eigenbasis for the elements of the Bose-Mesner algebra of the Grassmann scheme. We also pose a bijective proof problem on the spanning trees of the Grassmann graphs.'
author:
- |
[ [**Murali K. Srinivasan**]{}]{}\
[*[Department of Mathematics]{}*]{}\
[*[Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay]{}*]{}\
[*[Powai, Mumbai 400076, INDIA]{}*]{}\
[**`[email protected]`**]{}\
[**`[email protected]`**]{}\
[Mathematics Subject Classifications: 05B25.]{}
---
****
Introduction
==============
This paper presents [*constructive*]{} and [*explicit*]{} proofs of two basic linear algebraic results on the subspace lattice.
The first result concerns the recursive structure of the up operator on subspaces. It is an elementary observation that the up operator (or equivalently, incidence matrices) on subsets of a $n+1$-set can be built from two copies of the up operator on subsets of a $n$-set. The main purpose of this paper is to extend this inductive approach to the subspace lattice. A classical identity of Goldman and Rota suggests that the up operator on subspaces of a $n+1$-dimensional vector space over ${{\mathbb F}_q}$ can be built from two copies of the up operator in dimension $n$ and $q^n-1$ copies of the up operator in dimension $n-1$. Let us make this precise.
Let $B(n)$ denote the collection of all subsets of the set $\{1,2,\ldots
,n\}$. Partially order $B(n)$ by inclusion (our poset terminology follows [**[@st2]**]{}). Then $|B(n)| = 2^n$ and the identity $2^{n+1}=2\cdot 2^n$ has the following poset theoretic interpretation: we can write $B(n+1)$ as a disjoint union $B(n+1) = B(n) \cup [\{n+1\}, \{1,\ldots ,n+1\}]$, where the interval $[\{n+1\}, \{1,\ldots ,n+1\}]$ is order isomorphic to $B(n)$.
Let ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$ denote the $n$-dimensional vector space of all column vectors of length $n$ over ${{\mathbb F}_q}$ and let ${B_q}(n)$ denote the collection of all subspaces of ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$. Partially order ${B_q}(n)$ by inclusion. The number of subspaces in ${B_q}(n)$ having dimension $k$ is the $q$-binomial coefficient ${{{ {{n}\brack {k}}_q }}}$ and the total number of subspaces is the [*Galois number*]{} $$G_q(n)=\sum_{k=0}^n {{{ {{n}\brack {k}}_q }}}.$$ The Goldman-Rota identity [**[@gr; @kc; @nsw]**]{} is the recursion \[gri\] G\_q(n+1) &=& 2G\_q(n) + (q\^n - 1)G\_q(n-1),n1,G\_q(0)=1,G\_q(1)=2. We identify ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$ with the subspace of all vectors in ${{\mathbb F}_q}^{n+1}$ with last component zero. Put $t=q^n - 1$. Motivated by the $B(n)$ case we can ask for the following poset theoretic interpretation of (\[gri\]): is it possible to write ${B_q}(n+1)$ as a disjoint union \[du\] [B\_q]{}(n+1) &=& [B\_q]{}(n) S\_0 S\_1 S\_t , where $S_0,\ldots ,S_t$ are intervals in ${B_q}(n+1)$, with $S_0$ order isomorphic to ${B_q}(n)$ and $S_1,\ldots ,S_t$ order isomorphic to ${B_q}(n-1)$. At least for $q=2$ and $n\geq 4$ the answer is no, as shown in [**[@hh]**]{}.
We show that we can get a poset theoretic interpretation of (\[gri\]) by considering a linear analog of (\[du\]). Moreover, the linear analog of the decomposition (\[du\]) can be explicitly given.
Let $P$ be a finite [*graded poset*]{} with [*rank function*]{} $r: P\rar {\mathbb N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots \}$. The [*rank*]{} of $P$ is $r(P)=\mbox{max}\{r(x): x\in P\}$ and, for $i=0,1,\ldots ,r(P)$, $P_i$ denotes the set of elements of $P$ of rank $i$. For a subset $S\subseteq P$, we set $\mbox{rankset}(S) = \{r(x):x\in
S\}$.
For a finite set $S$, let $V(S)$ denote the complex vector space with $S$ as basis. Let $v=\sum_{x\in S}\alpha_x\,x,\,\alpha_x\in {{\mathbb C}}$ be an element of $V(S)$. By the [*support*]{} of $v$ we mean the subset $\{x\in S :
\alpha_x\not= 0\}$.
Let $P$ be a graded poset with $n=r(P)$. Then we have $ V(P)=V(P_0)\oplus V(P_1) \oplus \cdots \oplus V(P_n)$ (vector space direct sum). An element $v\in V(P)$ is [*homogeneous*]{} if $v\in V(P_i)$ for some $i$, and if $v\not= 0$, we extend the notion of rank to nonzero homogeneous elements by writing $r(v)=i$. Given an element $v\in V(P)$, write $v=v_0 + \cdots +v_n,\;v_i \in
V(P_i),\;0\leq i \leq n$. We refer to the $v_i$ as the [*homogeneous components*]{} of $v$. A subspace $W\subseteq V(P)$ is [*homogeneous*]{} if it contains the homogeneous components of each of its elements. For a homogeneous subspace $W\subseteq V(P)$ we set $\mbox{rankset}(W)=\{r(v) : v
\mbox{ is a nonzero homogeneous element of } W\}$.
The [*up operator*]{} $U:V(P)\rar V(P)$ is defined, for $x\in P$, by $U(x)= \sum_{y} y$, where the sum is over all $y$ covering $x$. We denote the up operator on $V({B_q}(n))$ by $U_n$. For a finite vector space $X$ over ${{\mathbb F}_q}$ we denote by ${B_q}(X)$ the set of all subspaces of $X$ and we denote by $U_X$ the up operator on $V({B_q}(X))$.
Let $\langle , \rangle$ denote the standard inner product on $V(P)$, i.e., $\langle x,y \rangle =
\delta (x,y)$ (Kronecker delta), for $x,y\in P$. The [*length*]{} $\sqrt{\langle v, v \rangle }$ of $v\in V(P)$ is denoted ${\parallel}v {\parallel}$.
Let $(V,f)$ be a pair consisting of a finite dimensional vector space $V$ (over ${{\mathbb C}}$) and a linear operator $f$ on $V$. Let $(W,g)$ be another such pair. By an isomorphism of pairs $(V,f)$ and $(W,g)$ we mean a linear isomorphism $\theta : V
\rar W$ such that $\theta(f(v)) = g(\theta(v)),\;v\in V$.
We give $V({B_q}(n))$ (and $V({B_q}(X))$ for a finite vector space $X$ over ${{\mathbb F}_q}$) the standard inner product. In Section 2 we prove the following result on the recursive structure of the pair $(V({B_q}(n)),U_n)$. Taking dimensions we get (\[gri\]). \[grv\] Set $t=q^n - 1$. There is an explicit orthogonal direct sum decomposition \[odsd\] V([B\_q]{}(n+1)) &=& V([B\_q]{}(n)) W(0) W(1) W(t), where
\(i) $W(0),\ldots ,W(t)$ are $U_{n+1}$-closed (i.e., closed under the action of $U_{n+1}$) homogeneous subspaces of $V({B_q}(n+1))$ with $\mbox{rankset}\,(W(0))=\{1,\ldots ,n+1\}$ and $\mbox{rankset}\,(W(i))=\{1,\ldots ,n\},$ for $i=1,\ldots ,t$.
\(ii) $V({B_q}(n)) \oplus W(0)$ is $U_{n+1}$-closed and there is an explicit linear map $\theta_n : V({B_q}(n)) \rar W(0)$ that is an isomorphism of pairs $(V({B_q}(n)), q U_n)$ and $(W(0),U_{n+1})$, sending homogeneous elements to homogeneous elements, increasing rank by one and satisfying \[ti\] U\_[n+1]{}(v) &=& U\_n(v) + \_n(v),vV([B\_q]{}(n)),\
\_n(w), \_n(v) &=& q\^[n-k]{} w,v,w,vV([B\_q]{}(n)\_k),0k n.
\(iii) For $i=1,\ldots ,t$ there is an explicit linear map $\gamma_{n-1}(i): V({B_q}(n-1)) \rar W(i)$ that is an isomorphism of pairs $(V({B_q}(n-1)), U_{n-1})$ and $(W(i),U_{n+1})$, sending homogeneous elements to homogeneous elements, increasing rank by one and satisfying \[ti2\] \_[n-1]{}(i)(w), \_[n-1]{}(i)(v) &=& q\^[n+k]{} w,v,w,vV([B\_q]{}(n-1)\_k),0k n-1.
Our second main result is concerned with explicit construction of orthogonal symmetric Jordan bases. Let $P$ be a finite graded poset with rank function $r$. A [*graded Jordan chain*]{} in $V(P)$ is a sequence \[gjc\] &s=(v\_1,…,v\_h)& of nonzero homogeneous elements of $V(P)$ such that $U(v_{i-1})=v_i$, for $i=2,\ldots h$, and $U(v_h)=0$ (note that the elements of this sequence are linearly independent, being nonzero and of different ranks). We say that $s$ [*starts*]{} at rank $r(v_1)$ and [*ends*]{} at rank $r(v_h)$. A [*graded Jordan basis*]{} of $V(P)$ is a basis of $V(P)$ consisting of a disjoint union of graded Jordan chains in $V(P)$. The graded Jordan chain (\[gjc\]) is said to be a [*symmetric Jordan chain*]{} (SJC) if the sum of the starting and ending ranks of $s$ equals $r(P)$, i.e., $r(v_1) + r(v_h) = r(P)$ if $h\geq
2$, or $2r(v_1)= r(P)$ if $h=1$. A [*symmetric Jordan basis*]{} (SJB) of $V(P)$ is a basis of $V(P)$ consisting of a disjoint union of symmetric Jordan chains in $V(P)$.
Using Theorem \[grv\] we prove the following result in Section 3.
\[mt3\]
There is an algorithm to inductively construct an explicit orthogonal SJB $J_q(n)$ of $V({B_q}(n))$. When expressed in the standard basis the vectors in $J_q(n)$ have coefficients that are integral multiples of $q$[*th*]{} roots of unity. In particular, the coefficients are integral when $q=2$.
Let $0\leq k \leq n/2 $ and let $(x_k,\ldots ,x_{n-k})$ be any SJC in $J_q(n)$ starting at rank $k$ and ending at rank $n-k$. Then we have, for $k\leq u < n-k$, \[sv\] & = & . A standard argument (recalled in Section 3) shows that the set $\{v\in
J_q(n) : r(v)=m\}$ forms a common orthogonal eigenbasis for the elements of the Bose-Mesner algebra of the Grassmann scheme of $m$-subspaces.
The numbers on the right hand side of (\[sv\]) are called the [*singular values*]{} of the up operator. These are important for applications. The [*existence*]{} of an orthogonal SJB of $V({B_q}(n))$ satisfying (\[sv\]) was first stated explicitly in [**[@t]**]{}, with a proof based on [**[@du]**]{}. See [**[@sr2]**]{} for a proof based on the ${\mathfrak {sl}}(2,{{\mathbb C}})$ method [**[@p]**]{}. Very closely related results are shown in [**[@d2; @st1; @mp2; @bvp]**]{}. The existence of an orthogonal SJB satisfying (\[sv\]) has several applications: in [**[@sr3]**]{} we showed that the commutant of the $GL(n,{{\mathbb F}_q})$-action on $V({B_q}(n))$ block diagonalizes with respect to the orthonormal basis given by the normalization of $J_q(n)$ and we used (\[sv\]) to make this block diagonalization explicit, thereby obtaining a $q$-analog of the formula from [**[@s]**]{} for explicit block diagonalization of the commutant of the symmetric group action on $V(B(n))$. This includes, as a special case, a formula for the eigenvalues of the elements of the Bose-Mesner algebra of the Grassmann scheme [**[@d1; @cst]**]{}. For other approaches to explicit block diagonalization see [**[@mp2; @bvp]**]{}, the latter of which also gives applications to bounds on projective codes using semidefinite programming. In [**[@sr2]**]{} we used (\[sv\]) to give a positive combinatorial formula for the number of spanning trees of the $q$-analog of the $n$-cube and to show that the Laplacian eigenvalues of the Grassmann graphs, known in principle since [**[@d1]**]{}, admit an elegant closed form. For another approach to the Laplacian eigenvalues of the Grassmann graphs see [**[@mp2]**]{}. At the end of this paper we pose a bijective proof problem on spanning trees of the Grassmann graphs.
From the point of view of applications (and especially that of polynomial time computation) explicit construction of the basis $J_q(n)$ is not important as even to write down $J_q(n)$ takes exponential time. But it is of interest from a mathematical standpoint yielding useful additional insight into the linear structure of the subspace lattice. The situation is similar to bijective versus nonbijective proofs in enumeration. Substituting $q=1$ in Theorem \[mt3\] we recover the explicit orthogonal SJB of $V(B(n))$ constructed in [**[@sr1]**]{}. This basis was given a representation theoretic characterization in [**[@sr1]**]{}, namely, that it is the canonically defined symmetric Gelfand-Tsetlin basis of $V(B(n))$. Similarly, the basis $J_q(n)$ should also be studied from a representation theoretic viewpoint. We hope to return to this later.
****
Goldman-Rota recurrence
========================
In this section we prove Theorem \[grv\]. As stated in the introduction, we identify ${{\mathbb F}_q}^k$, for $k<n$, with the subspace of ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$ consisting of all vectors with the last $n-k$ components zero. We denote by $e_1,\ldots
,e_n$ the standard basis vectors of ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$. So ${B_q}(k)$ consists of all subspaces of ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$ contained in the subspace spanned by $e_1,\ldots ,e_k$.
Define ${A_q}(n)$ to be the collection of all subspaces in ${B_q}(n)$ not contained in the hyperplane ${{\mathbb F}_q}^{n-1}$ $${A_q}(n) = {B_q}(n) - {B_q}(n-1) = \{ X\in {B_q}(n) : X\not\subseteq {{\mathbb F}_q}^{n-1} \},\;n\geq 1.$$ For $1\leq k \leq n$, let ${A_q}(n)_k$ denote the set of all subspaces in ${A_q}(n)$ with dimension $k$. We consider ${A_q}(n)$ as an induced subposet of ${B_q}(n)$.
Define a map $${\mathcal H}(n) : {A_q}(n) \rar {B_q}(n-1)$$ by ${\mathcal H}(n)(X) = X\cap {{\mathbb F}_q}^{n-1}$, for $X\in {A_q}(n)$. Define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on ${A_q}(n)$ by $X\sim Y$ iff ${\mathcal H}(n)(X)={\mathcal H}(n)(Y)$. Denote the equivalence class of $X\in {A_q}(n)$ by $[X]$.
For $X\in {B_q}(n-1)$, define $\wh{X}$ to be the subspace in ${A_q}(n)$ spanned by $X$ and $e_n$.
\[el\] Let $X,Y \in {A_q}(n)$ and $Z,T\in {B_q}(n-1)$. Then
\(i) $\mbox{dim}\,{\mathcal H}(n)(X)=\mbox{dim}\,X - 1$ and $\wh{{\mathcal H}(n)(X)}\in
[X]$.
\(ii) $Z\leq T$ iff $\wh{Z} \leq \wh{T}$.
\(iii) $Y$ covers $X$ iff ${\mathcal H}(n)(Y)$ covers ${\mathcal H}(n)(X)$ and $Y = \mbox{ span}\,({\mathcal H}(n)(Y)\cup \{v\})$ for any $v\in X - {{\mathbb F}_q}^{n-1}$.
\(iv) $| {\mathcal H}(n)^{-1}(Z)| = q^l$, where $l= n-\mbox{dim}\,Z - 1$. Thus, $|[X]|=q^{n-k}$, where $k=\mbox{ dim}\,X$.
(i), (ii), and (iii) are clear.
\(iv) Let ${\mathcal H}(n)^{-1}(Z)=\{Y_1,\ldots ,Y_t\}$. Then $Y_i\cap Y_j = Z$, $1\leq i\not= j \leq t$. Let $\mbox{dim}\,(Z)=m$. Now $|Y_i - Z| = q^{m+1} -
q^m$ for all $i$ and thus $t=\frac{q^n - q^{n-1}}{q^{m+1} - q^m}=q^{n-m-1}$. $\Box$
We have an orthogonal decomposition \[bod\] V([B\_q]{}(n+1)) = V([B\_q]{}(n)) V([A\_q]{}(n+1)). We shall now give a canonical orthogonal decomposition of $V({A_q}(n+1))$.
Let $H(n+1, q)$ denote the subgroup of $GL(n+1,q)=GL(n+1,{{\mathbb F}_q})$ consisting of all matrices of the form $$\left[ \ba{cc}
I & \ba{c} a_1 \\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\ a_n \ea \\
0 \cdots 0 & 1
\ea
\right],$$ where $I$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix.
The additive abelian group ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$ is isomorphic to $H(n+1,q)$ via $\phi : {{\mathbb F}_q}^n \rar H(n+1,q)$ given by $$\phi \left(\left[ \ba{c} a_1 \\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\a_n \ea \right]\right)
\rar
\left[ \ba{cc}
I & \ba{c} a_1 \\ \cdot \\ \cdot \\ a_n \ea \\
0 \cdots 0 & 1
\ea
\right].$$
There is a natural (left) action of $H(n+1, q)$ on ${A_q}(n+1)$ and ${A_q}(n+1)_k$. For $X\in {A_q}(n+1)$, let $G_X \subseteq H(n+1,q)$ denote the stabilizer of $X$.
\[orl\] Let $X,Y\in {A_q}(n+1)$. Then
\(i) The orbit of $X$ under the action of $H(n+1,q)$ is $[X]$.
\(ii) Suppose $Y$ covers $X$. Then the bipartite graph of the covering relations between $[Y]$ and $[X]$ is regular with degrees $q$ (on the $[Y]$ side) and $1$ (on the $[X]$ side). (iii) Suppose $X\subseteq Y$. Then $G_X \subseteq G_Y$. (i) This is clear.
\(ii) Since the action of $H(n+1,q)$ on ${A_q}(n+1)$ is clearly order preserving it follows that the bipartite graph in the statement is regular. Let $Y'\in[Y]$ also cover $X$. Then ${\mathcal H}(n+1)(Y')={\mathcal H}(n+1)(Y)$ and it follows from Lemma \[el\](iii) that $Y=Y'$. So the degree on the $[X]$ side is $1$. Let $\mbox{dim}\,(X)=k$. Then, by Lemma \[el\](iv), $|[Y]|= q^{n-k}$ and $|[X]|=q^{n+1-k}$ and hence, by regularity, the degree on the $[Y]$ side is $q$.
\(iii) We may assume that $Y$ covers $X$. If $X\not= X'\in [X]$ then clearly $X\cap X' = {\mathcal H}(n+1)(X)$. So, by part (ii) and Lemma \[el\](iii), we can write $Y$ as a union $$Y=X_1\cup X_2\cup \cdots X_q$$ of subspaces $X=X_1,\ldots , X_q \in [X]$ with $X_i \cap X_j =
{\mathcal H}(n+1)(X),\;1\leq i\not= j\leq q$.
Now the stabilizer of all the elements $X_1,\ldots ,X_q$ is $G_X$ (since $H(n+1,q)$ is commutative). It follows that $G_X\subseteq G_Y$. $\Box$
Let ${{\mathcal I}_q}(n)$ denote the set of all distinct irreducible characters (all of degree $1$) of $H(n+1,q)$ and let ${{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ denote the set of all distinct nontrivial irreducible characters of $H(n+1,q)$.
Let $\psi_k$ (respectively, $\psi$) denote the character of the permutation representation of $H(n+1,q)$ on $V({A_q}(n+1)_k)$ (respectively, $V({A_q}(n+1))$) corresponding to the left action. Clearly $\psi = \sum_{k=1}^{n+1} \psi_k$. Below $[,]$ denotes character inner product and the $q$-binomial coefficient ${{{ {{n}\brack {k}}_q }}}$ is taken to be zero when $n$ or $k$ is $< 0$.
\[mt1\] (i) For $1\leq k \leq n+1$ and $g\in H(n+1,q)$ we have $$\psi_k(g) = \left\{ \ba{ll}
q^{n-k+1}\, {{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}} & \mbox{if }g=I,\\
& \\
q^{n-k+1}\, {{{ {{n-1}\brack {k-2}}_q }}} & \mbox{if }g\not=I.
\ea \right.$$ (ii) Let $\chi \in {{\mathcal I}_q}(n)$ be the trivial character. Then $[\chi , \psi_k ]= {{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}},\;1\leq k \leq n+1.$
\(iii) Let $\chi \in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$. Then $[\chi , \psi_k ]= {{{ {{n-1}\brack {k-1}}_q }}},\;1\leq k \leq n+1.$
\(iv) \[nsw\] [[[ [[n+1]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} &=& [[[ [[n]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} + [[[ [[n]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} + (q\^n - 1)[[[ [[n-1]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{},n,k1,with ${{{ {{0}\brack {k}}_q }}}=\delta(0,k)$ (Kronecker delta) and ${{{ {{n}\brack {0}}_q }}}=1$. Note that (\[gri\]) follows by summing over $k$. (i) From Lemma \[el\](iv), $$|{A_q}(n+1)_k|=q^{n-k+1}\,{{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}}=\psi_k(I).$$ Now assume $g\in H(n+1,q),\,g\not= I$ and let $X\in {A_q}(n+1)_k$. Let the last column of $g$ be $(a_1,\ldots ,a_n,1)^t$ ($t$=transpose), where not all the $a_i$’s are $0$. Now note that
\(a) For $b_1,\ldots , b_n \in {{\mathbb F}_q}$, $$g(b_1,\ldots ,b_n,1)^t = (a_1+b_1,\ldots ,a_n+b_n,1)^t.$$
\(b) From item (a) above it follows that $gX=X$ iff the nonzero vector $(a_1,\ldots ,a_n,0)^t \in {\mathcal H}(n+1)(X)$.
\(c) From item (b) above, if $gX=X$ then $gY=Y$ for all $Y\in [X]$. Thus $g$ either fixes all elements of $[X]$ or no elements.
\(d) The number of subspaces in ${B_q}(n)_{k-1}$ containing the nonzero vector $(a_1,\ldots ,a_n,0)^t$ is ${{{ {{n-1}\brack {k-2}}_q }}}$.
It follows from items (b), (c), (d) above that $\psi_k(g) =
q^{n-k+1}\,{{{ {{n-1}\brack {k-2}}_q }}}$.
\(ii) This follows from the well known result that the multiplicity of the trivial representation in a permutation representation is the number of orbits, which in the present case is ${{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}}$.
\(iii) Since $\chi$ is nontrivial we have $\ds{\sum_{g\in H(n+1,q)}
\ol{\chi(g)}} = 0$ and thus $\ds{\sum_{g\in H(n+1,q),\,g\not= I}
\ol{\chi(g)} = -1}$.
Thus (below the sum is over all $g\not= I$ in $H(n+1,q)$) &=&{ \_k(I) + \_[g= I]{} \_k(g)}\
&=&{q\^[n-k+1]{} [[[ [[n]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} - q\^[n-k+1]{} [[[ [[n-1]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} }\
&=& q\^[-(k-1)]{}{ [[[ [[n]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} - [[[ [[n-1]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{} }\
&=& [[[ [[n-1]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{}, where in the last step we have used $q$-Pascal’s triangle (see Section 1.7 in [**[@st2]**]{}) $${{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}} = {{{ {{n-1}\brack {k-2}}_q }}} + q^{k-1} {{{ {{n-1}\brack {k-1}}_q }}}.$$
\(iv) Let $1\leq k \leq n+1$. Restricting (\[bod\]) to dimension $k$ we get the following orthogonal decomposition V([B\_q]{}(n+1)\_k) = V([B\_q]{}(n)\_k) V([A\_q]{}(n+1)\_k). Splitting $V({A_q}(n+1)_k)$ into $H(n+1,q)$-irredicibles and taking dimensions using parts (ii) and (iii) we get the result. The initial conditions are easily verified. $\Box$
Let $W(0)$ (respectively, $W(0)_k$) denote the isotypical component of $V({A_q}(n+1))$ (respectively, $V({A_q}(n+1)_k)$) corresponding to the trivial representation of $H(n+1,q)$ and, for $\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$, let $W(\chi)$ (respectively, $W(\chi)_k$) denote the isotypical component of $V({A_q}(n+1))$ (respectively, $V({A_q}(n+1)_k)$) corresponding to the irreducible representation of $H(n+1,q)$ with character $\chi$. We have the following orthogonal decompositions, the last of which is canonical (note that $W(\chi)_{n+1}$ is the zero module, by Theorem \[mt1\](iii)). W(0) &=& W(0)\_1 W(0)\_[n+1]{},\
W() &=& W()\_1 W()\_[n]{},[[N]{}\_q]{}(n),\
V([A\_q]{}(n+1)) &=& W(0) (\_[[[N]{}\_q]{}(n)]{} W()). Since $U_{n+1}$ is $GL(n+1,q)$-linear, each of $W(0)$ and $W(\chi)$, $\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ is $U_{n+1}$-closed.
For $\chi \in {{\mathcal I}_q}(n)$, define the following element of the group algebra of $H(n+1,q)$: $$p(\chi)=\sum_g \ol{\chi(g)}\,g,$$ where the sum is over all $g\in H(n+1,q)$. For $1\leq k \leq n+1$, the map \[proj\] &p() : V([A\_q]{}(n+1)\_k) V([A\_q]{}(n+1)\_k),& given by $v\mapsto \sum_{g\in H(n+1,q)} \ol{\chi(g)}\,gv$, is a nonzero multiple of the $H(n+1,q)$-linear projection onto $W(\chi)_k$. Similarly for $p(\chi) : V({A_q}(n+1)) \rar V({A_q}(n+1))$.
\[cl\] Let $X\in{A_q}(n+1)$ and $\chi\in {{\mathcal I}_q}(n)$. Then $p(\chi)(X)\not=
0$ iff $\chi : G_X \rar {{\mathbb C}}^*$ is the trivial character of $G_X$. Let $\{h_0=1,h_1,\ldots ,h_t\}$ be a set of distinct coset representatives of $G_X$, i.e., $$H(n+1,q) = G_Xh_0 \cup G_Xh_1 \cup \cdots \cup G_Xh_t\;\;\mbox{
(disjoint union)}.$$ Write $[X]=\{X=X_0,X_1,\ldots ,X_t\}$ and assume without loss of generality that $h_iX=X_i,\;0\leq i \leq t$. Note that $G_X$ is the stabilizer of all the elements of $[X]$.
We have p()(X) &=& \_[gH(n+1,q)]{} gX\
\[ci\] &=& (\_[gG\_X]{} ) X + \_[i=1]{}\^t (\_[gG\_X]{} ) X\_i . The result follows since $\sum_{g\in G_X} \ol{\chi(g)} = 0$ for every nontrivial character of $G_X$. $\Box$
\[f\]
\(i) Let $\chi\in {{\mathcal I}_q}(n),\;X,Y\in {A_q}(n+1)$ with $X\sim Y$. Then $p(\chi)(X)$ is a nonzero multiple of $p(\chi)(Y)$.
\(ii) Let $\chi\in {{\mathcal I}_q}(n)$. Then $\{ p(\chi)(\wh{X}) : X\in {B_q}(n)_{k-1} \mbox{ with } p(\chi)(\wh{X})
\not= 0\}$ is a basis of $W(\chi)_k$, $1\leq k \leq n+1$.
\(iii) Let $\chi\in {{\mathcal I}_q}(n)$ and let $X,Y\in {B_q}(n)$ with $X$ covering $Y$. Then $$p(\chi)(\wh{X})\not= 0 \mbox{ implies } p(\chi)(\wh{Y})\not= 0.$$
\(iv) Define $\theta_n : V({B_q}(n)) \rar W(0)$ by $$X\mapsto \sum_{Y\sim \wh{X}} Y,\;\,X\in {B_q}(n).$$ Then $\theta_n$ is an isomorphism of pairs $(V({B_q}(n)), qU_n)$ and $(W(0), U_{n+1})$ and \[ul\] U\_[n+1]{}(v) &=& U\_n(v) + \_n(v),vV([B\_q]{}(n)),\
\[ul1\] \_n (w), \_n (v)&=& q\^[n-k]{} w, v,w,vV([B\_q]{}(n)\_k),0k n.
\(v) Let $\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$. From Theorem \[mt1\] (iii) we have $\mbox{dim}\,W(\chi)_n = 1$. It thus follows from part (ii) that there is a unique element $X=X(\chi)\in {B_q}(n)_{n-1}$ such that $p(\chi)(\wh{X})\not= 0$. Define $ \lambda(\chi) : V({B_q}(X)) \rar W(\chi)$ by $$Y \mapsto p(\chi)(\wh{Y}),\;Y\in{B_q}(X).$$ Then $\lambda(\chi)$ is an isomorphism of pairs $(V({B_q}(X)), U_X)$ and $(W(\chi),U_{n+1})$ and satisfies \[ul2\] ()(w), ()(v)&=& q\^[n+k]{} w, v,w,vV([B\_q]{}(X)\_k),0k n-1.
\(vi) For $X\in {B_q}(n)_{n-1}$ the number of $\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ such that $p(\chi)(\wh{X})\not= 0$ is $q-1$.
\(i) By Lemma \[orl\](i), $X=hY$ for some $h\in H(n+1,q)$. Then we have (below the sum is over all $g\in H(n+1,q)$) $$p(\chi)(X) = \sum_g \ol{\chi(g)}\,ghY
= \sum_g \ol{\chi(gh^{-1})}\,gY
= \ol{\chi(h^{-1})}\,p(\chi)(Y).$$ Since $\chi(h^{-1})\not= 0$ ($\chi$ being of degree 1) the result follows.
\(ii) The map (\[proj\]) is a projection onto $W(\chi)_k$, so ${\cal G} = \{ p(\chi)(X) : X\in {A_q}(n+1)_k\}$ spans $W(\chi)_k$. By part (i), the subset ${\cal G'} = \{ p(\chi)(\wh{X}) : X\in {B_q}(n)_{k-1} \mbox{ with }
p(\chi)(\wh{X})\not= 0\}$ also spans $W(\chi)_k$. Now, for distinct $X,Y\in {B_q}(n)_{k-1}$, $p(\chi)(\wh{X})$ and $p(\chi)(\wh{Y})$ have disjoint supports, so ${\cal G'}$ is a basis.
\(iii) This follows from Lemma \[orl\](iii) and Lemma \[cl\].
\(iv) By Theorem \[mt1\] (ii) the dimensions of $V({B_q}(n))$ and $W(0)$ are the same. For $X_1\not= X_2\in {B_q}(n)$ the supports of $\theta_n(X_1)$ and $\theta_n(X_2)$ are disjoint. It follows that $\theta_n$ is a vector space isomorphism.
Let $X\in{B_q}(n)$ with $\mbox{dim}\,(X)=k$. Then (\[ul\]) is clear and $|[\wh{X}]|=q^{n-k}$ by Lemma \[el\](iv), showing (\[ul1\]).
We have (below the sum is over all $Z$ covering $X$ in ${B_q}(n)$) \_n(qU\_n(X))&=&\_n(q(\_Z Z))\
&=& q{\_Z \_[Y\~]{} Y}. Similarly (in the second step below $T$ varies over all subspaces covering $Y$ and in the third step $Z$ varies over all subspaces in ${B_q}(n)$ covering $X$. We have used Lemma \[el\](ii) and Lemma \[orl\](ii) to go from the second to the third step) U\_[n+1]{}(\_n(X))&=& U\_[n+1]{}( \_[Y\~]{} Y)\
&=&\_[Y\~]{} \_T T\
&=&q{\_Z \_[Y\~]{} Y}.
\(v) By part (iii) it follows that $\lambda(\chi)(Y)\not= 0$ for all $Y\in {B_q}(X)$. By Theorem \[mt1\] (iii) the dimensions of $V({B_q}(X))$ and $W(\chi)$ are the same. For $Y_1\not= Y_2\in {B_q}(X)$ the supports of $\lambda(\chi)(Y_1)$ and $\lambda(\chi)(Y_2)$ are disjoint. It follows that $\lambda(\chi)$ is a vector space isomorphism.
Now, for $Y\in{B_q}(X)$, we have (below the sum is over all $Z$ covering $Y$ in ${B_q}(X)$) ()(U\_X(Y)) &=& ()(\_Z Z)\
&=& \_Z p()(). Let $Y\in {B_q}(X)$. Before calculating $U_{n+1}\lambda(\chi)(Y)$ we make the following observation. By Lemma \[el\](ii) every element covering $\wh{Y}$ is of the form $\wh{Z}$, for some $Z$ covering $Y$ in ${B_q}(n)$. Suppose $Z\in {B_q}(n) - {B_q}(X)$. Since $\mbox{dim}\,(W(\chi))=G_q(n-1)$ (by Theorem \[mt1\](iii)), it follows by parts (ii) and (iii) that $p(\chi)(\wh{Z})=0$.
We now calculate $U_{n+1}\lambda(\chi)(Y)$. In the second step below we have used the fact that $U_{n+1}$ is $H(n+1,q)$-linear and in the third step, using the observation in the paragraph above, we may restrict the sum to all $Z$ covering $Y$ in ${B_q}(X)$.
We have U\_[n+1]{}(()(Y))&=& U\_[n+1]{}( p()() )\
&=& p()(U\_[n+1]{}())\
&=& \_Z p()(). We will now show that ${\parallel}p(\chi)(\wh{Y}){\parallel}= \sqrt{q^{n+k}}$ if $Y\in
{B_q}(X)$ with $\mbox{dim}\,(Y)=k$. This will prove (\[ul2\]).
By Lemma \[el\](iv), $|[\wh{Y}]|=q^{n+1-(k+1)}=q^{n-k}$ and so $|G_{\wh{Y}}| = q^k$. It now follows from (\[ci\]) (since the restriction of $\chi$ to $G_{\wh{Y}}$ must be trivial) that $p(\chi)(\wh{Y})=\sqrt{q^{n-k}(q^k)^2}=\sqrt{q^{n+k}}.$
\(vi) By Theorem \[mt1\](iii), $\sum_{\chi \in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)}
\mbox{dim}\,(W(\chi)_n)=q^n - 1=(q-1)(1+q+\cdots +q^{n-1})$. Now $|{B_q}(n)_{n-1}|={{{ {{n}\brack {n-1}}_q }}}=1+q+\cdots +q^{n-1}$ and by Lemma \[el\](iv), $|[\wh{X}]|=q$ for $X\in {B_q}(n)_{n-1}$. Since, for $\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ and $X\in{B_q}(n)_{n-1}$, the support of $p(\chi)(\wh{X})$ is contained in $[\wh{X}]$ and $p(\chi)(\wh{X})$ is orthogonal to $p(\pi)(\wh{X})$ (where $\pi$ is the trivial character), the result now follows by part (ii). $\Box$
To use Theorem \[f\] for computations we need the character table of $H(n+1,q)$, which is easy to write down explicitly since $H(n+1,q)$ is direct sum of $n$ cyclic groups of order $q$. We now give a small example to illustrate part (v) of Theorem \[f\].
Let $q=3$, $n=2$, and $\omega = e^{2\pi \mbox{i}/3}$. Consider $A_3(3)$ with the $H(3,3)$-action. We write the elements of ${\mathbb F}_3$ as $\{0,1,2\}$ and define $\chi \in {\cal N}_3(2)$ by $\chi(\phi((a_1,a_2)) = \omega^{a_1 + 2a_2}$, where $a_1+2a_2$ is computed as an integer.
We have p() &=& + \^2 +\
&&\
&& + + + \^2\
&&\
&& + \^2 + + Given a finite set of vectors $v_1,v_2,\ldots ,v_m$ we shall denote the subspace spanned by them by ${\mathcal S}(v_1,\ldots ,v_m)$.
The four subspaces in $B_3(2)_1$ are $$X_1={\mathcal S}\left(\left[ \ba{c} 1\\0\\0 \ea \right]\right),\;
X_2={\mathcal S}\left(\left[ \ba{c} 0\\1\\0 \ea \right]\right),\;
X_3={\mathcal S}\left(\left[ \ba{c} 1\\1\\0 \ea \right]\right),\;
X_4={\mathcal S}\left(\left[ \ba{c} 2\\1\\0 \ea \right]\right).$$ It can be checked that p()() &=& [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) Using $\omega^3=1$ and $1+\omega+\omega^2=0$ we see that $p(\chi(\wh{X_1}))=0$.
Similarly we can check that p()() &=& [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) and p()() &=& [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) are both equal to $0$ and p()() &=& [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + \^2 [S]{}(,)\
&&\
&& + \^2 [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) + [S]{}(,) is $\not= 0$.
We have now proved most of Theorem \[grv\] except for one small part. Let $X\in {B_q}(n)_{n-1}$. The pairs $(V({B_q}(X)),U_X)$ and $(V({B_q}(n-1)),U_{n-1})$ are clearly isomorphic with many possible isomorphisms. We now define a canonical isomorphism, based on the concept of a matrix in Schubert normal form.
A $n\times k$ matrix $M$ over ${{\mathbb F}_q}$ is in [*Schubert normal form*]{} (or, [*column reduced echelon form*]{}) provided
\(i) Every column is nonzero.
\(ii) The first nonzero entry in every column is a $1$. Let the first nonzero entry in column $j$ occur in row $r_j$.
\(iii) We have $r_1 < r_2 < \cdots < r_k$ and the submatrix of $M$ formed by the rows $r_1,r_2,\ldots ,r_k$ is the $k\times k$ identity matrix.
It is well known that every $k$ dimensional subspace of ${{\mathbb F}_q}^n$ is the column space of a unique $n\times k$ matrix in Schubert normal form (see Proposition 1.7.3 in [**[@st2]**]{} where the discussion is in terms of the row space).
Let $X\in {B_q}(n)_{n-1}$ and let $M(X)$ be the $n\times (n-1)$ matrix in Schubert normal form with column space $X$. The map $\tau(X) : {{\mathbb F}_q}^{n-1}
\rar X$ given by $e_j \mapsto \mbox{ column $j$ of }X$ is clearly a linear isomorphism and this isomorphism gives rise to an isomorphism $$\mu(X) : V({B_q}(n-1)) \rar V({B_q}(X))$$ of pairs $(V({B_q}(n-1)),U_{n-1})$ and $(V({B_q}(X)),U_X)$ given by $\mu(X)(Y)=\tau(X)(Y),\;Y\in{B_q}(n-1)$.
(of Theorem \[grv\]) It is convenient to write the orthogonal decomposition (\[odsd\]) as follows \[od\] V([B\_q]{}(n+1)) &=& V([B\_q]{}(n)) W(0) (\_[[[N]{}\_q]{}(n)]{} W()). Note that $|{{\mathcal N}_q}(n)|=q^n - 1$.
\(i) We have already showed that each of $W(0)$ and $W(\chi),\;\chi\in{{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ is $U_{n+1}$-closed. The rank sets of $W(0)$ and $W(\chi)$ are also easily seen to be as stated.
\(ii) This follows from Theorem \[f\](iv).
\(iii) Let $\chi\in{{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$. From Theorem \[f\](v) there is a unique $X\in{B_q}(n)_{n-1}$ with $p(\chi)(\wh{X})\not= 0$. It now follows, again by Theorem \[f\](v), that $\gamma_{n-1}(\chi)=\lambda(\chi)\mu(X)$ is an isomorphism of pairs $(V({B_q}(n-1)),U_{n-1})$ and $(W(\chi),U_{n+1})$ satisfying (\[ti2\]). $\Box$
****
Orthogonal symmetric Jordan basis
==================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[mt3\] and give an application to the Grassmann scheme. We also pose a bijective proof problem on the Grassmann graphs.
(of Theorem \[mt3\]) The proof is by induction on $n$, the result being clear for $n=0,1$.
Let $\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ and let $(x_k,\ldots
,x_{n-1-k})$ be a SJC in $J_q(n-1)$ starting at rank $k$ and ending at rank $n-1-k$. Then, by Theorem \[grv\], applied to the decomposition (\[od\]), $(y_{k+1},\ldots ,y_{n-k})$, where $y_{u+1} =
\gamma_{n-1}(\chi)(x_u),\,k\leq u \leq n-1-k$, is a SJC in $W(\chi)$ (with respect to $U_{n+1}$) starting at rank $k+1$, ending at rank $n-k$. By the induction hypothesis we have, for $k+1\leq u \leq n-k$, $$\frac{{\parallel}y_{u+1} {\parallel}}{{\parallel}y_u {\parallel}} =
\frac{\sqrt{q^{n+u}}{\parallel}x_{u} {\parallel}}{\sqrt{q^{n+u-1}}{\parallel}x_{u-1} {\parallel}} =
\sqrt{q^{k+1}{{{ {[u+1-(k+1)]_q} }}}{{{ {[n-k-u]_q} }}}}.$$ Doing the above procedure for every SJC in $J_q(n-1)$ we get an orthogonal SJB of $W(\chi)$ satisfying (\[sv\]). Note that, by definition of $\lambda(\chi)$, if the coefficients (in the standard basis) of the vectors in $J_q(n-1)$ were integral multiples of $q\mbox{th}$ roots of unity then so will be the coefficients of the vectors in the SJB of $W(\chi)$. Similarly, doing the above procedure for every $\chi\in{{\mathcal N}_q}(n)$ we get an orthogonal SJB, with respect to $U_{n+1}$, of $\oplus_{\chi\in {{\mathcal N}_q}(n)}
W(\chi)$ satisfying (\[sv\]).
Now we consider the subspace $V({B_q}(n)) \oplus W_0$. Let $(x_k,\ldots
,x_{n-k})$ be a SJC in $J_q(n)$, starting at rank $k$ and ending at rank $n-k$, and satisfying (\[sv\]). Set $\ol{x_u}=\theta_n(x_u),\;k\leq
u \leq n-k$. Then, by Theorem \[grv\], $(w_{k+1},\ldots ,w_{n-k+1})$, where $w_{u+1} =
q^{u-k}\,\ol{x_u},\,k\leq u \leq n-k$ is a graded Jordan chain in $W_0$ (with respect to $U_{n+1}$), starting at rank $k+1$ and ending at rank $n-k+1$. We have $U_{n+1}(q^{u-k}\,\ol{x_u})=q^{u+1-k}\,\ol{x_{u+1}}$ and so \[u1\] U\_[n+1]{}()=q,ku < n-k. Also we have \[bar\] , = q\^[n-u]{} x\_u , x\_u ,ku n-k. For convenience we define $x_{k-1}=\ol{x_{k-1}}=x_{n+1-k}=0$. Note that (\[bar\]) also holds for $u=k-1$.
Now, by (\[ti\]), we have, for $k\leq u \leq n-k$, \[up\] &U\_[n+1]{}(x\_u) = x\_[u+1]{} + \_n(x\_u) = x\_[u+1]{} + Let $Z$ be the subspace spanned by $\{x_k ,\ldots ,x_{n-k}\}$ and $\{\ol{x_k}, \ldots ,\ol{x_{n-k}}\}$. Clearly, by (\[u1\]) and (\[up\]), $Z$ is $U_{n+1}$-closed. We shall now get an orthogonal SJB of $Z$ satisfying (\[sv\]) by taking linear combinations of the vectors $\{x_k,\ldots ,x_{n-k}\}$ and $\{\ol{x_k}, \ldots ,\ol{x_{n-k}}\}$.
We consider two cases:
\(a) $k=n-k$ : By (\[up\]), $(x_k, \ol{x_k})$ is an orthogonal SJB of $Z$ going from rank $k$ to rank $k+1$. We have, from (\[bar\]), $$\frac{\langle \ol{x_k} , \ol{x_k} \rangle}
{\langle x_k , x_k \rangle}= q^k,$$ and thus (\[sv\]) is satisfied.
\(b) $k < n-k$ : Define the following vectors in $Z$. y\_l &=& x\_l + [[[ [\[l-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{},kl n+1-k,\
z\_l &=& - q\^n x\_l + q\^[l+k-1]{}[[[ [\[n-l-k+1\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{} ,k+1l n-k. Note that, using the induction hypothesis, the coefficients of $y_l$, $z_l$ are also integral multiples of $q\mbox{th}$ roots of unity. We claim that $(y_k,\ldots ,y_{n+1-k})$ and $(z_{k+1},\ldots ,z_{n-k})$ form an orthogonal SJB of $Z$ satisfying (\[sv\]).
We check orthogonality first, for which we need to show that $\langle y_l,z_l\rangle =0$ for $k+1\leq l \leq n-k$. Clearly $\langle x_l , \ol{x_{l-1}} \rangle =
0$ for $k+1\leq l \leq n-k$. Thus $$\langle y_l , z_l \rangle = - q^n \langle x_l , x_l \rangle
+
q^{k+l-1}\;{{{ {[l-k]_q} }}}\;{{{ {[n-l-k+1]_q} }}}\;\,\langle \ol{x_{l-1}} ,
\ol{x_{l-1}} \rangle .$$ By the induction hypothesis $\langle x_l , x_l \rangle = q^k
\;{{{ {[l-k]_q} }}}\;{{{ {[n-l-k+1]_q} }}}\;\,\langle x_{l-1} , x_{l-1} \rangle$ and by (\[bar\]) $\langle \ol{x_{l-1}} , \ol{x_{l-1}} \rangle =
q^{n+1-l}\;\,\langle x_{l-1} , x_{l-1} \rangle$. Thus $\langle y_l , z_l \rangle = 0$.
Now we check the Jordan chain condition. Using (\[u1\]) and (\[up\]), we have, for $k\leq l < n+1-k$, U\_[n+1]{}(y\_l)&=& x\_[l+1]{} + (1+q[[[ [\[l-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{})\
&=& x\_[l+1]{} + [[[ [\[l+1-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}\
&=& y\_[l+1]{}, and clearly $U_{n+1}(y_{n+1-k})=0$.
Similarly, for $k+1\leq l \leq n-k$, U\_[n+1]{}(z\_l)&=& - q\^n x\_[l+1]{} + q\^[l+k]{}([[[ [\[n-l-k+1\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{} - q\^n)\
&=& - q\^n x\_[l+1]{} + q\^[l+k]{}[[[ [\[n-l-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}\
&=& z\_[l+1]{}. Note that $z_{n-k+1}=0$.
Now we check that condition (\[sv\]) holds. For $k\leq u < n+1-k$ we have by the induction hypothesis (in the second step below we have used (\[bar\]). Note the second term in the denominator after the fourth step below. This is a fraction with a term ${{{ {[u-k]_q} }}}$ in the denominator, which is zero for $u=k$. This is permissible here because of the presence of the factor ${{{ {[u-k]_q} }}}^2$ in the numerator) &=&\
&=&\
&=&\
&=&\
&=& q\^k[[[ [\[u+1-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}[[[ [\[n-k-u+1\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}( )\
&=& q\^k[[[ [\[u+1-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}[[[ [\[n-k-u+1\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}. Similarly, for $k+1\leq u < n-k$, we have &=&\
&=&\
&=&\
&=&\
&=& q\^[k+1]{}[[[ [\[u-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}[[[ [\[n-k-u\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}( )\
&=& q\^[k+1]{}[[[ [\[u-k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}[[[ [\[n-k-u\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}. Since $\theta_n$ is an isomorphism, doing the procedure above for every SJC in $J_q(n)$ we get an orthogonal SJB of $V({B_q}(n)) \oplus W(0)$ satisfying (\[sv\]). That completes the proof. $\Box$
We now consider the application of Theorem \[mt3\] to the Bose-Mesner algebra of the Grassmann scheme of $m$-subspaces. For convenience we assume $0\leq m \leq n/2$. We do not define this algebra here but instead work with the well known characterization that it equals the commutant of the $GL(n,q)$-action on $V({B_q}(n)_m)$. For the proof of the following result see Chapter 29 of [**[@jl]**]{} where the $q=1$ case is proven. The same proof works in general. \[iirep\] Let $0\leq m \leq n/2$. Then $V({B_q}(n)_m)$ is a multiplicity free $GL(n,q)$-module with $m+1$ distinct irreducible summands. Thus $\mbox{End}_{\,GL(n,q)}(V({B_q}(n)_m)))$ is a commutative $*$-algebra with dimension $m+1$ and so can be unitarily diagonalized.
Let $0\leq m \leq n/2$. Define $$J_q(n,m) = \{ v\in J_q(n) : r(v)=m\}.$$ Then $J_q(n,m)$ is a common orthogonal eigenbasis for the elements of $\mbox{End}_{\,GL(n,q)}(V({B_q}(n)_m)))$. For $i=0,1,\ldots ,m$ and $k=0,1,\ldots ,i$ define J\_q(n,i,k) &=& { vJ\_q(n) : r(v)=i\
&& }. Let $W_q(n,i,k)$ be the subspace spanned by $J_q(n,i,k)$. Then we have an orthogonal direct sum decomposition \[irred\] V([B\_q]{}(n)\_i) &=& \_[k=0]{}\^i W\_q(n,i,k). Clearly $\mbox{dim}(W_q(n,i,k)) = {{{ {{n}\brack {k}}_q }}} - {{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}}$.
We shall now show that, for $i=0,1,\ldots ,m$, $W_q(n,i,k),\;k=0,1,\ldots ,i$ are $GL(n,q)$-submodules of $V({B_q}(n)_i)$. We do this by induction on $i$, the case $i=0$ being clear.
Assume inductively that $W_q(n,i-1,0),\ldots ,W_q(n,i-1,i-1)$ are $GL(n,q)$-submodules, where $i < m$. Since $U_n$ is $GL(n,q)$-linear, $U_n(W_q(n,i-1,j))=W_q(n,i,j)$, $0\leq j \leq i-1$ are $GL(n,q)$-submodules. Now consider $W_q(n,i,i)$. Let $u\in W_q(n,i,i)$ and $g\in GL(n,q)$. Since $U_n$ is $GL(n,q)$-linear we have $U_n^{n-2i+1}(g u)=g U_n^{n-2i+1}(u)=0$. It follows that $g u \in W_q(n,i,i)$.
We now have from Theorem \[iirep\] that (\[irred\]) is the decomposition of $V({B_q}(n)_i)$ into distinct irreducible modules. The result follows. $\Box$
Using (\[sv\]) we can also determine the eigenvalues of the elements of $\mbox{End}_{\,GL(n,q)}(V({B_q}(n)_m)))$. More generally, we can explicitly block diagonalize $\mbox{End}_{\,GL(n,q)}(V({B_q}(n)))$. We refer to [**[@sr3]**]{} for details.
Finally, we pose a bijective proof problem on the spanning trees of the Grassmann and Johnson graphs. Actually, this application only requires the existence of an orthogonal SJB satisfying (\[sv\]) and not the actual construction from the present paper.
The number of spanning trees of a graph $G$ is called the [*complexity*]{} of $G$ and denoted $c(G)$. The number of [*rooted spanning trees*]{} (i.e., a spanning tree plus a choice of a vertex as a root) of $G$ is denoted ${{{ \overline{c} }}}(G)$.
Let $0\leq m \leq n/2$. The [*Johnson graph*]{} $C(n,m)$ is defined to be the graph with $B(n)_m$, the set of all subsets in $B(n)$ of cardinality $m$, as the vertex set and with two vertices $X,Y\in B(n)_m$ connected by an edge iff $|X\cap Y| = m-1$.
Let $0\leq m \leq n/2$. The [*Grassmann graph*]{} ${C_q}(n,m)$ is defined to be the graph with vertex set ${B_q}(n)_m$, and with two vertices $X,Y\in {B_q}(n)_m$ connected by an edge iff $\mbox{dim}(X\cap Y) = m-1$.
Let $T_q(n,m)$ and $T(n,m)$ denote, respectively, the set of rooted spanning trees of ${C_q}(n,m)$ and $C(n,m)$.
For $X\in {B_q}(n)_k, \; X' \in {B_q}(n)_{k-1},\;1\leq k \leq n$ define (X) &=& { (Y,Z) [B\_q]{}(n)\_[k-1]{} [B\_q]{}(n)\_k | X Y Z },\
[D]{}[U]{}(X’) &=& { (Y’,Z’) [B\_q]{}(n)\_[k]{} [B\_q]{}(n)\_[k-1]{} | X’ Y’ Z’ }.\[gg\] Let $0\leq m \leq n/2$. The sets $$T_q(n,m) \times \prod_{X\in {B_q}(n)_{m-1}} {\cal D}{\cal U}(X)
\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{\em{and}}\;\;\;\;\;\; T_q(n,m-1) \times
\prod_{X\in {B_q}(n)_m} {\cal U}{\cal D}(X)$$ have the same cardinality. We give an algebraic proof. For $X\in {B_q}(n)_k, \; X' \in {B_q}(n)_{k-1},\;1\leq k \leq n$ note that $$|{\cal U}{\cal D}(X)| = |{\cal D}{\cal U}(X')| = {{{ {[k]_q} }}}{{{ {[n-k+1]_q} }}}.$$ Now, using the existence of an orthogonal SJB of $V({B_q}(n))$ satisfying (\[sv\]) it was proved in [**[@sr2]**]{} that the Laplacian eigenvalues of $C_q(n,m)$ are ${{{ {[k]_q} }}}{{{ {[n-k+1]_q} }}},\;k=0,1,\ldots ,m$ with respective multiplicities ${{{ {{n}\brack {k}}_q }}}-{{{ {{n}\brack {k-1}}_q }}}$. It now follows from the matrix-tree theorem (see [**[@bh]**]{}) that [[[ ]{}]{}]{}([C\_q]{}(n,m)) &=& ( [[[ [\[k\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{}[[[ [\[n-k+1\]\_q]{} ]{}]{}]{} )\^[[[[ [[n]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{}- [[[ [[n]{}]{}\_q ]{}]{}]{}]{}. It follows that the sets in the statement of the theorem have the same cardinality. $\Box$
The following result is an immediate corollary of the theorem above. We use similar notations as above. \[jg\] Let $0\leq m \leq n/2$. The sets $$T(n,m) \times \prod_{X\in B(n)_{m-1}} {\cal D}{\cal U}(X)
\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{\em{and}}\;\;\;\;\;\; T(n,m-1) \times
\prod_{X\in B(n)_m} {\cal U}{\cal D}(X)$$ have the same cardinality.
For $m=1$, Theorem \[jg\] gives $n|T(n,1)|=n^n$, a result for which there is a celebrated bijective proof [**[@j]**]{}.
.
Recently, a related open problem, that of finding a combinatorial proof of the product formula for the complexity of the hypercube was solved in [**[@b]**]{}.
[AAA]{}
C. Bachoc, F. Vallentin and A. Passuello, , arXiv: 1205.6406 (2012).
O. Bernardi, Electronic J. Comb. [**19(4)**]{}, Paper 51 (16 Pages) (2012).
A. E. Brouwer, and W. H. Haemers, , Springer, 2012.
T. Ceccherini-Silberstein, F. Scarabotti, and F. Tolli, , Cambridge University Press, 2008.
P. Delsarte, , J. Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 20 : 230-243 (1976).
P. Delsarte, , SIAM J. Applied Math., 34 : 157-166 (1978).
C. F. Dunkl, , Monatsh. Math., 85 : 5-37 (1978).
J. Goldman and G. -C. Rota, , in [*Recent progress in Combinatorics*]{} (Proc. Third Waterloo Conf. on Combinatorics 1968), Academic Press : 75-83 (1969).
S. Hitzemann and W. Hochstättler, , Discrete Math., 310 : 3551-3557 (2010).
G. James, and M.Liebeck, , Cambridge University Press, 2001.
A. Joyal, , Advances in Math., 42 : 1-82 (1981).
V. Kac and P. Cheung, , Springer-Verlag, 2002.
J. M. Marco and J. Parcet, , Monatsh. Math., 150 : 97-132 (2007).
A. Nijenhuis, A. E. Solow and H. S. Wilf, , J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A, 37 : 80-84 (1984).
R. A. Proctor, , SIAM J. Alg. Discr. Methods, 3 : 275-280 (1982).
A. Schrijver, , IEEE Tran. Information Theory, 51 : 2859-2866 (2005).
M. K. Srinivasan, , J. Algebraic Comb., 34 : 301-322 (2011).
M. K. Srinivasan, , Electronic J. Comb., 19(2) : Paper 34 (14 Pages) (2012).
M. K. Srinivasan, , in [*Combinatorial Matrix Theory and Generalized Inverses of Matrices*]{}, Springer: 13-31 (2013).
R. P. Stanley, , in [*Invariant Theory and Tableaux*]{}, volume 19 of [*IMA Vol. Math. Appl.*]{}, Springer: 145-165 (1990).
R. P. Stanley, , Cambridge University Press, 2012.
P. Terwilliger, , in [*Coding theory and design theory, Part I*]{}, volume 20 of [*IMA Vol. Math. Appl.*]{}, Springer: 193-212 (1990).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Three dimensional field configuration has been simulated for a simple wire chamber consisting of one anode wire stretched along the axis of a grounded square cathode tube by solving numerically the boundary integral equation of the first kind. A closed form expression of potential due to charge distributed over flat rectangular surface has been invoked in the solver using Green’s function formalism leading to a nearly exact computation of electrostatic field. The solver has been employed to study the effect of several geometrical attributes such as the aspect ratio ($\lambda = \frac{l}{d}$, defined as the ratio of the length $l$ of the tube to its width $d$) and the wire modeling on the field configuration. Detailed calculation has revealed that the field values deviate from the analytic estimates significantly when the $\lambda$ is reduced to $2$ or below. The solver has demonstrated the effect of wire modeling on the accuracy of the estimated near-field values in the amplification region. The thin wire results can be reproduced by the polygon model incorporating a modest number of surfaces ($\geq 32$) in the calculation with an accuracy of more than $99\%$. The smoothness in the three dimensional field calculation in comparison to fluctuations produced by other methods has been observed.'
address: 'Nuclear Science Group, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700064, India'
author:
- 'N. Majumdar'
- 'S. Mukhopadhyay'
title: 'Simulation of Three Dimensional Electrostatic Field Configuration in Wire Chambers : A Novel Approach'
---
,
Boundary element method ,Green’s function ,electrostatic field configuration ,wire chamber
Introduction
============
Wire chambers are often employed as tracking devices where it is necessary to detect and localize radiation. Starting from its application in nuclear and subnuclear physics, it has been employed in widely different fields such as biology, medicine, space, industrial radiology, over last three decades or more. The normal operation of a wire chamber is based on the collection of the charges created by direct ionization of the gas medium by the passage of radiation. The charges are collected on the electrodes by application of an electric field across the chamber. From the electric pulses, thus generated, the relevant information regarding the radiation is extracted. The flexibility in the design of wire chambers allows for highly innovative and often considerably complex ones necessitating meticulous investigations on their structure and performance. The study of the electrostatic field plays a key role in optimizing the design of these state of the art detectors to get a desired configuration for the field in a given volume as per the tracking requirement. The analytic solution of the field configuration for a specific geometry is always the best choice to do the same. However, the analytic solution can be derived for severely restricted geometries which is often not applicable to realistic and complicated wire chambers [@Erskine; @Veenhof]. The diversity in the chamber design necessitates application of other techniques for numerical estimation like Finite Element Method (FEM) and Finite Difference Method (FDM) [@Buchanan; @Lopez]. FEM is more widely used for the reason that it can seamlessly handle any arbitrary geometry including even dielectrics. However, FEM has several drawbacks as well. It computes the potential at the nodes and the potential at non-nodal points can be obtained by interpolation only. The inaccuracy generated by the interpolation technique can be made arbitrarily small by proper meshing techniques at the cost of computation time and efficiency. The more crucial aspect which harms the accuracy of the estimation is the representation of the electric field by a low order, often linear polynomial which is inadequate especially in the vicinity of the wires where the field changes rapidly. The combination of inadequate representation of the electric field and poor meshing lead to inaccurate estimation of the field in the amplification region with the FEM technique. The other approach which can yield nominally exact result is Boundary Integral Equation (BIE) method. This method is less popular due to its complicated mathematics and inaccuracies near the boundaries. However, for the present problem of computation of electrostatic field in wire chambers, BIE method is reasonably more suitable. It can provide accurate estimate of the electrostatic field at any arbitrary point by employing Green’s function formulation which is necessary to study the avalanche happening anywhere in the chamber due to the passage of radiation. A brief comparison of BEM, the numerical implementation of BIE method, with FEM and FDM in the context of calculating three dimensional field configuration in wire chambers has been presented in [@IEEE].
The major drawback of BEM is related to the approximations involved in its numerical implementation. The approximations give rise to the infamous numerical boundary layer where the method suffers from gross inaccuracies [@Renau]. This may lead to inaccurate estimation of electrostatic field configuration which is not desirable in the close vicinity of the wires or the cathode. Recently, we have developed a novel approach in the formulation of BEM using analytic expressions for potential and electrostatic field which leads to their nominally exact evaluation. The analytic expressions being valid throughout the physical volume, the formulation is capable of yielding accurate values even in the near-field region. The application of this Nearly Exact Boundary Element Method (NEBEM) solver [@ICCES05] for the very accurate estimation of electrostatic field in a wire chamber of elementary but useful geometry has been presented in this paper.
Present Approach
================
For electrostatic problems, the BIE can be expressed as $$\label{eqn:BIE}
\phi(\vec r) = \int_S G(\vec r, \vec r^\prime) \rho(\vec r^\prime) dS^\prime$$ where $\phi(\vec r)$ represents potential at $\vec r$ integrating the integrand over boundary surface $S$, $\rho(\vec r^\prime)$ the charge density at $\vec r^\prime$ and $G(\vec r, \vec r^\prime) =
1/4\pi\epsilon |\vec r - \vec r^\prime|$ with $\epsilon$ being the permittivity of the medium. The BIE is numerically solved by discretizing the charge carrying surface $S$ in a number of segments on which uniform charge densities $\rho$ are assumed to be distributed. The discretization leads to a matrix representation of the BIE as follows $$\mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{\rho} = \mathbf{\phi}
\label{eqn:Matrix}$$ where $A_{ij}$ of $\mathbf{A}$ represents the potential at the mid-point of segment $i$ due to a unit charge density distribution at the segment $j$. For known potential $\mathbf{\phi}$, the unknown charge distribution $\mathbf{\rho}$ is estimated by solving Eqn.(\[eqn:Matrix\]) with the elements of influence matrix $\mathbf{A}$ modeled by a sum of known basis functions with constant unknown coefficients.
In the present approach, namely NEBEM, the influences are calculated using analytic solution of potential and electrostatic field due to a uniform charge distribution over a flat rectangular surface. The expression for the potential $\phi$ at a point $P(X,Y,Z)$ in free space due to uniform unit charge density distributed on a rectangular surface having corners at $(x_1,0,z_1)$ and $(x_2,0,z_2)$ as shown in Fig.\[fig:GeomElem\] can be represented as a multiple of $$\label{eqn:Nebem}
\phi(X,Y,Z) = \int_{z_1}^{z_2} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \frac{dx\,dz}{\sqrt{(X-x)^2 +
Y^2 + (Z-z)^2}}$$ where the multiple depends upon the strength of the source and other physical considerations. The closed form expression for $\phi(X,Y,Z)$ can be deduced from the Eqn.(\[eqn:Nebem\]).
![A rectangular surface with uniform distributed source[]{data-label="fig:GeomElem"}](GeomElem.eps){height="2in" width="3in"}
This can be expressed as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:PotExact}
\lefteqn{\phi(X,Y,Z) =} \nonumber \\
&& (X-x_1)\,\ln \left( \frac{D_{12}\, -\, (Z-z_2)} {D_{11}\, -\, (Z-z_1)} \right) + (X-x_2)\,\ln \left( \frac{D_{21}\, -\, (Z-z_1)} {D_{22}\, -\, (Z-z_2)} \right) \nonumber \\
&& + (Z-z_1)\,\ln \left( \frac{D_{21}\, -\, (X-x_2)} {D_{11}\, -\, (X-x_1)} \right) + (Z-z_2)\,\ln \left( \frac{D_{12}\, -\, (X-x_1)} {D_{22}\, -\, (X-x_2)} \right) \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{i\, |Y|}{2} \nonumber \\
&& \left( \right. S_1\, \left( \right.
tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 + i\, I_1} {D_{11}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right)
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 - i\, I_1} {D_{11}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 - i\, I_2} {D_{21}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right)
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 + i\, I_2} {D_{21}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right) \left. \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, S_2\, \left( \right.
tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 + i\, I_2} {D_{22}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right)\,
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 - i\, I_2} {D_{22}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 + i\, I_1} {D_{12}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right)\,
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 - i\, I_1} {D_{12}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right) \left. \right) \left. \right) \nonumber \\
&& - 2\,\pi\,Y\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
D_{11} = \sqrt { (X-x_1)^2 + Y^2 + (Z-z_1)^2 };
D_{12} = \sqrt { (X-x_1)^2 + Y^2 + (Z-z_2)^2 } \\
D_{21} = \sqrt { (X-x_2)^2 + Y^2 + (Z-z_1)^2 };
D_{22} = \sqrt { (X-x_2)^2 + Y^2 + (Z-z_2)^2 } \\
R_1 = Y^2 + (Z-z_1)^2;
R_2 = Y^2 + (Z-z_2)^2 \\
I_1 = (X-x_1)\,\left| Y \right|;
I_2 = (X-x_2)\,\left| Y \right|;
S_1 = {\it sign} (z_1-Z);
S_2 = {\it sign} (z_2-Z)\end{aligned}$$
The electrostatic field can similarly be represented as a multiple of $$\label{eqn:EFInt}
\vec{F}(X,Y,Z) = \int_{z_1}^{z_2} \int_{x_1}^{x_2}
\frac{\hat{r}\,dx\,dz}{r^2}$$ where $\vec{r}$ is the displacement vector from an infinitesimal area of the element to the point $P(X,Y,Z)$ where the field will be evaluated. The integration of Eqn. (\[eqn:EFInt\]) gives the exact expressions for the field in $X$, $Y$ and $Z$-directions as follow. $$\label{eqn:FxExact}
F_x(X,Y,Z) =
\ln \left( \frac{D_{11}\, -\, (Z-z_1)} {D_{12}\, -\, (Z-z_2)} \right) \,+\, \ln \left( \frac{D_{22}\, -\, (Z-z_2)} {D_{21}\, -\, (Z-z_1)} \right)$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:FyExact}
\lefteqn{F_y(X,Y,Z) =} \nonumber \\
&& -\, \frac{i}{2}\, Sign(Y) \nonumber \\
&& \left( \right. S_1\, \left( \right.
tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 + i\, I_1} {D_{11}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right)
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 - i\, I_1} {D_{11}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 - i\, I_2} {D_{21}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right)
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_1 + i\, I_2} {D_{21}\, \left| Z - z_1 \right|} \right) \left. \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, S_2\, \left( \right.
tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 + i\, I_2} {D_{22}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right)\,
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 - i\, I_2} {D_{22}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 + i\, I_1} {D_{12}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right)\,
-\, tanh^{-1} \left( \frac {R_2 - i\, I_1} {D_{12}\, \left| Z - z_2 \right|} \right) \left. \right) \left. \right) \nonumber \\
&& +\, \it{C}\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{eqn:FzExact}
F_z(X,Y,Z) =
\ln \left( \frac{D_{11}\, -\, (X-x_1)} {D_{21}\, -\, (X-x_2)} \right) \, + \,\ln \left( \frac{D_{22}\, -\, (X-x_2)} {D_{12}\, -\, (X-x_1)} \right)$$ In Eqn.(\[eqn:FyExact\]), $C$ is a constant of integration as follows: $$\it{C} = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
0 & \quad \mbox{if outside the extent of the flat surface}\\
2\, \pi & \quad \mbox{if inside the extent of the surface and Y $>$ 0}\\
-2\, \pi & \quad \mbox{if inside the extent of the surface and Y $<$ 0} \end{array} \right.$$
All these equations have been used as foundation of the three dimensional solver [@EABE].
In the present problem, two different modeling schemes of the wire have been used to study the field configuration. When the wire has been modeled as a polygon, the above expressions from Eqn.(\[eqn:PotExact\])- Eqn.(\[eqn:FzExact\]) have been employed to estimate the potential and the electrostatic field. In the other model, the wire has been considered as a thin wire where the radius of the wire $a$ has been assumed to be small compared to the distance $r$ of the observation point ($a << r$). The expression for the potential at any point due to a wire element along $Z$-axis is the following. $$\phi(X,Y,Z)\, =
2\, \pi\, a\, log
\left(
\frac{\sqrt{X^2 + Y^2 + (h+Z)^2} + (h+Z)}{\sqrt{X^2 + Y^2 + (h-Z)^2} - (h-Z)}
\right)$$ where $h$ is the half of the length of the wire element. It should be mentioned here that the analytic solution of the two dimensional electrostatic field of a doubly periodic wire array in the Garfield code [@Garfield] is derived using a similar thin-wire approximation [@Erskine]. The expressions for the electrostatic field components can be presented as the following under the same assumption. $$F_x(X,Y,Z) =
2\, \pi\, a\, X\,
{ \left(
\frac
{ (h-Z) \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h+Z)}^{2}}\, +\, (h+Z) \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h-Z)}^{2}} }
{ \left( {X}^{2}+{Y}^{2} \right) \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h-Z)}^{2}}\sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h+Z)}^{2}}}
\right) }$$ $$F_y(X,Y,Z) =
2\, \pi\, a\, Y\,
{ \left(
\frac
{(h-Z) \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h+Z)}^{2}}\, +\, (h+Z) \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h-Z)}^{2}}}
{ \left( {X}^{2}+{Y}^{2} \right) \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h-Z)}^{2}}\sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h+Z)}^{2}}}
\right) }$$ $$F_z(X,Y,Z) =
2\, \pi\, a\,
{ \left(
\frac
{ \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h+Z)}^{2}}-\sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h-Z)}^{2}}}
{ \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h+Z)}^{2}} \, \sqrt {{X}^{2}+{Y}^{2}+{(h-Z)}^{2}}}
\right) }$$ However, a separate set of expressions is needed to evaluate the potential and electrostatic field due to a wire element along its axis. These incorporate the effect of finite radius of the wire element and are expressed below. $$\phi(0,0,Z) =
2\, \pi \, a\, log
\left(
\frac{\sqrt{a^2+(h+Z)^2} + (h+Z)}{\sqrt{a^2+(h-Z)^2} - (h-Z)}
\right)$$ In this case, only the $Z$-component of the field is non-zero and can be written as $$F_z(0,0,Z) =
2\, \pi\, a\,
\left(
{\frac {\left( \sqrt {{(h+Z)}^{2}+{{a}}^{2}} - \sqrt {{(h-Z)}^{2}+{{a}}^{2}} \right) }
{\sqrt {{(h-Z)}^{2}+{{a}}^{2}} \sqrt {{(h+Z)}^{2}+{{a}}^{2}}}}
\right)$$
Numerical Implementation
========================
The present problem studied with the NEBEM is to compute the electrostatic potential and field for a simple geometry consisting of a single anode wire running along the axis of a square tube. Similar configuration is used in Iarocci Tube, Limited Streamer Tube etc. which are widely employed in various high energy physics experiments [@Babar; @Chorus]. It should be noted that no end plate has been considered in the model. A schematic diagram of the wire chamber has been illustrated in Fig.\[fig:Geometry\]. The anode wire has been supplied a positive high voltage of $1000$ Volt and the surrounding cathode tube is grounded.
![Schematic representation of the wire chamber. The length and the width of the square tube are represented by $l$ and $d$ respectively. The anode wire along its axis has diameter $2a$. The wire is supplied a voltage $+V$ and the cathode is kept grounded.[]{data-label="fig:Geometry"}](Iarocci.eps){height="2in" width="3in"}
Several cases for altered tube cross section ($d \times d$), aspect ratio ($\lambda = \frac{l}{d}$) as well as two different wire models have been studied. It should be noted here that if only the mid-plane estimates of the wire chamber are of importance, the computation time can be reduced drastically by using even one element in the axial direction resulting into less than $100$ slender elements in total for the present problem. This has been the case when the computation has been carried out for the mid-plane properties of large aspect ratio chambers. On the other hand, for proper three dimensional computation, the four flat rectangular surfaces have been segmented in to $21$ elements along the $X$-direction and $21$ in $Z$-direction. The anode wire when considered as a polygon has been modeled with $32$ surfaces. The size of influence matrix has varied from $85 \times 85$ to $2436 \times 2436$ depending upon the scheme of segmentation.
Results
=======
The NEBEM calculations for potential and normal electrostatic field ($Y$-component) at the mid-plane of the chamber have been compared with the analytic estimates of an infinitely long tube provided by the Garfield code [@Garfield] to demonstrate the accuracy of the solver. In Fig.\[fig:Potiarocci\] and Fig.\[fig:EFiarocci\], the results are shown for a variation in the tube cross-section from $5$mm $\times 5$mm to $16$mm $\times 16$mm with wire diameter $50 \mu $m, the wire being modeled as a polygon with $32$ surfaces. The aspect ratio, $\lambda = \frac{l}{d}$, has been kept $10$ to retain the property of infiniteness so as to compare with analytic estimates of an infinitely long tube. The comparison of two calculations with a spatial frequency of $100 \mu $m shows an excellent agreement over the whole range of tube dimensions. The NEBEM results calculated with thin-wire approximation has not been included in these figures which also yield similar agreement with the analytic ones.
![Comparison of potential at the mid-plane of the chamber with aspect ratio $10$ and wire diameter $50 \mu $m. Three variations in the chamber cross-section are illustrated along with analytic values.[]{data-label="fig:Potiarocci"}](PotComp.eps){height="3in" width="4.5in"}
![Comparison of normal electric field at the mid-plane of the chamber with aspect ratio $10$ and wire diameter $50 \mu $m. Three cases of varied cross-sections are illustrated along with analytic estimates.[]{data-label="fig:EFiarocci"}](EyComp.eps){height="3in" width="4.5in"}
The difference of the NEBEM calculations from the analytic values have been estimated as follows. $$Relative Deviation (\%) = \frac{Garfield - NEBEM}{Garfield} \times 100
\label{eqn:error}$$ This has been illustrated in Fig.\[fig:Error\] by plotting the relative deviation of NEBEM normal electrostatic field from the analytic values calculated at the mid plane of the chamber. The relative deviations estimated with thin-wire approximation have been plotted as well. Since the NEBEM is a full-fledged three dimensional solver, the effect of $\lambda$ of the tube on the field configuration can be studied using it. Several such estimates of relative deviations for different aspect ratios have been shown in Fig.\[fig:Error\] calculated using both of polygon with $32$ surfaces and thin-wire models. The cross-section of the tube has been considered to be $10$mm $\times 10$mm with wire diameter $50 \mu $m. It has been observed that the departure from the analytic solutions for an infinitely long tube becomes significant when $\lambda$ is reduced to $2$ and below. It becomes apparent (close to $1\%$) as $\lambda$ is dropped down to $2$ and enhances up to $10\%$ when $\lambda$ is still reduced to $1$. The amount of relative deviation in the vicinity of the anode wire is maximum $2\%$ for the smallest aspect ratio. The trend is similar in both of polygon and thin-wire models as can be seen in the figure.
![Relative deviation of normal electric field from the analytic values at the mid-plane of the chamber with varied aspect ratios for polygon and thin-wire modeling of the wire. The cross-section of the chamber and the diameter of the wire are $10$mm $\times 10$mm and $50 \mu $m respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Error"}](EyError.eps){height="3in" width="4.5in"}
It should be noted here that the use of end plates is expected to alter the relative deviation particularly at smaller aspect ratios.
The most essential study in such wire chambers is the field configuration in the amplification region which matters most in their performance. Since NEBEM can evaluate three dimensional field at any point in the physical volume including the near-field region, a thorough study of the field values in the amplification region can be made using it. A comparative study has been carried out within twice the diameter from the wire-axis (i.e. $100 \mu $m), the closest limit being just $1 \mu $m away from the surface of the wire (i.e. $26 \mu $m) using two different wire models. The calculations have been shown in Fig.\[fig:Error\_ex\] for the cases illustrated in Fig.\[fig:Error\].
![Relative deviation in normal field from the analytic values at close proximity to the anode wire. The tube cross-section and wire diameter are $10$mm $\times 10$mm and $50 \mu $m respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Error_ex"}](EyError_ex.eps){height="3in" width="4.5in"}
Although the agreement between the polygon and thin-wire model is excellent up to quite close proximity of the wire, a departure has been observed within one radius to the wire in case of polygon modeling. It has been observed that the departure is almost negligible (below $1\%$) when larger number of surfaces (about $32$) has been incorporated. It can increase to as high as $5\%$ when less number of surfaces like $12$ is used. It is obvious from the calculation that the thin-wire approximation is adequate to estimate the field configuration in the near-field region in symmetric configurations. However, depending upon the nature of the problem, the polygon model may be useful in calculation of azimuthal variation of properties in an asymmetric configuration. In that case, a modest number of the polygon surfaces should be enough to obtain the field configuration with high accuracy.
Finally, the variation of normal electrostatic field along the axial direction of the tube has been studied which has been plotted in Fig.\[fig:AxialEF\]. The tube dimension has been considered to be $10$mm $\times 10$mm $\times 100$mm with wire diameter $50 \mu $m. The calculations have been carried out at three different transverse locations as indicated in the figure. The middle line represents the calculation done at halfway between the anode and the cathode. The two dimensional analytic solutions provided by the Garfield code have been illustrated in three dimension by the lines representing the uniform field configuration throughout the length. The NEBEM results reproduce the two dimensional analytic values for more than $85\%$ of the tube length. However, in the remaining $15\%$ towards the ends, the three dimensional effects are non-negligible. Even more important point to be noted here is that the NEBEM calculation produces perfectly smooth variation of the field with a spatial frequency of $10 \mu $m only while significant fluctuations are known to be present in FDM, FEM and usual BEM solvers because of their strong dependence on nodal properties. This remarkable feature of the present solver should allow more realistic estimation of the electrostatic field of various gas detectors resulting into better gain estimations.
![Axial deviation of normal electric field at the mid-plane of the chamber with cross-section $10$mm $\times 10$mm, aspect ratio $10$ and wire diameter $50 \mu $m, calculated at three $Y$-positions. Two different wire models are considered.[]{data-label="fig:AxialEF"}](EyAxial.eps){height="3in" width="4.5in"}
Conclusion
==========
The three dimensional NEBEM solver has yielded accurate electrostatic field configuration of a square tube wire chamber which represents the analytic estimates quite well in most of the detector volume when the aspect ratio is large enough ($\lambda > 5$) except at the ends of the chamber where end effects can be observed. For smaller aspect ratios ($\lambda < 2$), non-negligible departures (about $2\%$) from the analytic values estimated for infinitely long chamber have been observed even in the amplification region. A large deviation (about $10\%$) has also been observed near the cathode surface. The near-field calculation in the close vicinity to the anode wire (within one diameter) has produced a difference in the results obtained with polygon and thin-wire models. The observation has implied that in order to obtain accurate field estimates with polygon modeling in the asymmetric configuration, an adequate number (e.g.$32$ for error $< 1\%$) of polygon surfaces are required to reproduce thin-wire results. The simple but robust formulation of the solver using closed form expressions can also be used to solve for gas detectors of other geometries. Since the solver can produce very smooth and precise estimate of three dimensional electrostatic field even in the near-field region, it should be very useful in providing important information related to the design and interpretation aspects of a wire chamber.
Acknowledgement
===============
The authors are thankful to Prof. B. Sinha, Director, SINP, and Prof. S. Bhattacharya, Head, NAP Division of SINP for their encouragement and support throughout this work.
[100]{}
G. A. Erskine, [*Nuclear Instrumentation and Methods*]{} [**105**]{} (1972) 565.
R. Veenhof, [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A*]{} [**419**]{} (1998) 726.
W. I. Buchanan and N. K. Gupta, [*Advances in Engineering Software*]{} [**23**]{} (1995) 111.
T. M. Lopez and A. Sharma, [*CERN/IT/99/5*]{} [**7**]{} (1997).
S. Mukhopadhyay and N. Majumdar, [*IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science*]{} [**53**]{}, No.2 (2006) (to be published)
A. Renau, F. H. Read and J. N. H. Brunt, [*Journal of Physics E: Science Instruments*]{} [**15**]{} (1982) 347.
S. Mukhopadhyay and N. Majumdar, [*Advances in Computational and Experimental Engineering and Sciences*]{} TechScience Press, 2005
S. Mukhopadhyay and N. Majumdar, [*Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements*]{} (accepted)
M. R. Convery et al., [*Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research*]{} [**A 556**]{} (2006) 134.
B. Van de Vyver, [em CERN-THESIS-2002-024]{} (2002)
http://garfield.web.cern.ch/garfield
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a closed, oriented, connected 3-manifold, $M$, we define higher-order linking forms on the higher-order Alexander modules of $M$. These higher-order linking forms generalize similar linking forms for knots previously studied by the author, which were themselves generalizations of the classical Blanchfield linking form for a knot. We also investigate the effect of the construction known as “infection by a knot” on these linking forms.'
address: 'Wesleyan University, 655 Exley, 265 Church Street, Middletown, CT 06459'
author:
- |
Constance Leidy$^{\dag}$\
Wesleyan University
bibliography:
- '3-mfld.bib'
title: 'Higher-Order Linking Forms for 3-Manifolds'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We define linking forms, ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M)$, associated to any closed, oriented, connected 3-manifold, $M$, and any Ore domain, ${\mathcal{R}}$, such that ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma \subset {\mathcal{R}}\subset {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$ where $\phi:\pi_1(M) \to \Gamma$ is a coefficient system, such that $\Gamma$ is poly-torsion-free-abelian. Such linking forms have been used in a number of papers (see [@CHLlink], [@CHLknot], [@CHLderivatives], [@CHLtorsion], and [@CHLprimary]). However, the technical definitions and properties of them (particularly, the effect of infection on them) have not previously appeared in the literature.
Higher-order Alexander modules and higher-order linking forms for knots and for closed 3-manifolds with $\beta_{1}(M)=1$ were introduced in [@cot1] and further developed in [@nckt] and [@leidy]. Higher-order Alexander modules for 3-manifolds in general were defined and investigated in [@harvey]. In Section \[defsection\], we define higher-order linking forms for 3-manifolds which are defined on these higher-order Alexander module.
It should be pointed out that the coefficients that we consider are more general than those used in much of the previous related work. First of all, we allow our coefficients to be *unlocalized*. In particular, the modules on which our linking forms are defined might *not* have homological dimension 1 and the forms themselves might be *singular*. This differs from much of the previous work (for instance, [@cot1] and [@cot2]) where the primary focus of study was over coefficients that were localized in order to obtain a principal ideal domain. Moreover, we allow $\Gamma$ to be an arbitrary poly-torsion-free-abelian group. Some of the previous work (for instance, [@harvey] and [@leidy]) focused on the case where $\Gamma=\pi_{1}(M)/\pi_{1}(M)^{(n)}_{r}$, the quotient of the fundamental group by the $n$th term of the (rational) derived series.
In Section \[geninfsection\], we investigate the effect of the construction known as “infection by a knot” on these higher-order linking forms for 3-manifolds. The construction of infecting a knot by a knot has been used extensively (for example, see [@cot1], [@cot2] and [@nckt]). The effect of this construction on the higher-order Alexander modules of knots was studied in [@nckt]. The effect on the higher-order linking forms for knots was studied in [@leidy]. Infecting a 3-manifold by a knot was defined in [@harveycobordism].
Definition of Higher-Order Linking Forms for 3-manifolds {#defsection}
========================================================
In order to define our linking forms, we will need a coefficient system that embeds in its right ring of quotients. (A right ring of quotients is the non-commutative analogue of a quotient field.) It was shown in [@cot1] that the group rings of a certain class of groups, namely poly-torsion-free-abelian groups have this property.
A group $\Gamma$ is poly-torsion-free-abelian (PTFA) if it admits a normal series $1 =
G_n \vartriangleleft G_{n-1} \vartriangleleft \ldots
\vartriangleleft G_0=\Gamma$ of subgroups such that the factors $G_{i}/G_{i+1}$ are torsion-free abelian.
If $\Gamma$ is PTFA, it follows that ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma$ is an Ore domain, and therefore it is possible to define the right ring of fractions of ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma$.
Suppose $\phi:\pi_1(M) \to \Gamma$ is a coefficient system, where $\Gamma$ is PTFA. Then ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma$ has a right ring of fractions, which we will denote by ${\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$. This right ring of fractions, ${\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$, is always a flat ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma$-module. (See [@stenstrom], Prop. II.3.5.) If ${\mathcal{R}}$ is an Ore domain such that ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma \subset {\mathcal{R}}\subset {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$, then ${\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$ is also the right ring of fractions of ${\mathcal{R}}$. (Such ${\mathcal{R}}$ could be ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma$ itself or could result from localizing any Ore set of ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma$.)
\[def\]Suppose $M$ is a closed, connected, oriented 3-manifold and $\phi:\pi_1(M) \to \Gamma$ is a PTFA coefficient system. If ${\mathcal{R}}$ is an Ore domain such that ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma \subset {\mathcal{R}}\subset {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$, then there is a linking form defined on the torsion submodule of $H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$: $${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}:TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \rightarrow \left(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \right)^{\#}.$$
Here we use $\mathcal{M}^{\#}$ to denote $\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}} \left(
\mathcal{M}, {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}}\right)}$. Also given any left $R$-module $\mathcal{M}$, we use $\overline{\mathcal{M}}$ to denote the usual associated right $R$-module resulting from the involution of $R$. The module $TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$ on which ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}$ is defined is referred to as a *higher-order Alexander module* of $M$. (Such modules were defined and studied in [@harvey], where the focus was on the case where $\Gamma=\pi_{1}(M)/\pi_{1}(M)^{(n)}_{r}$.)
The short exact sequence $0 \rightarrow {\mathcal{R}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma
\rightarrow {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}}\rightarrow 0$ gives rise to the Bockstein sequence of right ${\mathcal{R}}$-modules: $$H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma) \overset{\psi}\rightarrow H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})
\overset{B}{\rightarrow} H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \rightarrow H_1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma).$$ Since ${\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$ is a flat ${\mathcal{R}}$-module, $TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$ is the kernel of the map $H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \to H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})\otimes_{{\mathcal{R}}}{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma \cong
H_1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)$. Using the Bockstein sequence above, we have $TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) = \operatorname{im}B \cong \operatorname{coker}\psi$. Hence in order to define ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ on $TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$, it suffices to define a map on $H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})$ such that $\operatorname{im}\psi$ is in the kernel.
Consider the following commutative diagram of right ${\mathcal{R}}$-modules.
$$\begin{diagram}\dgARROWLENGTH=1em
\node{H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)} \arrow[2]{e,t}{\psi} \arrow{s,r}{\text{P.D.}} \node{} \node{H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{s,r}{\text{P.D.}} \\
\node{\overline{H^1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)}} \arrow[2]{e} \arrow{s,r}{\kappa} \node{} \node{\overline{H^1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{s,r}{\kappa} \\
\node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}),{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)}} \arrow[2]{e} \arrow{s,r}{j^{\#}} \node{} \node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}),{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{s,r}{j^{\#}} \\
\node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}),{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)}} \arrow[2]{e} \node{} \node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}),{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \\
\end{diagram}$$
Here P.D. is the Poincaré duality isomorphism, $\kappa$ is the Kronecker evaluation map, and $j^{\#}$ is induced by the inclusion map.
Since ${\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$ is a torsion-free ${\mathcal{R}}$-module, it follows that $\operatorname{Hom}_{ {\mathcal{R}}} \left( TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}), {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma \right) = 0$. In other words, the lower left corner of the above diagram is 0. Therefore the image of $\psi$ is in the kernel of the composition $ j^{\#} \circ
\kappa \circ \text{P.D.}$. Hence, there is a well-defined map, ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}$, such that the following diagram is commutative.
$$\begin{diagram}
\node{H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[2]{e,t}{B} \arrow{s,l}{\text{P.D.}} \node{} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{sssww,b}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}} \\
\node{\overline{H^1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{\left(H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \right)^{\#}} \arrow{s,l}{j^{\#}} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{\left(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \right)^{\#}} \node{} \node{}\\
\end{diagram}$$
The effect of infection by a knot on ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}$ {#geninfsection}
==========================================================================
In this section, we consider the effect of infection by a knot on these higher-order linking forms. Let $M$ be a closed, connected, oriented 3-manifold, and let $\eta$ be an embedded, oriented, nullhomologous circle in $M$. Then $\eta$ has a well-defined meridian, $\mu_{\eta}$, and longitude, $\ell_{\eta}$. Delete the interior of a tubular neighborhood of $\eta$. Replace it with the exterior, $E(J)$ of some knot $J$ in $S^{3}$, identifying $\mu_{\eta}$ with the reverse of the longitude $\ell_J$ of $J$, and $\ell_{\eta}$ with the meridian $\mu_J$ of $J$. Denote the result $M(\eta, J)$, *the result of infecting $M$ by $J$ along $\eta$*.
Let $\phi:\pi_1(M) \to \Gamma$ be a PTFA coefficient system, and ${\mathcal{R}}$ be an Ore domain such that ${\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma
\subset {\mathcal{R}}\subset {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma$. Since there is a degree one map (rel boundary) $f:E(J) \to
E(\text{unknot})$, there is a degree one map from $M(\eta,J)$ to $M$, which is the identity outside of $E(J)$. Hence the following composition of maps defines coefficient systems on $E(J)$, $M(\eta,
J)$, and $M$: $$\pi_1(E(J)) \overset{i_*}{\to} \pi_1(M(\eta,J)) \overset{f_*}{\to}
\pi_1(M) \overset{\phi}{\to} \Gamma.$$
First, we investigate the effect of infecting a 3-manifold by a knot on the higher-order Alexander modules, $TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$, on which the higher-order linking forms, ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)$, are defined. The effect of infecting a knot by a knot on the higher-order Alexander modules of knots was studied in Section 8 of [@nckt].
\[modules\] If $\phi(\eta)=1$, then $H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$. If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then $H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \oplus
H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})$.
We begin by stating and proving the following necessary lemma.
\[E(J)Lemma\]If $\phi(\eta)=1$, then $H_*(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong
H_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathcal{R}}$. If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then $H_*(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]}
{\mathcal{R}}$, where ${\mathcal{R}}$ is a left ${\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]$-module by the homomorphism $t \mapsto \phi(\eta)$.
Let $M(\eta)$ denote the result of deleting the interior of a tubular neighborhood of $\eta$ from $M$. By the Seifert-Van Kampen Theorem, we have the following presentations of $\pi_1(M(\eta,J))$ and $\pi_1(M)$: $$\pi_1(M(\eta,J))=\langle \pi_1(M(\eta)), \pi_1(E(J)) |
\mu_{\eta}=\ell_J^{-1}, \ell_{\eta}=\mu_J \rangle$$ $$\pi_1(M)=\langle \pi_1(M(\eta)), t |
\mu_{\eta}=1, \ell_{\eta}=t \rangle$$ The map $f_*:\pi_1(M(\eta,J))
\to \pi_1(M)$ is the identity map on $\pi_1(M(\eta))$ and is the Hurewicz map on $\pi_1(E(J)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}\cong \left<t\right>$ which sends $\ell_J \mapsto 1$ and $\mu_J \mapsto t$. Therefore the map $\phi \circ f_* \circ i_*: \pi_1(E(J)) \to \Gamma$ that defines the coefficient system on $E(J)$ factors through the Hurewicz map, and thus we have the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{diagram}\dgARROWLENGTH=1em
\node{{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1(E(J))} \arrow{e} \arrow{s} \node{{\mathcal{R}}} \\
\node{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]} \arrow{ne,b}{\psi} \\
\end{diagram}$$
Here $\psi: t \mapsto \phi(\eta)$.
If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then $\psi$ is a monomorphism. It follows from [@passman Lemma 1.3] that ${\mathcal{R}}$ is a free, and therefore flat ${\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]$-module. If $C_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1)$ denotes the chain complex of the universal cover of $E(J)$ with the action of ${\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1(E(J))$ on it, then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
H_*(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) &=&H_*(C_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1(E(J))} {\mathcal{R}}) \\
&\cong& H_*(C_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1(E(J))} {\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}] \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]} {\mathcal{R}}) \\
&\cong& H_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]} {\mathcal{R}}. \\\end{aligned}$$
If $\phi(\eta)=1$, then $\psi$ further factors through ${\mathbb{Z}}$:
$$\begin{diagram}\dgARROWLENGTH=1em
\node{{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1(E(J))} \arrow{e} \arrow{s} \node{{\mathcal{R}}} \\
\node{{\mathbb{Z}}} \arrow{ne,b}{\widehat{\psi}} \\
\end{diagram}$$
Since $\widehat{\psi}$ is a monomorphism, it follows that ${\mathcal{R}}$ is a free and therefore flat ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module. By an argument analogous to that above, $H_*(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_*(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathcal{R}}$.
We now continue with the proof of Proposition \[modules\]. Consider the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for $M(\eta,J) \cong E(J)
\cup_{\partial E(J)} M(\eta)$:
$$\begin{diagram}
\node{H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{e,t}{\partial_*} \node{H_0(\partial E(J);{\mathcal{R}})}
\arrow{e,t}{(\psi_1,\psi_2)} \node{H_0(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \oplus H_0(M(\eta);{\mathcal{R}}).} \\
\end{diagram}$$
Since $H_0(\partial E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}) \cong H_0(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}})$ and $H_0(\partial
E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \cong H_0(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])$, it follows from Lemma \[E(J)Lemma\] that $\partial_*$ is the trivial map.
Since infecting by the unknot, $U$, leaves the manifold unchanged, we have the following commutative diagram of ${\mathcal{R}}$-modules where the rows are Mayer-Vietoris exact sequences:
$$\begin{diagram}\dgARROWLENGTH=2.5em
\node{H_1(\partial E(J))} \arrow{e,t}{(\psi_1,\psi_2)} \arrow{s,r}{f_*} \node{H_1(E(J)) \oplus H_1(M(\eta))} \arrow{e,t}{} \arrow{s,r}{f_*} \node{H_1(M(\eta,J))} \arrow{e,t}{\partial_*} \arrow{s,r}{f_*} \node{0} \\
\node{H_1(\partial E(J))} \arrow{e,t}{(\overline{\psi_1},\psi_2)} \node{H_1(E(U))\oplus H_1(M(\eta))} \arrow{e,t}{} \node{H_1(M)} \arrow{e,t}{\partial_*} \node{0.}\\
\end{diagram}$$
Suppose $\phi(\eta)=1$. Since $H_1(\partial E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}) \to
H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}})$ is an epimorphism, by Lemma \[E(J)Lemma\], $\psi_1$ is an epimorphism . Hence $H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong
H_1(M(\eta);{\mathcal{R}})/\operatorname{im}(\psi_2)$. Similarly, $H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \cong
H_1(M(\eta);{\mathcal{R}})/\operatorname{im}(\psi_2)$. Therefore, $H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong
H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$.
Suppose $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$. Since $\mu_J$ unwinds and $\ell_J$ bounds a lift of the Seifert surface in the infinite cyclic cover, $H_1(\partial E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \to H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])$ is the zero map. By Lemma \[E(J)Lemma\], it follows that $\psi_1$ is the zero map. Hence $H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \oplus
H_1(M(\eta);{\mathcal{R}})/\operatorname{im}(\psi_2)$. Furthermore, since $H_1(E(U);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])=0$, it follows that $H_1(E(U);{\mathcal{R}})=0$. Hence $H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_1(M(\eta);{\mathcal{R}})/\operatorname{im}(\psi_2)$. Therefore, $H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \oplus H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$.
\[modules-torsion\] If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then $$TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})
\oplus H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \oplus \left({\mathcal{A}}_0(J)
\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]} {\mathcal{R}}\right),$$ where ${\mathcal{A}}_0(J)$ is the classical Alexander module of $J$.
Since ${\mathcal{A}}_0(J) = H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])$ is annihilated by the Alexander polynomial, it follows that $\left({\mathcal{A}}_0(J)
\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]} {\mathcal{R}}\right)$ is a torsion module. The result now follows from Proposition \[modules\] and Lemma \[E(J)Lemma\].
We now consider the effect of infecting a 3-manifold by a knot on the higher-order linking forms for 3-manifolds. The effect of infecting a knot by a knot on the higher-order linking forms for knots was shown in Section 4 of [@leidy].
\[lowerforms\] If $\phi(\eta)=1$, then the linking forms ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J)):TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \rightarrow
\left(TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \right)^{\#}$ and ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M):TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})
\rightarrow \left(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}) \right)^{\#}$ are isomorphic.
Recall that there is a degree one map $f: M(\eta,J)\to M$. By Proposition \[modules\], $f$ induces an isomorphism between $TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})$ and $TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$.
We have the following commutative diagram:
$$\hspace{-.25in}\begin{diagram}\dgARROWPARTS=9
\node{H_2(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[3]{e,t,6}{f_*} \arrow[2]{se,t,7}{B} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.} \node{} \node{} \node{H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[2]{se,t,7}{B} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.}\node{} \node{}\\
\node{\overline{H^1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow[2]{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \arrow{w} \node{} \node{\overline{H^1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow[2]{w,t,-}{f^*} \arrow{s,-} \node{} \node{} \\
\node{} \node{} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[3]{e,t}{f_*} \arrow[2]{sw,b,6}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))} \node{} \arrow{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[2]{sw,b,6}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M)}\\
\node{\left(H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow{s,l}{j^{\#}} \node{} \arrow{w} \node{} \node{\left(H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow[2]{w,t,-}{f^*} \arrow{s,l}{j^{\#}} \node{} \node{} \\
\node{\left(TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \node{} \node{} \node{\left(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow[3]{w,t,3}{f^*} \node{} \node{} \\
\end{diagram}$$
Therefore ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))=f^{*} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M) \circ f_*$, and hence ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))$ and ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M)$ are isomorphic.
In the remainder of this section, we show how the linking forms ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)$ and ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))$ are related when $\phi(\eta)
\neq 1$. We begin by defining a linking form on $E(J)$ with coefficients that are compatible with viewing $J$ as the infecting knot of an infection.
If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then for any knot $J$, there is a linking form ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(J):H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \rightarrow \left(H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})
\right)^{\#}$ where the coefficient system is induced by the composition $\pi_1(E(J)) \overset{i_*}{\to} \pi_1(M(\eta,J))
\overset{f_*}{\to} \pi_1(M) \overset{\phi}{\to} \Gamma$.
We consider the Bockstein sequence: $$H_2(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma) \rightarrow H_2(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})
\overset{B}{\rightarrow} H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \rightarrow
H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma).$$ From Lemma \[E(J)Lemma\], we have that $H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \cong H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]}
{\mathcal{R}}$. Since $H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])={\mathcal{A}}_0(J)$ is annihilated by the Alexander polynomial, it follows that $H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})$ is a torsion module. Hence $H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)=0$, and by Poincaré duality, $H_2(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma)=0$. Therefore the map $B$ above is an isomorphism. We define the linking form ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(J)$ to be the composition of the following maps: $$\begin{aligned}
&&H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \overset{B^{-1}}{\rightarrow}
H_2(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}}) \overset{P.D.}{\rightarrow} \overline{H^1(E(J),\partial E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \\
&&\hspace{0.5in}\overset{\pi^*}{\rightarrow}
\overline{H^1(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \overset{\kappa}{\rightarrow}
H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})^{\#},\end{aligned}$$ where $P.D.$ is the Poincaré duality isomorphism, $\pi^*$ is the map in the long exact sequence of a pair and $\kappa$ is the Kronecker evaluation map.
We now show that ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)$ is determined by the classical Blanchfield linking form on $J$. In the proof of Lemma \[E(J)Lemma\], we considered the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{diagram}\dgARROWLENGTH=1em
\node{{\mathbb{Z}}\pi_1(E(J))} \arrow{e} \arrow{s} \node{{\mathcal{R}}} \\
\node{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]} \arrow{ne,b}{\psi}\\
\end{diagram}$$
Here $\psi: t \mapsto \phi(\eta)$. If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then $\psi$ and $\overline{\psi}: {\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}] \to {\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}}$ are monomorphisms. Furthermore we have a map $\psi_*: {\mathcal{A}}_0(J) =
H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \to H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})$.
\[classicalBl\] If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then for all $x, y \in {\mathcal{A}}_0(J)$, $${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)(\psi_*(x),\psi_*(y)) = \overline{\psi}\left({{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_0(J)(x,y)\right),$$ where ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_0(J)$ is the classical Blanchfield linking form on $J$.
The classical Blanchfield linking form on $J$ is the composition of the following maps: $$\begin{aligned}
&&H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \overset{B^{-1}}{\rightarrow}
H_2(E(J);{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]) \overset{P.D.}{\rightarrow} \overline{H^1(E(J),\partial E(J);{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])} \\
&&\hspace{0.5in}\overset{\pi^*}{\rightarrow}
\overline{H^1(E(J);{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])}
\overset{\kappa}{\rightarrow}
\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]}(H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]),{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]),}\end{aligned}$$ where $P.D.$ is the Poincaré duality isomorphism, $\pi^*$ is the map in the long exact sequence of a pair and $\kappa$ is the Kronecker evaluation map.
We have the following commutative diagram:
$$\hspace{-1.25in}\begin{diagram}\dgARROWLENGTH=1em
\node{H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])} \arrow[2]{e,t}{\psi_*} \arrow{s,l}{B^{-1}} \node{} \node{H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{s,l}{B^{-1}}\\
\node{H_2(E(J);{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])} \arrow[2]{e,t}{\overline{\psi}_*} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.} \node{} \node{H_2(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.}\\
\node{\overline{H^1(E(J),\partial E(J);{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])}} \arrow[2]{e,t}{\overline{\psi}_*} \arrow{s,l}{\pi^*} \node{} \node{\overline{H^1(E(J),\partial E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{s,l}{\pi^*}\\
\node{\overline{H^1(E(J);{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])}}\arrow[2]{e,t}{\overline{\psi}_*} \arrow{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \node{\overline{H^1(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{s,l}{\kappa}\\
\node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]}(H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]),{\mathbb{Q}}(t)/{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}])}} \arrow{se,l}{\overline{\psi}_{\#}} \node{} \node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}),{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{sw,l}{\psi^*}\\
\node{} \node{\overline{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(H_1(E(J);{\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]),{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \node{} \\
\end{diagram}$$
The composition of maps in the left column is the classical Blanchfield linking form ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{0}(J)$, and in the right column is ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)$.
Since the diagram commutes, $\psi^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J) \circ \psi_* =
\overline{\psi}_{\#} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_0(J)$. Evaluating these maps on $x, y
\in {\mathcal{A}}_0(J)$, gives the desired result.
We now show the relationship between the linking forms ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)$ and ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))$ when $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$. In this case, it follows from Corollary \[modules-torsion\] that the following is a split short exact sequence: $$H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}}) \overset{i_*}{\to} TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}}) \overset{f_*}{\to} TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}}).$$ If we choose a splitting $g$, we have the following theorem that relates ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))$, ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)$, and ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)$.
\[DirectSum\]If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then ${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))
\cong {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M) \oplus {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)$. That is, for any $x_1,y_1 \in
TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$ and $x_2,y_2 \in H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})$, $${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)(x_1,y_1) + {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)(x_2,y_2) =
{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))\left(g(x_1) + i_*(x_2), g(y_1) +
i_*(y_2)\right).$$
Before giving the proof, we state a corollary that follows immediately from Proposition \[classicalBl\] and Theorem \[DirectSum\].
If $\phi(\eta) \neq 1$, then for any $x_1,y_1 \in
TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$ and $x_2,y_2 \in {\mathcal{A}}_0(J)$, $${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M)(x_1,y_1) + \overline{\psi}\left({{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_0(J)(x_2,y_2)\right) =
{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))\left(g(x_1) + i_*(\psi_*(x_2)), g(y_1) +
i_*(\psi_*(y_1))\right).$$
From Corollary \[modules-torsion\], we know that every element in $TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})$ can be written as $g(x_1) + i_*(\psi_*(x_2))$ for some $x_1 \in TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})$ and $x_2 \in {\mathcal{A}}_0(J)$. Hence the corollary above shows that the linking form on $M(\eta,J)$ is completely determined by the linking form on $M$ and the classical Blanchfield linking form on $J$. We now prove Theorem \[DirectSum\].
We have the following diagram.
$$\begin{diagram}
\node{H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{e,t}{i_*} \arrow{s,r}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{s,r}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{w,t}{g} \arrow{s,r}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)}\\
\node{H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})^{\#}} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})^{\#}} \arrow{w,t}{i^*} \arrow{e,t}{g^{\#}} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})^{\#}} \\
\end{diagram}$$
where $g^{\#}$ is the dual of $g$. Notice that since $f_* \circ g =
\operatorname{id}$, it follows that $g^{\#} \circ f^* = \operatorname{id}$. The isomorphism in the theorem will be given by $i_* \oplus g$. Hence the theorem will follow from the following four claims.
1. $i^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ
i_* = {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)$ which establishes:\
$${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))(i_*(x_1),i_*(y_1)) = {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J) (x_1,y_1).$$
2. $g^{\#} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ g =
{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)$ which establishes:\
$${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) (g(x_2),g(y_2)) = {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M) (x_2,y_2).$$
3. $g^{\#} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ i_* = 0$ which establishes:\
$${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) (i_*(x_1),g(y_2)) = 0.$$
4. $i^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ g = 0$ which establishes:\
$${{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) (g(x_2),i_*(y_1)) = 0.$$
The first claim follows immediately from the following commutative diagram.
$$\hspace{-.5in}\begin{diagram}\dgARROWPARTS=5
\node{H_2(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[4]{e,t,4}{i_*} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.} \arrow[3]{se,t}{B}\node{} \node{} \node{} \node{H_2(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{sssee,t}{B} \arrow[2]{s,l}{P.D.} \node{} \node{} \\
\node{\overline{H^1(E(J),\partial E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow{s,l}{\pi^*} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{} \\
\node{\overline{H^1(E(J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow[3]{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \node{} \arrow[2]{w} \node{} \node{\overline{H^1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow[2]{w,t,-}{i^*} \arrow{s,-} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{} \node{} \node{} \node{H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[3]{e,t}{i_*} \arrow[3]{sw,b}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(J)} \node{} \arrow[2]{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{sssww,b}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))} \\
\node{} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{\left(H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow{s,l}{\operatorname{id}} \node{} \arrow{w} \node{} \node{} \node{\left(H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow[3]{w,t,-}{i^*} \arrow{s,l}{j^{\#}} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{\left(H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \node{} \node{} \node{} \node{\left(TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow[4]{w,t,1}{i^*} \node{} \node{}\\
\end{diagram}$$
To prove the second claim, we consider the following commutative diagram.
$$\begin{diagram}\dgARROWPARTS=6
\node{H_2(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[3]{e,t,4}{f_*} \arrow[2]{se,t,2}{B} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.} \node{} \node{} \node{H_2(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[2]{se,t,2}{B} \arrow{s,l}{P.D.} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{\overline{H^1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow[2]{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \arrow{w} \node{} \node{\overline{H^1(M;{\mathcal{K}}\Gamma/{\mathcal{R}})}} \arrow[2]{w,t,-}{f^*} \arrow{s,-} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{} \node{} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[2]{sw,b,4}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))} \arrow[3]{e,t}{f_*} \node{} \arrow{s,l}{\kappa} \node{} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow[2]{sw,b,4}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M)}\\
\node{\left(H_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow{s,l}{j^{\#}} \node{} \arrow{w} \node{} \node{\left(H_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow{s,l}{j^{\#}} \arrow[2]{w,t,-}{f^*} \node{} \node{}\\
\node{\left(TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \node{} \node{} \node{\left(TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})\right)^{\#}} \arrow[3]{w,t}{f^*} \node{} \node{}\\
\end{diagram}$$
From the diagram above we have $f^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M) \circ f_* =
{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))$. Therefore, $$g^{\#} \circ f^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M) \circ f_* \circ g = g^{\#} \circ
{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ g.$$ Since $f_* \circ g = \operatorname{id}$ and $g^{\#}
\circ f^* = \operatorname{id}$, it follows that $g^{\#} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M(\eta,J))
\circ g = {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{\mathcal{R}}(M)$. Hence the second claim is proved.
We have established that we have the following commutative diagram whose rows are exact.
$$\begin{diagram}
\node{H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{e,t}{i_*} \arrow{s,r}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(J)} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{s,r}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))} \arrow{e,t}{f_*} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})} \arrow{s,r}{{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M)} \\
\node{H_1(E(J);{\mathcal{R}})^{\#}} \node{TH_1(M(\eta,J);{\mathcal{R}})^{\#}} \arrow{w,t}{i^*} \node{TH_1(M;{\mathcal{R}})^{\#}} \arrow{w,t}{f^*} \\
\end{diagram}$$
Since $f^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M) \circ f_* = {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J))$, it follows that $$g^{\#} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ i_* = g^{\#}
\circ f^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M) \circ f_* \circ i_*$$ $$i^* \circ
{{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ g = i^* \circ f^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M) \circ
f_* \circ g$$
But since the rows are exact, $f_* \circ i_* = 0$ and $i^* \circ f^*
= 0$. Therefore $g^{\#} \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ i_* = 0$ and $i^* \circ {{\mathcal{B\ell}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(M(\eta,J)) \circ g = 0$.
[^1]: $^{\dag}$Partially supported by NSF DMS-1105776
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We pursue the analysis made in [@DesOu] on the arithmetic area enclosed by $m$ closed Brownian paths. We pay a particular attention to the random variable $S_{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_m}(m)$ which is the arithmetic area of the set of points, also called winding sectors, enclosed $n_1$ times by path $1$, $n_2$ times by path $2,\ldots,n_m$ times by path $m$. Various results are obtained in the asymptotic limit $m\to\infty$. A key observation is that, since the paths are independent, one can use in the $m$ paths case the SLE information, valid in the $1$-path case, on the $0$-winding sectors arithmetic area.'
---
[**Arithmetic area for $m$ planar Brownian paths** ]{}\
[**Jean Desbois**]{}[^1] and [**Stéphane Ouvry**]{}[^2]\
Université Paris-Sud, Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Modèles Statistiques[^3]\
91405 Orsay, France\
Introduction
============
In [@DesOu], the asymptotic behavior of the average arithmetic area enclosed by the external frontier of $m$ independent closed Brownian planar paths, of same length $t$ and starting from and ending at the same point, has been obtained using a path integral approach [@Feyn; @Sn].
In the one path case, the random variable of interest happens to be the arithmetic area $S_n$ of the $n$-winding sectors enclosed by the path, from which the total arithmetic area $S=\sum_n S_n$ can be computed. A $n$-winding sector is by definition a set of points enclosed $n$ times by the path. Path integral technics [@Sn] give $\langle S_n\rangle= t/(2\pi n^2)$ but end up being somehow less adapted for $\langle S_0\rangle$, the average arithmetic area of the $0$-winding sectors inside the path, i.e. of the set of points enclosed an equal number of times clockwise and anti-clockwise by the path. Indeed path integral cannot distinguish $0$-winding sectors inside the path from the outside of the path, which is also $0$-winding. Other technics have to be used, in the case at hand SLE technics [@Jeunes], to get $\langle S\rangle=\pi t/5$ from which $\langle S_0\rangle=\pi t/30$ can be derived. It means that $\langle S_0\rangle=q \langle S-S_0\rangle$ with $q=1/5$.
For $m$ independant paths, the same path integral technics used in the one path case have now to focus [@DesOu] on the random variable $S_n(m)$, the arithmetic area of the $n$-winding sectors enclosed by the $m$ paths, from which the total area $S(m)=\sum_n S_n(m)$ can in principle be computed. A $n$-winding sector is again defined as a set of points enclosed $n$ times by the $m$ paths as illustrated in Figure \[f0\] in the $m=2$ paths case. One has found that the leading asymptotic term scales like $\ln m$, namely that $\langle S(m)-S_0(m)\rangle\sim {\pi t\over 2}\ln m$ with, as already stressed, no information on $\langle S_0(m)\rangle$ inside the $m$ paths.
![On a square lattice two independent closed walks $1$ and $2$ with $38$ steps each, starting from and returning at the origin. The winding sectors of each walk are labelled by their winding numbers $\{n_1\}$ (for walk $1$) and $\{n_2\}$ (for walk $2$). The winding sectors enclosed by the external frontier of the two walks $1 + 2$ are labelled i) by their joint winding numbers $\{n_1, n_2\}$, ii) by their total winding number $\{n_1+ n_2\equiv n \}$. The $n=0$-winding sectors of interest, namely inside the external frontier of $1+2$, correspond either to $\{0, 0\}$ with at least one of the $0$-winding sectors inside one of the paths, or to $\{n_1, n_2\}$ with $n_1+n_2=0$ and both $n_1$ and $n_2\ne 0$.[]{data-label="f0"}](sn1n2.pstex)
In [@Julien] on the other hand, the asymptotic behavior of the arithmetic area enclosed by the convex envelop of $m$ closed paths was found to be $\langle S(m)\rangle_{\rm convex}\sim {\pi t\over 2}\ln m$, i.e. the same scaling as $\langle S(m)-S_0(m)\rangle$. One then concluded [@DesOu] that, necessarily, $\langle S(m)\rangle\sim {\pi t\over 2}\ln m $ and that $\langle S_0(m)\rangle$ is subleading.
This particular scaling might be of interest for spatial ecology considerations where one asks about the increase in size of a natural reserve with the animal population (assuming of course that food is homogeneously and sufficiently available). By identifying an animal looking for food to a random walker one thereby obtains the $\log m$ scaling rather than the naive geometrical $\sqrt{m}$ scaling.
In the present work we will give a more detailed analysis of the random variable $S_n(m)$. In particular we will pay attention to the random variable $S_{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_m}(m)$, the arithmetic area of the set of points enclosed $n_1$ times by path $1$, $n_2$ times by path $2,\ldots,n_m$ times by path $m$, with $\sum_in_i=n$. Happily enough, this variable can be tackled by path integral technics analogous to the one used in [@DesOu; @Sn] provided that at least one of the $n_i\ne 0$. Note, when $\sum_i n_i=0$, that $S_{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_m}(m)$ contains a part of the inside $0$-winding sector area $S_0(m)$. To get a hand on the other part $S_{0,0,\ldots,0}(m)$, with at least one of the $n_i=0$-winding sectors inside the corresponding path $i$ (otherwise one would be trivially outside the external frontier of the $m$ paths), one key observation is that since the paths are independent one can use in the $m$ paths case the SLE information $\langle S_0\rangle=q \langle S-S_0\rangle$ valid in the one path case.
From these considerations will follow $\langle S(m)\rangle$ and $\langle S_0(m)\rangle$. We will show in particular that, when $m\to\infty$, the subleading $\langle S_0(m)\rangle$ remains finite. Also some information on the asymptotics of $\langle S_{n_1,n_2,0,\ldots,0}(m)\rangle$ when both $n_1$ and $n_2\to\infty$ will be obtained. Finally $\langle S_0(2)\rangle$ and the overlap between $2$ paths, $\langle 2S(1) -S(2)\rangle$, will be considered. This quantity might have some interest in polymer physics where polymers are modelised by Brownian paths.
In view of unifying notations between [@DesOu] and [@Sn], we always denote the $n$-winding sectors arithmetic area and total arithmetic area for $m$ paths by $ S_n(m)$ and $S(m)$, which means that, from now on, $ S_n(1)$ and $S(1)$ stand for $ S_n$ and $S$, the $n$-winding sectors arithmetic area and total arithmetic area in the one path case.
Winding sectors {#arw}
===============
Winding angle and propagator {#arw1}
----------------------------
As stated in the Introduction, the arithmetic area of the winding sectors enclosed by planar Brownian paths can be obtained from their winding properties. Consider a path of length $t$, starting from and ending at $\overrightarrow{r}$ and the angle $\theta $ wound by the path around the origin $O$. The average of the random variable $e^{i \alpha \theta }
$ over the set of such paths is e\^[i ]{} = \[b1\] where \_(r , r) = \_[r (0) = r]{}\^[r (t) = r]{} [D]{}r () e\^[-\_0\^t \^2 () +i \_0\^t () ]{} \[bb1\] is the quantum propagator of a charged particle coupled to a vortex at location $O$. By symmetry, it depends only on $r$ \_(r , r) = e\^[-]{} \_[k=-]{}\^[+]{} I\_[k- ]{} ( ) \[b2\] where $I_{\vert k- \alpha \vert }$ is a modified Bessel function and \_0 (r , r) = \[bb2\] Additional symmetry and periodicity considerations lead to ${\cal G}_\alpha = {\cal G}_{\alpha +1} = {\cal G}_{1- \alpha } $ so that $\alpha$ can be restricted to $0 \le \alpha \le 1$. We also set $\fp \frac{r^2}{t}\equiv x $ so that $$\langle e^{i \alpha \theta } \rangle = e^{-x} \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty}
I_{\vert k- \alpha \vert }( x )\equiv G_\alpha (x)$$ with $G_0(x)=1$. Clearly areas are proportional to $t$, so we can, without loss of generality, set $t=1$.
Let us rewrite $ G_\alpha(x) $ in a more suitable form : one has
G\_(x) = e\^[-x]{} \_[k=0]{}\^[+]{} I\_[ k+ ]{} (x)+{1-} \[b3\]
Observing that $\fp \frac{\d }{\d x}\left (e^{-x} \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty} I_{ k+ \alpha } (x)\right)=\frac{1}{2} e^{-x}
\left( I_{ \alpha -1 } (x) - I_{ \alpha } (x) \right) $, we get = e\^[-x]{} ( I\_[-]{} (x) - I\_ (x) + I\_[ -1 ]{} (x) - I\_[1-]{} (x) ) = e\^[-x]{} ( K\_[ ]{} (x) + K\_[ 1-]{} (x) ) \[dga1\] Using the integral representation [@abra] of $K_{ \alpha } (x)$ \[ka\] K\_[ ]{} (x)= \_[-]{}\^ u e\^[-x u]{} (u) we deduce G\_(x) = \_[-]{}\^ u ((-)u) \[ga\] Clearly \_[x]{}G\_(x) = \_[-]{}\^ u ((-)u)=1 \[ga1\] so that 1-G\_(x) = \_[-]{}\^ u ((-)u) \[ga2\] Eq. (\[ga2\]) will be extensively used in the following.
Average area $\langle S_n(m) \rangle $ of $n$-winding sectors {#snm}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Let us first consider the average arithmetic area $\langle S_n(m) \rangle $ of the $n$-winding sectors labelled by their winding number $n$. For $m$ brownian paths of same length unity, starting from and ending at the same point, one has [@DesOu] \[zam\] Z\_(m)\_0\^x (1-(G\_(x))\^m )= \_[n 0]{} S\_n(m) (1- e\^[i 2 n]{} ) Rewriting $G_{\alpha}(x) = 1-(1-G_{\alpha}(x)) $ leads, for $n \ne 0$, to \[zam1\] S\_n(m) =-\_0\^1 Z\_(m) (2 n) =\_[j=1]{}\^m (-1)\^[j+1]{} [ m j ]{} (-\_0\^1 \_0\^x (1-G\_(x))\^j (2 n)) where $ { m \choose j } $ is the binomial coefficient. Thus S\_n(m) =\_[j=1]{}\^m (-1)\^[j+1]{} [ m j ]{}I\_[n,j]{}with I\_[n,j]{}=-\_0\^1 \_0\^x (1-G\_(x))\^j (2 n)Using (\[ga2\]) one rewrites $I_{n,j}$ as I\_[n,j]{} = - (\_[i=1]{}\^j\_[-]{}\^ ) \[inj1\] where the $ \Phi_{n,j} $’s follow from the integration over $\alpha$
- [$j$ odd $= 2k+1$]{} \_[n,j]{} = 2( )\_[N=n-k]{}\^[n+k+1]{} (-1)\^[N+k-n]{} [2k+1 N+k-n]{} \[phi1\]
- [$j$ even $= 2k$]{} \_[n,j]{} = 2(\_[i=1]{}\^j u\_i )() \_[N=n-k]{}\^[n+k]{} (-1)\^[N+k-n]{} [2k N+k-n]{} \[phi2\]
It is possible to compute $ I_{n,1}$ exactly [@Jeunes] \[inn1\] I\_[n,1]{}= \_[-]{}\^ ( - )= On the other hand when $n\to\infty$
- [j odd ]{} I\_[n,j]{} \~ c\_j \[inas\] c\_j = \_0\^x e\^[-j x]{} (K\_0(x))\^j \[cj\]
- [ j even ]{} I\_[n,j]{} \~ d\_j \[inas1\] d\_j = \_0\^x e\^[-j x]{} (K\_0(x))\^[j-1]{} \_0\^u e\^[- x u]{} u \[cj1\]
We finally obtain S\_n(1) &=& I\_[n,1]{}=\
S\_n(2) &=& -I\_[n,2]{}=\_[n]{} - d\_2 + O() and in the general case S\_n(m) &=& -[m 2]{} I\_[n,2]{} + [m 3]{} I\_[n,3]{} - …\
&=&\_[n]{} - (2 [m 2]{} d\_2+ [m 3]{} c\_3 ) + O() with the convention that ${m \choose j}=0$ if $j>m$, $d_2\simeq 2.84 $ and $c_3\simeq 5.73$. Clearly, and as discussed in the Introduction, we have no information so far on the $0$-winding sector inside the $m$ paths. To make some progress on this issue, we have to turn to $\langle S_{n_1,n_2,...,n_m}(m) \rangle $, the average arithmetic area of the sectors enclosed $n_1$ times by path $1$, $n_2$ times by path $2, \ldots,$ and $n_m$ times by path $m$.
Average area $\langle S_{n_1,n_2,...,n_m}(m) \rangle $ {#sn1n2}
-------------------------------------------------------
Winding sectors can as well be labelled by the set $\{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_m \}$ of the individual winding numbers $n_i$ enclosed by each path $i$. In line with section (\[snm\]), one has
\[za1a2\] Z\_[\_1,\_2,...,\_m]{}(m)\_0\^x (1- \_[i=1]{}\^m G\_[\_i]{}(x))= ’ S\_[n\_1,n\_2,...,n\_m]{}(m) (1- e\^[2 i(\_[i=1]{}\^m \_i n\_i )]{} ) where in $\sum'$ the set $n_1=n_2= ...=n_m=0$ is excluded from the sum. So S\_[n\_1,n\_2,...,n\_m]{}(m) &=& - \_0\^1 \_1 ...\_0\^1 \_m Z\_[\_1,\_2,...,\_m]{}(m) ( 2 (\_[i=1]{}\^m \_i n\_i ) )\
&=& - \_0\^1 \_1 ...\_0\^1 \_m Z\_[\_1,\_2,...,\_m]{}(m) \_[i=1]{}\^m (2 \_i n\_i )\[toto\] where we have used $\int_0^1 \d \alpha \sin (\pi \alpha ) \sin (2 \pi \alpha n ) \cosh \left( (\alpha -\frac{1}{2}) u\right)
=0 $. Now $ \langle S_{n_1,n_2,...,n_m}(m) \rangle $ is invariant by permutation on the $n_i$’s, so one can focus without loss of generality on $ \langle S_{n_1,...,n_j,0,...,0 }(m) \rangle $, $1 \le j \le m$, with $n_1,...,n_j\ne 0$.
Rewriting $G_{\alpha_i}(x) = 1-(1-G_{\alpha_i}(x)) $ in (\[za1a2\],\[toto\]) leads to consider when $n_i \ne 0$ \_0\^1 \_i (1-G\_[\_i]{} (x)) (2 \_i n\_i ) = \_[-]{}\^ u\_i e\^[-x(1+u\_i)]{} P(u\_i,n\_i) with
P(u\_i,n\_i) = \~\_[n\_i]{}- It follows that \[sn1n200\] S\_[n\_1,...,n\_j,0,...,0 ]{}(m) = (-1)\^j \_0\^x ( \_[i=1]{}\^j \_[-]{}\^ u\_i e\^[-x(1+u\_i)]{} P(u\_i,n\_i) ) (1-f(x))\^[m-j]{} where \[fx\] f(x)= \_0\^1 (1-G\_(x)) = \_[-]{}\^ u For example when $m=1, 2$ one gets S\_[n\_1]{}(1) &=& - \_0\^x \_[-]{}\^ u e\^[-x(1+u)]{} P(u,n\_1)=\
S\_[n\_1,n\_2]{}(2) &=& \_[-]{}\^\_[-]{}\^ P(u\_1,n\_1) P(u\_2,n\_2)\
S\_[n\_1,0]{}(2) &=& + \_[-]{}\^\_[-]{}\^ P(u\_1,n\_1) P(u\_2,0) When $n_i\to\infty$ one obtains S\_[n\_1,...,n\_j,0,...,0 ]{}(m) &\~& c\_[j,m]{} where the constant c\_[j,m]{} &= & \_0\^x e\^[-j x]{} (K\_0(x))\^j (1 -f(x))\^[m-j]{} has to be evaluated numerically to the exception of $$c_{2,2}={3\over 2} \zeta(2)-1+{3\over 2} \zeta(2) \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\prod_{i=1}^k(1 - {1\over 2 i})^2 -
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\prod_{i=1}^k(1 - {1\over 2 i + 1})^2$$
Arithmetic area enclosed by $m$ Brownian paths
==============================================
We are now in position to compute $\langle S(m) \rangle $, the average arithmetic area enclosed by the $m$ paths. Obviously \[sm\] S(m) = ’ S\_[n\_1,...,n\_m]{}(m) + S\_[0,...,0]{}(m) where $ \langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle$ is the area of the finite $\{n_1=0,n_2=0,\ldots,n_m=0\}$ winding sectors inside, at least, one of the paths[^4]. From (\[za1a2\]), we get \[sm1\] ’ S\_[n\_1,...,n\_m]{}(m) =\_0\^1 \_1 ...\_0\^1 \_m Z\_[\_1,...,\_m]{}(m) so that, using (\[fx\]), \[sm2\] ’ S\_[n\_1,...,n\_m]{}(m) = \_0\^ x ( 1- (1-f(x))\^m )
In order to find $ \langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle $ first consider $$\sum_{n_1 \ne 0} \langle S_{n_1,0,...,0}(m) \rangle \; = \; \pi \; \int_0^\infty \; \d x \; f(x)
\left( 1-f(x) \right)^{m-1}$$ and, the sum A\_1 & & \_[n\_1 0]{} ( S\_[n\_1,0,...,0]{}(m) + S\_[0,n\_1,0...,0]{}(m) + ... +S\_[0,...,0,n\_1]{}(m) )\
& = & [m 1 ]{} \_0\^ x f(x) (1-f(x))\^[m-1]{} where one has taken into account permutation invariance. Similarly one can consider A\_2 & & \_[n\_1,n\_2 0]{} ( S\_[n\_1,n\_2,0,...,0]{}(m) + ...+ S\_[0...,0,n\_1,0...,0,n\_2,0...0]{}(m) + ...+ S\_[0,...,0,n\_1,n\_2]{}(m) )\
& = & [m 2 ]{} \_0\^ x f(x)\^2 (1-f(x))\^[m-2]{}\
A\_m \_[n\_1,n\_2...,n\_m 0]{} S\_[n\_1,n\_2,...,n\_m]{}(m) & =& \_0\^ x f(x)\^m (1-f(x))\^[m-m]{} with, obviously, \_[i=1]{}\^m A\_i = \_0\^ x ( 1- (1- f(x))\^m )= ’ S\_[n\_1,n\_2,...,n\_m]{}(m) \[ach\] We are interested in $ \langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle $ : in the case of one closed path one knows from SLE [@Jeunes] that \[q\] q= = This means that for any point [**inside** ]{} the path, with winding number $n$, $q$ is the ratio of the probability to have a $0$-winding to the probability to have a $n\ne 0$-winding. $A_1$ counts the points with only one non-zero winding number. It follows that the corresponding contribution to $ \langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle $ is necessarily $ q \; A_1$. Similarly, $A_2$ counts the points with only two non-zero winding numbers. Since the $m$ paths are independent, it follows that the corresponding contribution to $ \langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle $ is $ q^2 \; A_2$. This line of reasoning generalizes to $A_k$ : the contribution to $ \langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle $ is $ q^k \; A_k$. Finally S\_[0,...,0]{}(m) =\_[i=1]{}\^m q\^i A\_i = \_0(m) - \_q(m) with \[phi\] \_q(m) = \_0\^x ( 1- (1-(1-q)f(x))\^m )
Clearly $\sum_{i=1}^m A_i$ in (\[ach\]) coincides with $\Phi_0(m)$. It follows that the average arithmetic area enclosed by the $m$ paths is \[aver\] S(m) = \_[i=1]{}\^m (1+q\^i) A\_i =2 \_0(m) - \_q(m) When $m\to \infty$ (see eq.(\[phiq\]) in the appendix) one obtains \[aver1\] S(m) = m - m + ( + C ) +o() where $C$ is the Euler constant.
![The average arithmetic area $\fp \langle S(m) \rangle $: the crosses are numerical simulations (10000 events) of closed random walks ($10^6$ steps for each one) on the 2D square lattice; $m = 4, 8, 16, ..., 1024$; the line is the analytical result eq.(\[aver1\]). The agreement is quite correct as soon as $m \ge 16$. []{data-label="f2"}](avsm.pstex)
In Figure \[f2\], numerical simulations for $ \langle S(m) \rangle $ show that the agreement with eq.(\[aver1\]) is quite correct, even for not large values of $m$.
Moreover, the asymptotic [@DesOu] of $ \langle S(m)- S_0(m)\rangle $ when $m\to \infty$ is known to be \[averdo1\] S(m) - S\_0(m) = m - m + (- + C ) +o() Comparing Eqs.(\[aver1\]) and (\[averdo1\]), one deduces that the subleading $0$-winding sector average arithmetic area \[aver0\] \_[m]{}S\_0(m )= remains finite in the $m\to\infty$ limit.
Finally, as another illustration of the path integral formalism, consider the average overlap $\langle 2S(1)- S(2) \rangle $ of the arithmetic areas of two paths and $\langle S_0(2) \rangle $, the average $0$-winding sectors arithmetic area of two paths. One has S(1) &=& \_0\^x (1+q) f(x) =\
S(2) &=& \_0\^x ( 2(1+q)f(x)+f(x)\^2((1-q)\^2-2) ) so that 2S(1)- S(2) &=& (2-(1-q)\^2) \_0\^x f(x)\^2\
&=& \_[-]{}\^\_[-]{}\^ \[achach\] Numerically $$\fp \frac{\langle 2S(1)- S(2) \rangle }{\langle S(1) \rangle} \approx 0.286$$ is close to what one would obtain if the paths attached in $O$ were two circles of radius $R$: the overlap in unit of $\pi R^2$ would then be $$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{\pi^2} \approx 0.297$$
Also, as far as $\langle S_0(2) \rangle$ is concerned, rewrite $$\langle S_0(2) \rangle =\langle S(2) \rangle- \sum_{n \ne 0} \langle S_n(2) \rangle =
2 \langle S(1)\rangle- \langle 2S(1)- S(2) \rangle - \sum_{n \ne 0} \langle S_n(2) \rangle$$ From Section \[snm\] one has $$\sum_{n \ne 0} \langle S_n(2) \rangle = \frac{\pi}{3} - \pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\d u_1 \d u_2 \frac{\tanh \frac{u_1}{2} + \tanh \frac{u_2}{2}}
{(2+\cosh u_1+\cosh u_2)(u_1+u_2)((2 \pi)^2+(u_1+u_2)^2)}$$ so that, using $\fp \langle S_0(1) \rangle =\frac{\pi}{30} $ and eq. (\[achach\]), one finds $\langle 2S_0(1)-S_0(2) \rangle$ to be \[avs02\] \_[-]{}\^\_[-]{}\^ ( - ) If the paths were not overlapping, then one would necessarily have $\langle 2S_0(1)-S_0(2) \rangle=0$. The non vanishing result (\[avs02\]) clearly indicates that the two paths do, on average, overlap as already seen in (\[achach\]). Note that the $0$-winding sectors “overlap” $\langle 2S_0(1)- S_0(2) \rangle$ is different in nature from the arithmetic area overlap $\langle 2S(1)- S(2) \rangle$: the latter is a purely geometric overlap, whereas the former is more subtle since the superposition of the two paths destroy some original $0$-winding sectors in each of the paths and create new $0$-windings sectors for the two paths.
Conclusion
==========
Path integral technics have been extensively used to tackle the issue of $n$-winding sectors arithmetic area of $m$ Brownian paths. Some information stemming from SLE technics valid only in the one path case have also proved useful in the $m$ paths case, merely because the paths are independent.
Eqs.(\[aver1\]) and (\[aver0\]) are the main results of this paper. In particular the subleading $0$-winding arithmetic area has been shown to remain finite in the asymtotic limit. Numerical simulations have nicely confirmed these asymptotics results. The overlap between two paths is also computed numerically. Applications to polymer physics will be studied in a forthcoming publication.
Appendix
=========
In the appendix we derive the $m \to \infty $ asymptotic limit of $ \Phi_q(m) $ defined in (\[phi\]) $$\Phi_q(m) = \pi \int_0^\infty \d x \left( 1- (1-(1-q)f(x))^m \right)$$ with $f(x)$ given in (\[fx\]) $$f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \d u \frac{e^{-x(1+\cosh u)}}{\pi^2+u^2}$$ Setting $\fp x= \frac{y \ln m}{2}$, $ \Phi_q(m) $ becomes \_q(m) &=& \_0\^y ( 1- (1-(1-q)f( ))\^m )\
& & \_0\^y ( 1- e\^[-m(1-q) f( ) ]{} ) \[A04\] Using $\fp f(x) \simeq \frac{e^{-2x}}{\pi^2}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{x}} $ when $x\to\infty$, the integrand in (\[A04\]) $$1- e^{-m(1-q) f( \frac{y \ln m}{2})} \approx
1-e^{-(1-q) \frac{m^{1-y}}{\pi^2}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{y \ln m}}}$$ behaves, in the $m\to\infty$ limit, like &0& y>1\
&1& y<1 and so, at leading order, $\fp \Phi_q(m) = \frac{\pi \ln m}{2}$.
Focusing now on the subleading correction at order $\fp \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln m}}$, namely ( \_1\^y (1-e\^[-(1-q) ]{}) -\_0\^1y e\^[-(1-q) ]{} ) let us first consider the $y>1$ integration. One has to compute $$a \approx \frac{\pi \ln m}{2} \int_1^\infty \d y (1-q)\frac{m^{1-y}}{\pi^2}
\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{y \ln m}}
\approx \frac{\pi \ln m}{2} \int_1^\infty \d y (1-q)\frac{m^{1-y}}{\pi^2}
\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{ \ln m}}$$ where one has used that, because of the $m^{1-y}$ factor, $y$ is peaked to $1$ when $m\to\infty$. One obtains \[Aa\] a= +o()
Considering next the $y<1$ integration one has to compute b && - \_0\^1 y e\^[-(1-q) ]{}\
&& - \_0\^1 y e\^[-(1-q) ]{}\
& = & - \_0\^1 y e\^[-a’ m\^[1-y]{}]{} a’= Setting $a' m^{1-y}= z$ with $\fp -\d y \ln m= \frac{\d z}{z}$ leads to $$b \approx -\frac{\pi }{2} \int_{a'}^{ a' m } e^{-z} \frac{\d z}{z}=-\frac{\pi }{2}
\left( \left[ \ln z \; e^{-z}\right]_{a'}^{a' m }+ \int_{a'}^{ a' m } \ln z \; e^{-z} \d z
\right)$$ At order $\fp \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln m}}$, one has $ \left[ \ln z \; e^{-z}\right]_{a'}^{a' m } \approx -\ln a' \;
(1-a') $ and $\int_{a'}^{ a' m } \ln z \; e^{-z} \d z \approx
\int_0^\infty \ln z \; e^{-z} \d z-\int_0^{a'} \ln z \; e^{-z} \d z
\approx C-\int_0^{a'} \ln z \; (1-z) \d z $ where $C$ is the Euler constant. The last remaining integral is straightforward and finally \[Ab\] b ( a’ +C -a’ ) Noticing that $\fp a'\frac{\pi }{2}=\frac{1-q}{\sqrt{\pi \ln m}}\approx a$, we are left with $\fp a+b \approx \frac{\pi }{2} \left( \ln a' +C \right) $ so that \[phiq\] \_q(m)= m - m + ( (1-q) + + C ) +o()
[99]{} “Algebraic and arithmetic are for m planar Brownian paths” J. Desbois and S. Ouvry, arXiv: 1101.4135, J. Stat. Mech. (2011) P05024
R. P. Feyman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, New York, Mc Graw-Hill (1965)
A. Comtet, J. Desbois and S. Ouvry, J. Phys. [**A 23**]{} (1990) 3563
C. Garban and J. A. Trujillo Ferreras, Commun. Math. Phys. [**264**]{} (2006) 797
A. Comtet, S.N. Majumdar and J. Randon-Furling, Phys. Rev. Lett., v-103, 140602 (2009).
M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions, New York, Dover Publications (1965).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: Unité Mixte de Recherche CNRS-Paris Sud, UMR 8626
[^4]: Remember that $\langle S_0(m) \rangle =\langle S_{0,...,0}(m) \rangle+\sum' \langle S_{n_1,...,n_m}(m) \rangle $, with $\sum n_i=0$ and at least one of the $n_i\ne 0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a quantum system strongly driven by forces that are periodic in time. The theorem concerns the probability $P(e)$ of observing a given energy change $e$ after a number of cycles. If the system is thermostated by a (quantum) thermal bath, $e$ is the total amount of energy transferred to the bath, while for an isolated system $e$ is the increase in energy of the system itself. Then, we show that $P(e)/P(-e)=e^{\beta e}$, a parameter-free, model-independent relation.'
---
[ A Quantum Fluctuation Theorem]{}
[Jorge Kurchan ]{}
[*P.M.M.H. Ecole Supérieure de Physique et Chimie\
Industrielles, 10 rue Vauquelin 75231 Paris, France* ]{}
In the past few years there has been a renewed interest in the study of quantum systems out of equilibrium, to a large extent stimulated by the design of new experimental settings and by the construction of new devices. If a system is well out of equilibrium, as for example when it is strongly driven by periodic forces, then linear response theory (understood as linear perturbations around the Gibbs measure) is insufficient.
Even in the context of classical mechanics not many generic results are available beyond linear response. An interesting new development consists of a number of relations for strongly out of equilibrium systems, mainly regarding the distribution of work and entropy production. The first of such [*fluctuation theorems*]{} was discovered by Evans et.al [@Evans], who understood that the basic ingredient was time-reversal symmetry.
Two important further steps, made by Gallavotti and Cohen widened the scope and interest of the subject. On the one hand, it was realized [@Ga] that the fluctuation theorems are indeed the far from equilibrium generalisations of the well-known equilibrium theorems (fluctuation-dissipation and Onsager reciprocity). Most intriguingly, a byproduct of their proof [@Gaco] was that, just as the validity of the fluctuation-dissipation relation is a strong indication of equilibration, the fact that a fluctuation formula holds in a driven stationary system strongly hints that the system can be considered ‘as ergodic as possible’ — with all the implications this entails.
These results concern deterministic systems. If instead a finite system is in contact with a stochastic thermal bath, then the ‘ergodicity’ questions become trivial, and all the fluctuation formulae are extremely simple to prove [@Ku; @Lesp; @maes].
Particularly relevant for the present work are the simple and remarkable Jarzynski and other [*‘work relations’*]{} valid well out of equilibrium [@Ja; @Cr1; @related; @Yu], whose close relation to the fluctuation theorems was clarified by Crooks [@Cr2].
Except for Ref.[@Yu], the developments described so far are restricted to classical mechanics. The purpose of this paper is to prove two versions of a fluctuation theorem for quantum systems under strong periodic drive, either isolated or in contact with a thermal bath. Very recently, these questions have become relevant in the context of detection of quantum ‘shot’ noise generated by currents flowing through devices, given the possibility it offers to observe different quasiparticle charges of the carriers [@joseph].
We shall consider an evolution generated by a time-dependent Hamiltonian $H(q,p,t)$ with [*real*]{} matrix elements, so that there is time-reversal symmetry in each infinitesimal time step. We shall assume the explicit time-dependence is periodic (with period $t_o$) and that the cycles are symmetric [@Chi]: $$H(q,p,t)=H(q,p,t)=H(q,p,-t)
\label{uno}$$ Splitting the evolution in infinitesimal steps $t_1,\;...\;t_n$: $$|\phi(t_f)\rangle = U|\phi(t_i)\rangle=
U_n U_{n-1} \;\;...\;\; U_2 U_1 |\phi(t_i)\rangle
\label{evol}$$ where $n$ is large, $U_r\equiv e^{\frac{i}{\hbar} \tau H_r}$ and $\tau=(t_f-t_i)/n \rightarrow 0$, the reality condition implies that: $
U_r^\dag = U_r^*
$ and, together with the symmetry of cycles Eq. (\[uno\]) this implies that the evolution over a cycle satisfies time-reversibility: Consider the case in which the time $t_f-t_i$ consists of an integer number of cycles, and hence $U_r=U_{n-r+1}$ (cfr. (\[uno\])). Then: $$\begin{aligned}
U^\dag&=& U_1^\dag U_{2}^\dag \;\;...\;\; U_{n-1}^\dag U_n^\dag=
\left[ U_1 U_{2} \;\;...\;\; U_{n-1} U_n\right]^* \nonumber\\
&=&
\left [ U_n U_{n-1} \;\;...\;\; U_{2} U_1\right]^*=U^*
\label{cosa}\end{aligned}$$ a formula only valid for $(t_f-t_i)/t_o=integer$, which we shall assume throughout this paper.
We denote the eigenvectors of the initial time Hamiltonian $|\psi_\alpha\rangle$: $$H_1 |\psi_\alpha\rangle = \varepsilon_\alpha |\psi_\alpha\rangle$$ and the corresponding partition function: $$Z = {\mbox{Tr}} e^{-\beta H_1}
\label{zeq}$$
Consider the following protocol:
- With (canonical) probability $p_\alpha= e^{-\beta \varepsilon_\alpha}/Z$ we choose a wavefunction $|\psi_\alpha\rangle$.
- We let it evolve through an integer number of cycles: $$|\phi \rangle = U
|\psi_\alpha\rangle
= \sum_\gamma |\psi_\gamma \rangle \langle \psi_\gamma |\phi
\rangle$$
- We measure the final $H_1$ and record the energy difference $e$ between initial and final times.
Let us calculate the probability distribution of $e$. For a given value of $\alpha$, this distribution reads: $$\begin{aligned}
P_\alpha (e)&=& \sum_\gamma \delta
[e-(\varepsilon_\gamma-\varepsilon_\alpha)]
\left|\langle \psi_\gamma |\phi\rangle\right|^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_\gamma \delta
[e-(\varepsilon_\gamma-\varepsilon_\alpha)]
\left|\langle \psi_\gamma | U
|\psi_\alpha\rangle\right|^2\end{aligned}$$ The average distribution $P(e)$ over initial conditions is: $$P(e)= \frac{1}{Z} \sum_{\gamma,\alpha}
\delta
[e-(\varepsilon_\gamma-\varepsilon_\alpha)]
\left|\langle \psi_\gamma | U
|\psi_\alpha\rangle\right|^2
e^{-\beta
\varepsilon_\alpha}
\label{ppp}$$ Writing the delta function in integral form, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
P(e)&=& \frac{1}{Z} \int_{-i\infty}^{i \infty} d\lambda
e^{-\lambda [e-(\varepsilon_\gamma-\varepsilon_\alpha)]}
\sum_{\gamma,\alpha}
\left|\langle \psi_\gamma | U
|\psi_\alpha\rangle\right|^2
e^{-\beta
\varepsilon_\alpha} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{Z} \int_{-i\infty}^{i \infty}d\lambda e^{-\lambda e}
Q(\lambda)
\label{peq}\end{aligned}$$ where: $$\begin{aligned}
Q(\lambda)&=& \sum_{\gamma,\alpha}
e^{\lambda (\varepsilon_\gamma-\varepsilon_\alpha)}
\left|\langle \psi_\gamma | U
|\psi_\alpha\rangle\right|^2
e^{-\beta \varepsilon_\alpha} \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\gamma,\alpha} e^{\lambda \varepsilon_\gamma}
\langle \psi_\alpha | U^\dag
|\psi_\gamma\rangle \langle
\psi_\gamma | U
|\psi_\alpha\rangle e^{-(\lambda+\beta) (\varepsilon_\alpha)}
\nonumber \\
&=& {\mbox{Tr}} \left[
U^\dag \;
e^{\lambda H_1} U \; e^{-(\lambda+\beta)H_1}
\right]
\label{qeq}\end{aligned}$$
The fluctuation theorem can be proved very simply. Firstly, let us prove the following KMS-like [@Kubo] relation. Let $D$ be any [*real symmetric*]{} operator. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_D(\lambda) &\equiv& {\mbox{Tr}} \left[ U^\dag e^{\lambda D} U
e^{-(\lambda+\beta)D} \right]=
{\mbox{Tr}} \left[
U^\dag
e^{-(\lambda+\beta)D}
U
e^{\lambda D}
\right] \nonumber \\
&=& Q_D(-\lambda^*-\beta)^* = Q_D(-\lambda-\beta)
\label{qeq2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used transposition, cyclic permutation and Eq. (\[cosa\]). Putting $D=H_1$, this is a form of the fluctuation theorem for $Q(\lambda)=Q_D(\lambda)$.
In order to see what the implications of (\[qeq2\]) are for $P(e)$ we shall need to show that $Q(\lambda)$ is analytic on the stripe $-\beta \leq {\mbox{Re}}(\lambda) \leq 0$. To do this, we use the fact that: $$\left| {\mbox{Tr}} AB\right|^2 \leq
2 \left( {\mbox{Tr}} AA^\dag\right) \left( {\mbox{Tr}} BB^\dag\right)$$ Putting $A=
U^\dag e^{\lambda H_1}$ and $B=U e^{-(\lambda+\beta)H_1}$: $$\left| Q(\lambda)\right|^2 \leq
2 \left( {\mbox{Tr}} e^{-2\left\{{\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda)+\beta
\right\} H_1} \right)
\left( {\mbox{Tr}} e^{2 {\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda) H_1}\right)
\label{bound}$$ Because the partition function (\[zeq\]) converges for positive temperatures, neither factor diverges if $-\beta < {\mbox{Re}}(\lambda) < 0$
Inserting (\[qeq2\]) with $D=H_1$ in (\[peq\]), the analyticity result allows us to shift the integration from ${\mbox{Re}}(\lambda) =0$ to ${\mbox{Re}}(\lambda)= -\beta$, and we get: $$P(e)=P(-e)e^{\beta e}
\label{ft2}$$ This is the fluctuation theorem for the probability of energy changes in an isolated system. Note that we could have obtained this result directly, without writing the KMS equation, by using the (time-reversal) symmetry of $U$ (equation (\[cosa\])) in (\[ppp\]).
Taking the expectation value of $e^{-\beta e}$ over an integer number of cycles, one obtains a quantum version of a Jarzynski work formula [@Yu]: $${\overline{e^{-\beta e}}} = \int de P(e) e^{-\beta e} = \int de
P(-e) =1
\label{jar}$$ where the overline denotes average over quantum amplitudes and initial conditions. This is a rather surprising model-independent result, which we can rewrite as: $$0= -\frac{1}{\beta} \ln {\overline{e^{-\beta e}}} \leq
-\frac{1}{\beta} {\overline{ \ln e^{-\beta e}}} = {\overline{ e}}
\label{jar1}$$ We obtain the second principle, arising as the familiar inequality $$annealed \;\; average \leq quenched\;\; average$$ with the initial conditions playing the role of disorder.
[*Generalisation and Thermostated systems*]{}
In the most physical setting, we have a system in contact with a bath. The bath can be modeled for example with an infinite set of harmonic oscillators coupled to each variable in the system. Consider for simplicity the case of one system variable: $$H(x,p_x,y_1,p_1,...,y_M,p_M)=H_{system}+ H_{int}+H_{bath}
\label{bath}$$ with: $$H_{bath}= \sum_i \left[ \frac{p_i^2}{2m} + m \omega_i^2 \frac{y_i^2}{2} \right]$$ $$H_{int}= \sum_i C_i y_i x$$ and, say: $$H_{system}= \frac{p_x^2}{2m_x} + V(x,t)$$ (The interested reader will find an extensive literature on this implementation of heat baths in [@bath] and references therein.)
We can define the following bases of eigenvalues: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{bath}| \chi_\alpha \rangle &=& \varepsilon^y_\alpha
|\chi_\alpha \rangle \nonumber \\
O_{system}| \psi_{\alpha'} \rangle&=& o_{\alpha'} | \psi_{\alpha'} \rangle \end{aligned}$$ $O$ is any real symmetric operator corresponding to an observable depending [*exclusively*]{} on the system variables, with a spectrum bounded from below ([*e.g.*]{} $H_{system}(t_i)$). The wavefunctions $|\chi_\alpha \rangle$ and $| \psi_\alpha \rangle$ depend only on bath and system variables, respectively.
We consider an initial condition with no correlations between bath and system constructed as follows:
- We choose a bath wavefunction $| \chi_\alpha \rangle$ with canonical probability $\propto e^{-\beta \varepsilon^y_\alpha}$.
- We choose a system wavefunction $| \psi_{\alpha'} \rangle$ with probability $p_{\alpha'} \propto e^{-\beta o_{\alpha'}}$. This distribution is quite general, given the freedom of choice of $O$. It could be for example a canonical distribution at higher temperature ($O=\frac{\beta'}{\beta} H_1$), as resulting from a temperature quench.
- We start with the initial state $| \chi_\alpha \rangle \otimes
| \psi_{\alpha'} \rangle $ and let it evolve.
- We measure $$D \equiv H_{bath}+O
\label{momo}$$ at the beginning and at the end, and record the difference. Note that at this stage the operator $O$ which we are measuring is forced by the initial condition we are choosing.
It is now easy to prove that the fluctuation formula (\[ft2\]) holds, with $e$ measuring the difference in value of bath energy plus observed value of $O$. To do this one uses (\[qeq2\]) with $D$ as in (\[momo\]). In order to guarantee the analyticity of $Q_D$, one must assure that (see argument leading to (\[bound\])) $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Tr}}\left[ e^{-2\left\{{\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda)+\beta
\right\} D}\right]
&=&{\mbox{Tr}}\left[ e^{-2\left\{{\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda)+\beta
\right\} H_{bath}}\right]
\nonumber \\
&\times& {\mbox{Tr}}\left[ e^{-2\left\{{\mbox{\small{Re}}}
(\lambda)+\beta
\right\} O}\right] < \infty\end{aligned}$$ and $${\mbox{Tr}} \left[ e^{2 {\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda) D}\right]=
{\mbox{Tr}}\left[ e^{2 {\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda) H_{bath}}\right]
{\mbox{Tr}}\left[ e^{2 {\mbox{\small{Re}}}(\lambda) O}\right]< \infty$$ for $-\beta < {\mbox{Re}}(\lambda) < 0$. The traces over the bath variables are bounded, since they correspond to the bath partition function. For the initial probabilities of the system, these conditions require that: $${\mbox{Tr}} \left[ e^{-2\beta \mu O}\right] \propto
\sum_\alpha p_\alpha^{2\mu}$$ is finite for $0<\mu<1$, a condition we assume.
We are now in a position of discussing a general system in contact with a an infinite heat bath after many cycles have elapsed ($t_f-t_i \rightarrow
\infty$). If we have that, under these circumstances:
[*i)*]{} The expected value of $O$ — a property of the system — stays finite as $t_f$ grows.
[*ii)*]{} The bath receives by virtue of the time-dependent forces an energy proportional to the number of cycles [@foot]: $e = (t_f-t_i) e_o + e_1$, with $e_1$ finite and and $e_o$ [*independent of the initial configuration*]{}.
Then, the derivation above of the fluctuation theorem carries over for long times to [*any*]{} initial distribution and to leading order in $t_f-t_i$, equation (\[ft2\]) will be a statement about the probability distribution of the energy $e_o$ the bath received, i.e. its entropy increase [@ffot]. Measuring the fluctuation formula in a concrete situation becomes then a test for a property of the ‘stationary’ (i.e. periodical) asymptotic quantum state.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
I wish to thank L.F. Cugliandolo, D. Grempel and P. Leboeuf for useful suggestions. I am indebted to Y. Imry for calling my attention to the connections with works on quantum devices.
[99]{}
D.J.Evans, E.G.D.Cohen, and G.P.Morriss, Phys.Rev.Lett.[**71**]{}, 2401 (1993)\
D.J.Evans and D.J.Searles, Phys.Rev.E [**50**]{}, 1645 (1994);\
Phys.Rev.E [**52**]{}, 5839 (1995);\
Phys.Rev.E [**53**]{}, 5808 (1996).
G. Gallavotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} 4334 (1996).
G.Gallavotti and E.G.D.Cohen, J.Stat.Phys.[**80**]{}, 931 (1995); Phys.Rev.Lett.[**74**]{}, 2694 (1995)\
The interested reader will find a list of relevant publications in G. Gallavotti, [**cond-mat 9802012**]{}.
J.Kurchan, J.Phys.A [**31**]{}, 3719 (1998).
J.L.Lebowitz, H.Spohn, J.Stat.Phys.[**95**]{}, 333 (1999).
C.Maes, J.Stat.Phys.[**95**]{}, 367 (1999).
C.Jarzynski, Phys.Rev.Lett.[**78**]{}, 2690 (1997)\
C.Jarzynski, Phys.Rev.E [**56**]{}, 5018 (1997).
G.E.Crooks, J.Stat.Phys.[**90**]{}, 1481 (1998).
R.M.Neal, “Annealed Importance Sampling”, Technical Report No. 9805 (revised), Dept. of Statistics, Toronto (1998).\
C.Jarzynski, Acta Phys.Pol.B [**29**]{}, 1609 (1998); C.Jarzynski, cond-mat/9802249, to appear in J.Stat.Phys., July, 1999\
T.Hatano, cond-mat/9905012.
G.E.Crooks, cond-mat/9901352, to appear in Phys.Rev.E; also “Path Ensemble Averages in Systems Driven Far From Equilibrium”, unpublished preprint.
S. Yukawa, cond-mat/0007456, to appear in Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69 (2000). I
U. Gavish, Y. Levinson and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. [**B 62**]{} R10639 (2000).
For low dimensional ‘kicked’ systems the literature is vast. The reader may find useful articles and references in the volume in honour of B. Chirikov, Physica [D131]{} (1999).
R. Kubo, M. Toda and N. Hashitume; [*Statistical Physics II. Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1992\
S. R. De Groot and P. Mazur; [*Non-equilibrium thermodynamics*]{}, Dover Pub., New York, 1984.\
G. Parisi, [*Statistical Field Theory*]{}, Frontiers in Physics, Lecture Notes Series, Addison-Wesley (1988).
G. W. Ford, M. Kac and M. Mazur, J. Math. Phys. [**6**]{}, 504 (1965)\
G. W. Ford and M. Kac, J. Stat. Phys [**46**]{}, 803 (1987).\
Two reviews are:\
G. Zhou, Z. Su, B Hao, Y. Lu, Phys. Rep. [**118**]{}, 1 (1985)\
H. Grabert, P. Schramm and G-L Ingold, Phys. Rep. [**168**]{}, 115 (1988)\
see also:\
A. Caldeira and A. Legget, Phys Rev. [**A31**]{}, 1059 (1985).\
B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, 2843 (1992), [*ibid*]{} [**D47**]{}, 1576 (1993).
For this to happen there should be no ‘localisation’ in energy, as can happen in an isolated quantum ‘kicked’ system[@Chi].
Note that whenever we invoke the limit of large time-differences, we understand it as taken [*after*]{} the limit of large heat bath size $M$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyse the sizes, colour gradients, and resolved stellar mass distributions for 36 massive and passive galaxies in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557 at $z=1.39$ using optical and near-infrared Hubble Space Telescope imaging. We derive light-weighted Sérsic fits in five HST bands ($i_{775},z_{850},Y_{105},J_{125},H_{160}$), and find that the size decreases by $\sim20\%$ going from $i_{775}$ to $H_{160}$ band, consistent with recent studies. We then generate spatially resolved stellar mass maps using an empirical relationship between $M_{*}/L_{H_{160}}$ and $(z_{850}-H_{160})$ and use these to derive mass-weighted Sérsic fits: the mass-weighted sizes are $\sim41\%$ smaller than their rest-frame $r$-band counterparts compared with an average of $\sim12\%$ at $z\sim0$. We attribute this evolution to the evolution in the $M_{*}/L_{H_{160}}$ and colour gradient. Indeed, as expected, the ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted size is correlated with the $M_{*}/L$ gradient, but is also mildly correlated with the mass surface density and mass-weighted size. The colour gradients $(\nabla_{z-H})$ are mostly negative, with a median value of $\sim0.45$ mag dex$^{-1}$, twice the local value. The evolution is caused by an evolution in age gradients along the semi-major axis ($a$), with $\nabla_{age} = d \log(age) / d \log(a)$ $\sim-0.33$, while the survival of weaker colour gradients in old, local galaxies implies that metallicity gradients are also required, with $\nabla_{Z} = d \log(Z) / d \log(a)$ $\sim-0.2$. This is consistent with recent observational evidence for the inside-out growth of passive galaxies at high redshift, and favours a gradual mass growth mechanism, such as minor mergers.'
author:
- |
Jeffrey C.C. Chan$^{1,2}$^[^1]^, Alessandra Beifiori$^{2,1}$, J. Trevor Mendel$^{1}$, Roberto P. Saglia$^{1,2}$, Ralf Bender$^{1,2}$, Matteo Fossati$^{2,1}$, Audrey Galametz$^{1}$, Michael Wegner$^{2}$, David J. Wilman$^{2,1}$, Michele Cappellari$^{3}$, Roger L. Davies$^{3}$, Ryan C. W. Houghton$^{3}$, Laura J. Prichard$^{3}$, Ian J. Lewis$^{3}$, Ray Sharples$^{4}$ and John P. Stott$^{3}$\
$^{1}$Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), Giessenbachstr. 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany\
$^{2}$Universitäts-Sternwarte, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Scheinerstrasse 1, D-81679 München, Germany\
$^{3}$Sub-department of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK\
$^{4}$Centre for Advanced Instrumentation, Department of Physics, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK\
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
date: 'Accepted 2100 December 3. Received 2050 December 3; in original form 2014 November 13'
title: 'Sizes, Colour gradients and Resolved Stellar Mass Distributions for the Massive Cluster Galaxies in XMMUJ2235-2557 at z = 1.39'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: clusters: general – galaxies: elliptical, lenticular, cD – galaxy: evolution – galaxies: formation – galaxies: high-redshift – galaxies: fundamental parameters.
Introduction
============
The study of galaxy clusters at high redshift has attracted a lot of attention over the last decade, as these large structures provide a unique environment for understanding the formation and evolution of massive galaxies we see in the present day Universe. Massive galaxies in clusters especially in the cluster cores are preferentially in the red passive population, have regular early-type morphology and are mainly composed of old stars [e.g. @Dressler1980; @Rosatietal2009; @Meietal2009]. Nevertheless, in higher redshift clusters ($z \gtrsim1.5$) a substantial massive population are recently found to be still actively forming stars [e.g. @Hayashietal2011; @Gobatetal2013; @Strazzulloetal2013; @Baylissetal2014]. The member passive galaxies reside on a well-defined sequence in colour-magnitude space, namely the red sequence which is seen in clusters up to redshift $z\sim2$ [e.g. @KodamaArimoto1997; @Stanfordetal1998; @Gobatetal2011; @Tanakaetal2013; @Andreonetal2014]. Previous works have shown that the stars in these galaxies have formed (and the star formation was quenched) early, the stellar mass is largely assembled before $z \sim1$ [e.g. @Lidmanetal2008; @Manconeetal2010; @Strazzulloetal2010; @Fassbenderetal2014]. These galaxies then evolve passively in the subsequent time [e.g. @Andreonetal2008; @DeProprisetal2013]. Nonetheless, the details of how these massive passive cluster galaxies formed and evolved, in particular the physical processes involved, remains a matter of debate.
An important component of the above question is the evolution of the structure of these passive galaxies over time. It has now been established that galaxies at high redshift are much more compact: those with stellar masses $M_{*} \geq 10^{11} M_{\odot}$ at $z \sim2$ have an effective radius of only $\simeq1$ kpc [e.g. @Daddietal2005; @Trujilloetal2006a]. At $z\sim0$ such massive dense objects are believed to be relatively rare [@Trujilloetal2009], yet the exact abundance is still under debate [@Valentinuzzietal2010a; @Trujilloetal2012; @Poggiantietal2013]. Previous studies suggest that massive passive galaxies have grown by a factor of $\sim2$ in size since $z \sim1$ [e.g. @Trujilloetal2006b; @Longhettietal2007; @Cimattietal2008; @vanderWeletal2008; @Sagliaetal2010; @Beifiorietal2014], and a factor of $\sim4$ since $z \sim2$ [e.g. @Trujilloetal2007; @Buitragoetal2008; @vanDokkumetal2008; @Newmanetal2012; @Szomoruetal2012; @Barroetal2013; @Vanderweletal2014]. This progressive growth appears to happen mainly at the outer envelopes, as several works have shown that massive ($M_{*} \ga 1 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$) passive galaxies at high-redshift have comparable central densities to local ellipticals, suggesting the mass assemble took place mainly at outer radii over cosmic time [i.e. the “inside-out” growth scenario, @Bezansonetal2009; @vanDokkumetal2010; @Pateletal2013].
To explain the observed evolution, the physical processes invoked have to result in a large growth in size but not in stellar mass, nor drastic increase in the star formation rate. Most plausible candidates are mass-loss driven adiabatic expansion (“puffing-up”) [e.g. @Fanetal2008; @Fanetal2010; @RagoneFigueroaetal2011] and dry mergers scenarios [e.g. @Bezansonetal2009; @Naabetal2009; @Trujilloetal2011]. In the former scenario, galaxies experience a mass loss from wind driven by active galactic nuclei (AGN) or supernovae feedback, which lead to an expansion in size due to a change in the gravitational potential. In the latter, mergers either major involving merging with another galaxy of comparable mass, or minor that involves accretion of low mass companions, have to be dry to keep the low star formation rate [@Trujilloetal2011]. Nevertheless, major mergers are not compatible with the observed growth in mass function in clusters as well as the observed major merger rates since $z \sim 1$ [e.g. @Nipotietal2003; @Bundyetal2009]. On the other hand, minor mergers are able to produce an efficient size growth [see e.g. @Trujilloetal2011; @Shankaretal2013]. The rates of minor mergers are roughly enough to account for the size evolution only up to $z\lesssim1$ @Newmanetal2012, at z $\sim$ 2 additional mechanisms are required [e.g. AGN feedback-driven star formation @Ishibashietal2013]. In addition, the effect of continual quenched galaxies onto the red sequence as well as morphological mixing (known as the “progenitor bias”) further complicates the situation [e.g @vanDokkumetal2001]. Processes that are specific in clusters such as harassment, strangulation and ram-pressure stripping [e.g. @Treuetal2003; @Moranetal2007] might play an important role in quenching and morphologically transforming galaxies. Several studies have already shown that the progenitor bias has a non-negligible effect on the size evolution [e.g. @Sagliaetal2010; @Valentinuzzietal2010b; @Carolloetal2013; @Poggiantietal2013; @Beifiorietal2014; @Delayeetal2014; @Bellietal2015; @Shankaretal2015].
In addition to size or structural parameter measurements, colour gradients also provide valuable information for disentangling the underlying physical processes involved in the evolution of passive galaxies, and have been used as tracers of stellar population properties and their radial variation. In local and intermediate redshift passive galaxies, colour gradients are mainly attributed to metallicity gradients [e.g. @Sagliaetal2000; @LaBarberaetal2005; @Tortoraetal2010], although also affected by age and dust [see, e.g. @Vulcanietal2014]. Measuring the colour gradients at high redshift is more challenging due to compact galaxy sizes and limitations on instrumental angular resolution. Passive galaxies at high redshift appear to show negative colour gradients, in the sense that the core is redder than the outskirts [e.g. @Wuytsetal2010; @Guoetal2011; @Szomoruetal2011], implying a radial variation in the stellar mass-to-light ratio (hereafter $M_{*}/L$).
Due to $M_{*}/L$ gradients within the galaxies, the size of the galaxies measured from surface brightness profiles (i.e. luminosity-weighted sizes) is not always a reliable proxy of the mass distribution, especially at high redshifts when the growth of the passive galaxies is more rapid. Hence, measuring characteristic sizes of the mass distribution (i.e. mass-weighted sizes) is preferable over the wavelength dependent luminosity-weighted sizes. Recently a number of works attempted to reconstruct stellar mass profiles taking into account the $M_{*}/L$ gradients primarily using two techniques: resolved spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting [e.g. @Wuytsetal2012; @Langetal2014] and the use of a scaling $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation [e.g. @BelldeJong2001; @Belletal2003]. In the former, stellar population modeling is performed on resolved multi-band photometry to infer spatial variations in the stellar population in 2D. While this is a powerful way to derive resolved properties, deep and high-resolution multi-band imaging are required to well constrain the SED in each resolved region, which is not available for most datasets. The latter method, demonstrated by @Zibettietal2009 and @Szomoruetal2013, relies on a $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation to determine the spatial variation of $M_{*}/L$. Although this method cannot disentangle the degeneracy between age, dust and metallicity, it provides a relatively inexpensive way to study the mass distribution of galaxies.
In this study, we analyse a sample of 36 passive galaxies in the massive cluster XMMUJ2235-2557 at $z\sim1.39$. We focus on their light-weighted sizes (in rest-frame optical, from the near-IR *HST*/WFC3 images), resolved stellar mass distribution, as well as mass-weighted sizes and colour gradients. This paper is organised as follows. The sample and data used in this study are described in Section \[sec:Data\]. Object selection, photometry, structural analysis, and the procedure to derive resolved stellar mass surface density maps are described in Section \[sec:Analysis\]. We also examine the reliability of our derived parameters with simulated galaxies and present the results in the same section. In Section \[Local Comparison Sample\] we describe the local sample we used for comparison. In Section \[sec:Results\] we present the main results, including both light-weighted and mass-weighted structural parameters derived from the stellar mass surface density maps, colour and $M_{*}/L$ gradients. The results are then compared with the local sample, and discussed in Section \[sec:Discussion\]. Lastly, in Section \[sec:Conclusion\] we draw our conclusions.
Throughout the paper, we assume the standard flat cosmology with $H_{0} = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7 $ and $\Omega_{m} = 0.3$. With this cosmological model at redshift 1.39, 1 arcsec corresponds to 8.4347 kpc. Magnitudes quoted are in the AB system [@OkeGunn1983]. The stellar masses in this paper are computed with a @Chabrier2003 initial mass function (IMF). Quoted published values are transformed to Chabrier IMF when necessary.
----------- ------------ ----------------------- ---------------
Name Filter Rest pivot wavelength Exposure time
at $z = 1.39$ (Å) (s)
$i_{775}$ ACS F775W 3215.2 8150
$z_{850}$ ACS F850LP 3776.1 14400
$Y_{105}$ WFC3 F105W 4409.5 1212
$J_{125}$ WFC3 F125W 5217.7 1212
$H_{160}$ WFC3 F160W 6422.5 1212
----------- ------------ ----------------------- ---------------
: HST imaging of XMMUJ2235-2557 used in this study.[]{data-label="tab_data"}
Data {#sec:Data}
====
Sample
------
The cluster XMMUJ2235-2257 was serendipitously detected in an X-ray observation of a nearby galaxy by XMM-Newton and discovered by @Mullisetal2005. Subsequent VLT/FORS2 spectroscopy confirmed the redshift of the cluster to be $z \sim 1.39$. @Rosatietal2009 confirmed the cluster membership of 34 galaxies. Among them 16 within the central 1 Mpc are passive. @Jeeetal2009 performed a weak-lensing analysis on the cluster and estimated the projected mass of the cluster to be $\sim 8.5 \times 10^{14}$ $M_{\odot}$, making it one of the most massive clusters seen at high-redshift. @Grutzbauchetal2012 studied the star formation in this cluster out to a projected radius of 1.5 Mpc and found that all massive galaxies have low specific star formation rates, and galaxies in the cluster centre have lower specific star formation rates than the rest of the cluster galaxies at fixed stellar mass. For the galaxy structural properties, this cluster has been investigated by @Strazzulloetal2010 and was also included in the cluster sample of @Delayeetal2014 and @DeProprisetal2015.
*HST* imaging
-------------
We make use of the deep optical and IR archival imaging of the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557, obtained with *HST*/ACS WFC and *HST*/WFC3 in June 2005 (PID 10698), July 2006 (PID 10496) and April 2010 (PID 12051). The ACS data are mostly from a program designed to search for Type Ia supernovae in galaxy clusters [@Dawsonetal2009], while the WFC3 data are from a calibration program aiming at cross-calibrating the zero point of WFC3 and NICMOS. The *HST*/ACS data consists of F775W and F850LP bands (hereafter $i_{775}$ and $z_{850}$), while the WFC3 data comprises four IR bands, F105W, F110W, F125W and F160W (hereafter $Y_{105}$, $YJ_{110}$, $J_{125}$ and $H_{160}$). The $YJ_{110}$ data is not used in this study as it has a shorter exposure time. The WFC3 data has a smaller field of view than the ACS data, $145'' \times 126''$. A summary of the observational setup can be found in Table \[tab\_data\].
Data in each band are reduced and combined using Astrodrizzle, an upgraded version of the Multidrizzle package in the $\tt{PyRAF}$ interface [@Gonzagaetal2012]. Relative WCS offsets between individual frames are first corrected using the `tweakreg` task before drizzling. The ACS and WFC3 images have been drizzled to pixel scales of 0.05 and 0.09 arcsec pixel$^{-1}$ respectively. The full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) of the PSF is $\sim$0.11 arcsec for the ACS data and $\sim$0.18 arcsec for the WFC3 data, measured from median stacked stars. We produce weight maps using both inverse variance map (`IVM`) and error map (`ERR`) settings for different purposes. The `IVM` weight maps, which contain all background noise sources except Poisson noise of the objects, are used for object detection, while the `ERR` weight maps are used for structural analysis as the Poisson noise of the objects is included. Due to the nature of the drizzle process, the resulting drizzled images have correlated pixel-to-pixel noise. To correct for this we follow @Casertanoetal2000 to apply a scaling factor to the weight maps. Absolute WCS calibrations of the drizzled images are derived using GAIA (Graphical Astronomy and Image analysis Tool) in the Starlink library [@Berryetal2013] with Guide Star Catalog II (GSC-II) [@Laskeretal2008].
Analysis {#sec:Analysis}
========
Object detection, sample selection, and photometry {#sec:Object Detection, Sample Selection and Photometry}
--------------------------------------------------
### Method
The WFC3 $H_{160}$ image, the reddest available band, is used for object detection with SExtractor [@BertinArnouts1996]. The multi-band photometry is obtained with SExtractor in dual image mode with the $H_{160}$ image as the detection image. [MAG\_AUTO]{} magnitudes are used for galaxy magnitudes and aperture magnitudes are used for colour measurements. We use a fixed circular aperture size of $1''$ in diameter. The effective radii of most galaxies in the cluster are generally much smaller than the aperture size. Galactic extinction is corrected using the dust map of @Schlegeletal1998 and the recalibration E(B-V) value from @Schlaflyetal2011.
As described in the introduction, @Grutzbauchetal2012 studied the star formation in the cluster out to a projected radius of 1.5 Mpc. We cross-match our SExtractor catalogue to theirs to identify spectroscopically confirmed cluster members from previous literature [@Mullisetal2005; @Lidmanetal2008; @Rosatietal2009]. 12 out of 14 spectroscopically confirmed cluster members are within the WFC3 FOV and identified. Figure \[fig\_colourmag\] shows the colour-magnitude diagram of the detected sources within the WFC3 FOV. We identify passive galaxies through fitting the red sequence from the colour-magnitude diagram. We measure the scatter through rectifying the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour with our fitted relation, then marginalise over the $H_{160}$ magnitude to obtain a number distribution of the galaxies. The dotted lines correspond to $\pm 2\sigma$ derived from a Gaussian fit to the number distribution.
Objects that are within 2$\sigma$ from the fitted red-sequence are selected as the passive sample. We trim the sample by removing point sources indicated by SExtractor (i.e. those with `class_star` $ \geq 0.9$) and applying a magnitude cut of $H_{160} < 22.5$, which corresponds to a completeness of $\sim$95% (see below). This selection results in a sample of 36 objects in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557.
![Colour-magnitude diagram of the cluster XMMUJ2235. WFC3 $H_{160}$ magnitudes are `MAG_AUTO` magnitudes while the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour are $1''$ aperture magnitudes. The dashed line corresponds to the fitted red sequence and the dotted lines are $\pm 2\sigma$. Green circles correspond to objects that are included in our sample, which are within the dotted line and are not in the shaded area (i.e. $H_{160} < 22.5$). Objects that are spectroscopically confirmed cluster members from the catalogue of @Grutzbauchetal2012 are circled in dark red.[]{data-label="fig_colourmag"}](fig1)
### Quantifying the uncertainties on the photometry {#sec:Quantifying the uncertainties on the photometry}
Since the photometric uncertainties are folded directly into our mass estimates as well as the structural parameters measurements, a realistic estimate of the photometric uncertainties is required. Previous works have shown that SExtractor tends to underestimate the photometric uncertainties and there can be a small systematic shift between [MAG\_AUTO]{} output and the true magnitudes [@Haussleretal2007]. Hence, we perform an extensive galaxy magnitude and colour test with a set of 50000 simulated galaxies with surface brightness profiles described by a Sérsic profile on the ACS $z_{850}$ and WFC3 $H_{160}$ band images. This set of galaxies is also used for assessing the completeness and accuracy of the light and mass structural parameter measurements. Details of the simulations can be found in Appendix \[Details of the simulations\]. Here we focus on the photometric uncertainties estimates.
The detection rate above a certain magnitude reflects the completeness of the sample at that particular magnitude cut. We find that a magnitude cut of $H_{160} < 22.5$ corresponds to a completeness of $\sim$95%. We then assess the accuracy of the recovered magnitudes and colours. Since the accuracies depend strongly on both input magnitude ($mag_{in}$) as well as the effective semi-major axis ($a_e$) of the galaxies, we assess the accuracy in terms of input mean surface brightness ($\Sigma = mag_{in} + 2.5 \log(2\pi a_e^{2})$ in mag arcsec$^{-2}$) rather than input magnitudes. Below we quote the results at a mean surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in $H_{160}$ (or 24.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in $z_{850}$) as a benchmark, as most objects we considered are brighter than 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
For ACS $z_{850}$, the typical $1\sigma$ uncertainty for the `MAG_AUTO` output at mean surface brightness of 24.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ is $\sim$0.33 mag. For WFC3 $H_{160}$, at a mean surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ the typical $1\sigma$ uncertainty is $\sim$0.19 mag. Previous studies have shown that SExtractor [MAG\_AUTO]{} misses a certain amount of flux especially for the faint objects [e.g. @BertinArnouts1996; @Labbeetal2003; @Tayloretal2009b]. We find a systematic shift for both filters towards low surface brightness, the shifts are on average $\sim0.42$ mag for a $H_{160}$ mean surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ or $\sim0.50$ mag for a $z_{850}$ mean surface brightness of 24.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
On the other hand, we find no systematics between the input and recovered aperture colour. Figure \[fig:photouncertainty\_mod\] shows the result for the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour from simulated galaxies. The uncertainties on colour are small i.e. $\sim0.07$ mag for a $H_{160}$ mean surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The uncertainty in colour tends to be larger for objects with redder $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour, solely due to the fact that the $z_{850}$ aperture magnitude has a larger uncertainty for a redder colour.
![Differences between recovered and input aperture colour $\delta z_{850} - H_{160} = (z_{850} - H_{160})_{out} - (z_{850} - H_{160})_{in}$ as a function of input mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness. The green line indicates the median and $1\sigma$ dispersion in different bins (0.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ bin width), and the grey-shaded 2D histogram shows the number density distribution of the simulated galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:photouncertainty_mod"}](fig2)
Light-weighted structural parameters {#sec:Light-weighted structural parameters}
------------------------------------
### Method {#sec:Light-weighted Methods}
We measure the light-weighted structural parameters of the passive galaxies in five HST bands ($i_{775}$, $z_{850}$, $Y_{105}$, $J_{125}$ and $H_{160}$) using a modified version of GALAPAGOS [@Bardenetal2012]. For each object detected by SExtractor, GALAPAGOS generates a postage stamp and measures the local sky level around the object using an elliptical annulus flux growth method. This local sky level is then used by GALFIT [v.3.0.5, @Pengetal2002], in order to model the galaxy surface brightness profile. We examine different settings of the sky estimation routine in GALAPAGOS to ensure the robustness of the results. Since the ACS and WFC3 images have a different spatial resolution, we modify GALAPAGOS to allow the use of a single detection catalogue (in our case, the $H_{160}$ band) in all bands. The code is further adjusted to use the RMS maps derived from the `ERR` weight maps output by Astrodrizzle.
As shown in @Haussleretal2007, contamination by neighbouring objects has to be accounted while fitting galaxy surface brightness profiles, especially in regions where the object density is high. To deal with this issue, adjacent sources are identified from the SExtractor segmentation map and are masked out or fitted simultaneously if their light profiles have a non-negligible influence to the central object. We fit a two-dimensional Sérsic profile [@Sersicetal1963] to each galaxy, which can be written as
$$I(a)= I_{e} ~\exp\left[-b_n\left ((\frac{a}{a_e})^{1/n} -1 \right ) \right]$$
where the effective intensity $I_{e}$ can be described by $$I_{e} = \frac{L_{tot}}{2\pi nqa_e^2~b_n^{-2n}~\Gamma(2n)}$$ where $\Gamma (2n)$ is the complete gamma function.
The Sérsic profile of a galaxy can be characterised by five independent parameters: the total luminosity $L_{tot}$, the Sérsic index $n$, the effective semi-major axis $a_e$, the axis ratio $q$ ($=b/a$, where $a$ and $b$ is the major and minor axis respectively) and the position angle $P.A.$. The parameter $b_n$ is a function of the Sérsic index ($\Gamma(2n) = 2\gamma(2n, b_n)$, where $\gamma$ is the incomplete gamma function) and can only be solved numerically [@Ciotti1991]. All five parameters as well as the centroid ($x,y$) are left to be free parameters in our fitting process with GALFIT. The constraints of each parameter for GALFIT are set to be: $0.2 < n < 8$, $0.3 < a_{e} < 500$ (pix), $0 < mag < 40$, $0.0001 < q < 1$, $-180^{\circ} < P.A. < 180^{\circ}$. The sky level on the other hand, is fixed to the value determined by GALAPAGOS.
The Sérsic model is convolved with the PSF constructed from stacking bright unsaturated stars in the images. Note that we have also tried to derive a `TinyTim` PSF composite by adding PSF models using the `TinyTim` code [@Krist1995] into the raw data and drizzling them as science images. Nevertheless, we notice that the `TinyTim` drizzled PSF does not match well the empirical PSF in the outer part: a much stronger outer envelope (as well as diffraction spikes) can be seen in the empirical PSF [see also, Appendix A in @Bruceetal2012 for a similar description]. On the other hand, @Vanderweletal2012 produced hybrid PSF models by replacing the central pixels of the median-stacked star by the `TinyTim` PSF. We do not employ this correction as we find that the median-stacked star matches the TinyTim PSF reasonably well in the inner part.
The best-fitting light-weighted parameters are listed in Table \[tab\_para\] in Appendix \[parametertablesection\]. Two galaxies (ID 170, 642) and their best-fits are shown in Figure \[fig\_lightfitex\] for illustrative purposes. These two objects have been chosen to show the impact of clustering of sources in dense regions. Even in the cluster centre where there are multiple neighbouring objects, GALFIT can do a good job in determining the structural parameters by fitting multiple object simultaneously. Below we discuss the reliability and uncertainties in these light-weighted structural parameters.
![Examples of surface brightness profile fitting of two passive galaxies (ID 170, 642) in cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. From left to right: $H_{160}$ galaxy image cut-out centered on the primary object, GALFIT best-fit models and residuals. The two examples are selected to demonstrate the clustering of sources. Galaxy 170, the BCG of this cluster is located in the central region of the cluster with high object density. Galaxy 642 is located in a more outer region of the cluster, yet is still affected by an extremely close neighbour. Multiple objects are fitted simultaneously as described in Section \[sec:Light-weighted Methods\].[]{data-label="fig_lightfitex"}](fig3)
### Reliability of the fitted structural parameters
GALAPAGOS coupled with GALFIT performs well in most cases. However in some exceptions, it is rather tricky to obtain a good-quality fit due to various issues. We are not referring here to the global systematics and uncertainties (which are addressed in the next section), but on stability and quality control of individual fits. We find that using an inadequate number of fitting components for the neighbouring sources (due to inadequate deblending in the SExtractor catalogue or appearance of extra structures / sources in bluer bands, e.g. $z_{850}$ band, compare to our $H_{160}$ detection catalogue) can lead to significant residuals that adversely affect the fit of the primary object. Similarly, since GALAPAGOS fits sources with a single Sérsic profile by default, GALFIT will likely give unphysical outputs for unresolved sources / stars in the field (with $a_e$ hitting the lower boundary of the constraint $a_e = 0.3$ pix, or Sérsic index hitting the upper boundary $n = 8$) or even not converging in these cases, which again affects the result of the object of primary interest. Moreover, the best-fit output can vary if we use a different treatment for neighbouring sources. We notice that in a few cases the results can be very different depending upon whether neighbouring sources are masked or are fitted simultaneously.
To ensure high reliability, we perform the following checks for each galaxy: 1) We visually inspect the fits as well as the segmentation maps (output by SExtractor) in each band to ensure adjacent sources are well-fitted. Extra Sérsic components are added to poorly fitted neighbouring objects iteratively if necessary. 2) For neighbours for which GALFIT gives ill-constrained results (i.e. hitting the boundaries of the constraints), we replace the Sérsic model with a PSF model and rerun the fit, which often improves the convergence and the quality of the best-fit model. Regarding this, @Bardenetal2012 explained the need of fitting Sérsic profiles to saturated stars instead of PSF model in GALAPAGOS, since the PSF often lacks the dynamic range to capture the diffraction spikes of the bright saturated stars. In our case this is not necessary since there are only a few bright saturated stars in the field, for which we can safely mask their diffraction spikes. 3) We compare the results of masking and simultaneously fitting neighbouring objects. In most cases the two methods give results that are within 1$\sigma$. For galaxies with close neighbours (e.g. within 5 $a_e$) we prefer to fit them simultaneously as any inadequate or over-masking can result in problematic fits, judging by examining the residual map output by GALFIT. On the other hand, masking is more suitable when the neighbouring object are not axisymmetric or show certain substructures, which causes the single Sérsic fit to not reach convergence.
### Quantifying the uncertainties in light-weighted structural parameters
We quantify the systematic uncertainties using the set of 50000 simulated galaxies inserted on the images. In this section we focus on the result of the test; details of the simulations can be found in Appendix \[Details of the simulations-lightstruct\]. Note that the uncertainties quoted here are more likely to represent lower limits to the true uncertainties, as the simulated galaxies are also parametrised with a Seŕsic profile.
Figure \[fig:lightuncertainty\] shows the comparison between the input and recovered magnitudes and structural parameters for the $H_{160}$ band. The magnitudes recovered by Sérsic profile fitting are accurate with almost no systematics and a $1\sigma$ dispersion less than 0.25 for objects having mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness brighter than 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The Sérsic index, effective radius and axis ratio measurements are generally robust for objects brighter than a mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The bias between the recovered and input Sérsic indices is less than $8\%$ and the $1\sigma$ dispersion is lower than $30\%$. Effective radii have a bias less than $4\%$ and a $1\sigma$ dispersion lower than $30\%$ for objects brighter than $H_{160}$ surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. For objects with high mean surface brightness (i.e. $<19$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$) in our simulated sample, the effective radii are slightly overestimated ($\sim 2\%$) and the Sérsic indices are underestimated ($\sim -4\%$) by GALFIT. We find out that this bias is due to unresolved objects in our simulations. A related discussion can be found in Appendix \[Details of the simulations-lightstruct\].
We have also performed the same test on a simulated background similar to the actual images (where the main difference is that the simulated background has no issue of neighbour contamination), and find that the uncertainties on the effective radius are on average $\sim 15 - 20\%$ lower compared to those derived from real images.
For each galaxy in the sample, we compute the mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness and add the corresponding dispersion in quadrature to the error output by GALFIT.
![Differences between recovered and input structural parameters by GALFIT in function of input mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness. From top to bottom: magnitude $\delta mag = mag_{out} - mag_{in}$, Sérsic indices $\delta n = (n_{out} - n_{in})/n_{in}$, effective semi-major axes $\delta a_e = (a_{e-out} - a_{e-in})/a_{e-in}$ and axis ratio $\delta q = (q_{out} - q_{in})/q_{in}$. Red line indicates the median and $1\sigma$ dispersion in different bins (0.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ bin width) and green-shaded 2D histogram shows the number density distribution of the simulated galaxies. The grey arrows indicate the $H_{160}$ surface brightness of the galaxies in our cluster sample.[]{data-label="fig:lightuncertainty"}](fig4)
Elliptical aperture photometry and color gradients {#sec:Elliptical aperture photometry and color gradients}
--------------------------------------------------
In addition to structural parameters, we derive $z_{850}-H_{160}$ colour profiles for the passive sample with PSF-matched elliptical annular photometry. We first convert the 2D image in both bands into 1D radial surface brightness profiles. @morishitaetal2015 demonstrated that deriving 1D profiles with elliptical apertures has certain advantages over circular apertures. Profiles derived with concentric circular apertures are biased to be more centrally concentrated. We perform an elliptical annular photometry on the PSF-matched $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ images at the galaxy centroid derived from GALFIT. The GALFIT best-fit axis ratios and position angles of individual galaxies (in $H_{160}$ band) are used to derive a set of elliptical apertures for each galaxy.
Due to the proximity of objects in the cluster, it is necessary to take into account (as in 2D fitting) the effect of the neighbouring objects. The neighbouring objects are first removed from the image by subtracting their best Sérsic fit (or PSF fit in some cases) in both bands. While the fit might not be perfect, we find that this extra step can remove the majority of the flux of the neighbouring objects contributing to surface brightness profiles. For some galaxies the colour profiles show substantial change after we apply the correction.
We then measure the colour gradients of individual galaxies by fitting the logarithmic slope of their $z_{850}-H_{160}$ colour profiles along the major axis, which are defined as follows:
$$z_{850} - H_{160} = \nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}} \times \log(a) + Z.P.$$
At redshift 1.39 this corresponds roughly to the rest-frame $(U-R)$ colour gradient. The depth and angular resolution of our WFC3 data allow us to derive a 1D colour profile accurately to $\sim3-4~a_{e}$, hence the colour gradient is fitted in the radial range of PSF half-width-half-maximum (HWHM) $< a < 3.5~a_{e}$. We note that the colour gradients of most galaxies, as well as the median colour gradient, do not strongly depend on the adopted fitting radial range. Figure \[fig\_colourgradexample\] shows the colour profiles and logarithmic gradient fits of four passive galaxies as an example. The colour profiles are in general well-described by logarithmic fits.
![Examples of colour profile fitting of four passive galaxies in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. From top to bottom: colour profiles for galaxies ID 552, 296, 588 and 170 (with $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) =$ 10.46, 10.54, 10.81, 11.81) along the logarithmic major axis ($\log(a/a_{e})$. The grey line in each panel is the elliptical-averaged $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour profile. Regions that are fitted (PSF HWHM $< a < 3.5~a_{e}$) are over-plotted in black. The vertical black dotted and dashed line show the minimum (PSF HWHM) and maximum radial distance for fitting ($3.5~a_{e}$). The error bars show the error on the mean of the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour at each distance. The blue solid line is the best logarithmic gradient fits, and the blue dotted-dashed lines are the $\pm 1\sigma$ error of the slope.[]{data-label="fig_colourgradexample"}](fig5)
Stellar mass-to-light ratio – colour relation {#sec:Stellar Mass-to-light Ratio-Colour relation}
---------------------------------------------
We estimate the stellar mass-to-light ratios of the cluster galaxies in XMMUJ2235-2557 using an empirical relation between the observed $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour and stellar mass-to-light ratio ($M_{*}/L$). At redshift 1.39, the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour (rest-frame $U - R$) straddles the $4000 \AA$ break. Hence, this colour is sensitive to variations in the properties of the stellar population (i.e. stellar age, dust and metallicity). In addition, the effects of these variations are relatively degenerate on the colour - $M_{*}/L$ plane [almost parallel to the relation, @BelldeJong2001; @Belletal2003; @Szomoruetal2013], which makes this colour a useful proxy for the $M_{*}/L$.
We derive the relation using the NEWFIRM medium band survey (NMBS) catalogue, which combines existing ground-based and space-based UV to mid-IR data, and new near-IR medium band NEWFIRM data in the AEGIS and COSMOS fields [@Whitakeretal2011]. The entire catalogue comprises photometries in 37 (20) bands, high accuracy photometric redshifts derived with `EAZY` [@Brammeretal2008] and spectroscopic redshifts for a subset of the sample in COSMOS (AEGIS). Stellar masses and dust reddening estimates are also included in the catalogue, and are estimated by SED fitting using `FAST` [@Krieketal2009]. To derive the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation, we use the stellar masses from the NMBS catalogue in COSMOS estimated with stellar population models of @BruzualCharlot2003, an exponentially declining SFHs, and computed with a @Chabrier2003 IMF. We do not use the sample in AEGIS as it contains photometries with fewer bands. We derive the relation in the observer frame and compute the observed $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour for all NMBS galaxies. Note that we do not adopt the typical approach to interpolate the cluster data to obtain a rest-frame colour [e.g. with InterRest, @Tayloretal2009a] due to limited availability of bands, which would likely lead to degeneracy in choices of templates. Firstly, we rerun `EAZY` for all NMBS galaxies to obtain the best-fit SED template, these SEDs are then integrated with the ACS $z_{850}$ and WFC3 $H_{160}$ filter response for the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour. Similarly we obtain the luminosity $L_{H_{160}}$of each galaxy in the observed $H_{160}$ band, from which we calculate the stellar mass-to-light ratio $M_{*}/L_{H_{160}}$. We select NMBS galaxies within a redshift window of 0.1 of the cluster redshift, i.e. $1.29 < z < 1.49$, and apply the magnitude cut ($H_{160} < 22.5$) and a chi-square cut ($\chi^2 < 2.0$, from template fitting in `EAZY`) to better match the cluster sample.
A total of 718 objects are selected by this criterion. A redshift correction is applied to these 718 galaxies to redshift their spectra to the cluster redshift (i.e. similar to k-correction in observer frame). We then measure their $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour and $L_{H_{160}}$ in the observer frame. This redshift correction is effective in reducing the scatter of the relation, indicating that some of (but not all) the scatter is simply due to difference in redshifts. Figure \[fig:molcolourxmmu\] shows the fitted relation between $\log(M_{*}/L_{H_{160}}$) and $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour. The black line is the best-fit linear relation with:
$$\log((M_{*}/L_{H_{160}}) / (M_\odot/L_\odot)) = 0.625\>(z_{850} - H_{160}) - 1.598$$
The relation is well-defined within a colour range of $0.4 < z_{850} - H_{160} <2.2$ (hence we choose the same range for our simulated galaxies, see Appendix \[Details of the simulations\]). The global scatter of the fit is $\sim 0.06$ dex. In the lower panel of Figure \[fig:molcolourxmmu\] we plot the residuals of the fit in colour bins of 0.1. The uncertainty in log($M_{*}/L$) is generally $<0.1$ in each bin and the bias is negligible. The remaining scatter results from redshift uncertainties and stellar population variations (age, dust and metallicity), as their effects are not exactly parallel to the relation. Note that this can lead to small systematics in measuring mass-to-light ratios and the mass-to-light ratio gradients. For example in metal-rich or old regions the mass-to-light ratio will likely be systematically slightly underestimated, and overestimated in metal-poor or young regions [@Szomoruetal2013].
![Relation between stellar mass-to-light ratio and z-H colour at redshift $\sim$1.39 using the public NMBS catalogue. Gray points are 718 galaxies from the NMBS catalogue that satisfy the selection criteria. Black line is the best-fit linear relation. Bottom panel shows the residuals of the relation $\delta log(M_{*}/L_{H_{160}}) = $ data - linear fit in colour bins of 0.1.[]{data-label="fig:molcolourxmmu"}](fig6)
Integrated stellar masses {#sec:Integrated Stellar Masses}
-------------------------
We estimate the integrated stellar masses ($M_{*}$) of the cluster galaxies using our $M_{*}/L$-colour relation, the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ aperture colours and the total luminosity $L_{H_{160}}$ from best-fit Sérsic models. The uncertainties in stellar mass comprise photometric uncertainties in the colour and $H_{160}$ luminosity, as well as the scatter in the derived colour - $M_{*}/L$ relation. The typical uncertainty of the masses is $\sim0.1$ dex, comparable to the uncertainties obtained from SED fitting.
Previous literature computed SED mass with multi-band `MAG_AUTO` photometry obtained with SExtractor [e.g. for this cluster, @Strazzulloetal2010; @Delayeetal2014]. Nevertheless, as we have shown in Section \[sec:Quantifying the uncertainties on the photometry\], it is known that `MAG_AUTO` can be systematically biased, due to the assumption in SExtractor that the sky background comprises only random noise without source confusion [@Brownetal2007]. Hence, more recent studies use the total luminosity from best-fit Sérsic models to correct the masses to account for the missing flux in `MAG_AUTO` [@Bernardietal2013; @Benzansonetal2013]. In our case, we have demonstrated that total luminosity from the best-fit Sérsic models can recover input galaxy magnitudes to a high accuracy. Hence, we scale our masses with the total luminosity $L_{H_{160}}$ from best-fit Sérsic models rather than $H_{160}$ `MAG_AUTO` magnitudes. We also compute masses with $H_{160}$ `MAG_AUTO`; the difference between the two is small for our sample, with $\langle M_{*, MAG\_AUTO} - M_{*, Sersic} \rangle = -0.039$ dex.
For this particular cluster, @Delayeetal2014 estimated the galaxies masses through SED fitting with four bands (HST/ACS $i_{775}$, $z_{850}$, HAWK-I $J$, $Ks$), which also gave an uncertainty of $\sim$0.1 dex in mass. The masses derived with our method are consistent with the SED masses in @Delayeetal2014 within the uncertainties. A comparison of masses estimated using $M_{*}/L$-colour relation with masses computed using SED fitting can be found in Appendix \[app:masscomparison\]. The uncertainty of the absolute stellar masses is of course larger (as in the case of SED fitting), depending on the details of NMBS SED fitting and e.g. choice of IMF.
Resolved stellar mass surface density maps {#sec:Resolved Stellar Mass Surface Density Maps}
------------------------------------------
We further exploit the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation to derive stellar mass surface density maps. This allows us to study the mass distribution within each galaxy, at the same time eliminating the effect of internal colour gradient which influences the light-weighted size measurements. Below we describe the main steps involved in deriving stellar mass surface density maps with the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation.
### PSF matching
We first match the resolution of the ACS $z_{850}$ image ($\sim0.1''$) to the WFC3 $H_{160}$ image ($\sim0.18''$). PSF matching is critical in this kind of study as the measured colour has to come from the same physical projected region. We stack the unsaturated stars for each band to obtain characteristic PSFs, then generate a kernel that matches the $z_{850}$ to $H_{160}$ PSF using the `psfmatch` task in IRAF. The difference between the resultant $z_{850}$ PSF and the $H_{160}$ PSF is less than 2.5%. Details of the PSF matching can be found in Appendix \[app:psfmatching\]. We then apply the kernel to the ACS $z_{850}$ image. The PSF matched $z_{850}$ image is resampled to the same grid as the $H_{160}$ image using the software SWarp [@Bertinetal2002]. We then generate postage stamps of each galaxy in both $H_{160}$ and PSF matched $z_{850}$ images for deriving resolved stellar mass surface density maps.
### From colour to stellar mass surface density {#sec:From Colour to Stellar Mass Surface Density}
The next step is to convert the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour information into mass-to-light ratios with the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation described in Section \[sec:Stellar Mass-to-light Ratio-Colour relation\]. Nevertheless, a direct pixel-to-pixel conversion is not possible for our data. The conversion requires a certain minimum signal-to-noise (S/N) level because: a) significant biases or massive uncertainties may arise if colours are not well measured. b) our relation is only calibrated within the colour range of $0.4 < z_{850} - H_{160} <2.2$. Any low S/N colour that falls outside the calibrated range could convert to an unphysical $M_{*}/L$.
Therefore, we adopt the Voronoi binning algorithm as described by @Cappellarietal2003, grouping pixels to a target S/N level of 10 per bin. For each galaxy, we run the Voronoi binning algorithm on the sky-subtracted PSF-matched $z_{850}$ band postage stamps as a reference, as it has a lower S/N compared to the $H_{160}$ image. The same binning scheme is then applied to the sky-subtracted $H_{160}$ image. The subtracted sky levels are determined by GALAPAGOS. The two images are then converted into magnitudes. Binned $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour maps are obtained by subtracting the two. We then construct a binned $M_{*}/L$ map by converting the colour in each bin to a mass-to-light ratio with the derived colour - $M_{*}/L$ relation.
An extrapolation scheme is implemented to determine the $M_{*}/L$ in regions or bins with insufficient S/N, for example in the galaxy outskirts and the sky regions. We first run an annular average to derive a 1-dimensional S/N profile in $z_{850}$ for individual galaxies using the light-weighted galaxy centroid, axis ratio and position angle determined in Section \[sec:Light-weighted structural parameters\]. For the area outside the elliptical radius that has a S/N less than half of our target S/N (i.e. S/N $\sim 5$), we fix the $M_{*}/L$ to the annular median of $M_{*}/L$ bins at the last radius with sufficient S/N. We find that this extrapolation is crucial for the following structural analysis as the sky noise is preserved (see the discussion in Appendix \[Details of the simulations-massstruct\]).
We construct resolved stellar mass surface density maps (hereafter referred to as mass maps) by directly combining the extrapolated $M_{*}/L$ map and the original (i.e. unbinned) $H_{160}$ images. Figure \[fig\_massfitexample\] illustrates the procedure of deriving mass maps from the $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ images. Using the original $H_{160}$ image instead of the binned one allows us to preserve the WFC3 spatial resolution in the mass maps. Note that in theory combining a binned (i.e. spatially discrete) $M_{*}/L$ map with a smooth luminosity image would result in a discrete mass profile in low S/N region, in order words, induce an “discretization effect" in the mass maps. This effect is more severe in low S/N regions, i.e. the galaxy outskirts where the bins are larger (hence less smooth). For bright galaxies, since there are more bins with sufficient S/N and the dynamical range of the light distribution (surface brightness gradient) is much larger than the $M_{*}/L$ gradient, this appears to have minimal effect and does not largely affect our result. For fainter galaxies this issue is non-negligible. To tackle this, for each galaxy we perform the above binning procedure 10 times, each with a slightly different set of initial Voronoi nodes. This ends up with a set of $M_{*}/L$ maps which are then median-stacked to create the final mass map. This extra step alleviates the discretization effect.
Mass-weighted structural parameters
-----------------------------------
### Method {#sec:Mass-weighted Methods}
We measure mass-weighted structural parameters from the resolved stellar mass surface density maps. We follow a similar procedure as with the light-weighted structural parameters, using GALFIT to model the mass profiles with two-dimensional Sérsic profiles. All five parameters of the Sérsic profile ($M_{*, tot}$, $n$, $a_e$, $q$ and $P.A.$) and the centroid (x,y) are left to be free parameters in the fit. We use the same GALFIT constraints as for the light-weighted structural parameters, except for allowing a larger range for the Sérsic indices: $0.2 < n < 15.0$. This is because the mass profiles are expected to be more centrally peaked compared to light profiles [@Szomoruetal2013]. As the $H_{160}$ images are background subtracted before being converted into mass maps, the sky level (i.e. the mass level) is fixed to zero in the fitting process. The best-fitting mass-weighted parameters are given in Appendix \[tab\_para\].
### Quantifying the uncertainties in mass-weighted parameters
We further assess the accuracy of our mass conversion procedures as well as the reliability of the mass-weighted structural parameter measurements. The details of the test are described in Appendix \[Details of the simulations-massstruct\]. Similar to the uncertainty in the light-weighted parameters, the uncertainties quoted here are more likely to represent lower limits to the true uncertainties.
Figure \[fig:massuncertainty\] shows the difference between input and recovered mass-structural parameters as a function of $H_{160}$ surface brightness. The Sérsic index, effective radius and axis ratio measurements are generally robust for objects brighter than $H_{160}$ surface brightness of 23.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. This is important, as it demonstrates that our mass conversion procedure does not significantly bias the result. The bias between the recovered and input Sérsic indices is less than $7\%$ and the $1\sigma$ dispersion is lower than $40\%$, and effective radii have a bias less than $10\%$ and a $1\sigma$ dispersion lower than $40\%$. Among the three parameters, the axis ratio can be recovered most accurately. Compared with the light uncertainties (Figure \[fig:lightuncertainty\]), the mass uncertainties in all parameters are $\sim2$ times higher. Similar to the light-weighted parameters, for each galaxies we add the corresponding dispersion in quadrature to the error output by GALFIT.
We find that for a couple of objects the fits do not converge, or have resultant sizes smaller than the PSF size. To avoid biases and wrong conclusions we remove these objects that are not well-fitted from the mass parameter sample. 6 objects (out of 36) are discarded, among them one object is spectroscopically confirmed. Three of them initially have small light-weighted sizes and their fitted mass-weighted sizes become smaller than half of the PSF HWHM, which are unreliable (see the discussion in Appendix \[Details of the simulations-lightstruct\]). Most of them are low mass galaxies (i.e. $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) < 10.5$).
### Deviation of mass-weighted parameters - 1D vs. 2D {#deviation1Dvs2D}
@Szomoruetal2013 derived 1D mass profiles from 1D radial surface brightness profiles and measured mass-weighted structural parameters. In theory, fitting in 1D and in 2D should give identical results, as statistically fitting an averaged smaller group of points and fitting all the points without averaging are equivalent [see, @GalFAQ for a detailed discussion.]. Nevertheless, in practice deriving maps and fitting in 2D have certain advantages: a) It does not rely heavily on the Sérsic profile fitting in light. Deriving elliptical averaged profiles require a predetermined axis ratio and position angles, which, in our case, come from the light Sérsic profile fitting. This will of course fold in the uncertainties of these two parameters into the 1D profiles, which complicates the propagation of uncertainties in the mass-weighted parameters. b) In the cluster region, the object density is high and many galaxies have very close neighbours. Hence it will be more appropriate to fit all the sources simultaneously to take into account the contribution from the neighbouring objects, rather than deriving 1D profile without deblending the neighbouring contamination. A possible way to solve this is to first subtract the best-fit 2D models of the neighbours from the 2D images before generating the 1D profiles, but of course this depends strongly on how well the neighbours can be subtracted, and still suffer from a).
![Differences between recovered and input mass-weighted structural parameters by GALFIT as a function of input $H_{160}$ surface brightness. Similar to Figure \[fig:lightuncertainty\], but for mass-weighted structural parameters. From top to bottom: Sérsic indices $\delta n = (n_{out} - n_{in})/n_{in}$, effective semi-major axes $\delta a_e = (a_{e-out} - a_{e-in})/a_{e-in}$ and axis ratio $\delta q = (q_{out} - q_{in})/q_{in}$. Red line indicates the median and $1\sigma$ dispersion in different bins (0.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ bin width) and blue-shaded 2D histogram shows the number density distribution of the simulated galaxies. The grey arrows indicate the $H_{160}$ surface brightness of the galaxies in our cluster sample.[]{data-label="fig:massuncertainty"}](fig8)
Local Comparison Sample {#Local Comparison Sample}
=======================
In order to study the evolution of mass-weighted sizes over redshift, we compare our cluster sample at $z\sim1.39$ to a local sample of passive galaxies from the Spheroids Panchromatic Investigation in Different Environmental Regions (SPIDER) survey [@LaBarberaetal2010a]. The publicly available SPIDER sample includes 39993 passive galaxies selected from SDSS Data Release 6 (DR6), among them 5080 are in the near-infrared UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey-Large Area Survey Data release (UKIDSS-LAS DR4) in the redshift range of 0.05 to 0.095. @LaBarberaetal2010a derived structural parameters in all available bands ($grizYJHK$) with single Sérsic fitting with `2DPhot` [@LaBarberaetal2008].
We use the structural parameters in $g$-band and $r$-band from the publicly available multiband structural catalogue from @LaBarberaetal2010a to derive mass-weighted structural parameters. For the galaxy selection, we follow similar criteria as @LaBarberaetal2010a: we apply a magnitude cut at the 95% completeness magnitude ($M_{r} \leq -20.55$), a $\chi^{2}$ cut from the Sérsic fit for both $g$-band and $r$-band ($\chi^{2} < 2.0$), and a seeing cut at $\leq 1.5$”. This results in a sample of 4050 objects. We compute integrated masses for the sample as in Section \[sec:Integrated Stellar Masses\] with aperture $g - r$ colour. The colours are obtained from direct numeral integration of the $g$-band and $r$-band Sérsic profiles to 5 kpc instead of using GALFIT total magnitudes. Extending the integration limit to larger radius (e.g. 10 kpc) does not change largely the derived masses. With the $g - r$ colour we derive and select red-sequence galaxies within $2\sigma$ following the same method discussed in Section \[sec:Object Detection, Sample Selection and Photometry\]; we end up with a sample of 3634 objects (hereafter the SPIDER sample). On top of that we use the group catalogue from @LaBarberaetal2010b to select a subsample of galaxies residing in high density environments. Applying a halo mass cut to the SPIDER sample of $\log(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) \geq 14$, we end up with a subsample of 627 objects (hereafter the SPIDER cluster sample), which we will use as the main comparison sample for our high-redshift cluster galaxies.
2D Sérsic model images in $g$-band and $r$-band are then generated with fitted parameters from the structural catalogue. Given the large number and relatively low object density of local galaxies compared to our high redshift cluster sample, using fitted parameters from the structural catalogue is statistically reliable and issues mentioned in Section \[deviation1Dvs2D\] do not contribute substantially here. We construct mass maps for individual galaxies using the procedure described in Section \[sec:From Colour to Stellar Mass Surface Density\] without Voronoi binning and stacking. A $M_{*}/L$-colour relation is again derived from the NMBS sample as in Section \[sec:Stellar Mass-to-light Ratio-Colour relation\], but in $g$-band and $r$-band at $0 < z < 0.27$, a window of 0.2 in redshift around the median redshift of the SPIDER sample. A total of 1315 NMBS objects are selected. The mass maps are then fitted with GALFIT to obtain mass-weighted structural parameters.
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
Wavelength dependence of light-weighted galaxy sizes
----------------------------------------------------
The measured size of a galaxy depends on the observed wavelength, as different stellar populations are being traced at different wavelength (e.g., the “morphological k-correction”, Papovich et al. [-@Papovichetal2003]). With our multi-band measurements of light-weighted structural parameters of the cluster passive galaxies, we first investigate the wavelength dependence of galaxy sizes at this redshift. This wavelength dependence of sizes (or the size-wavelength relation) has been quantified for local passive galaxies in a number of studies [e.g. @Bardenetal2005; @Hydeetal2009; @LaBarberaetal2010a; @Kelvinetal2012; @Vulcanietal2014; @Kennedyetal2015]. The dependence shown by the above mentioned studies is quite strong, in the sense that galaxy sizes can decrease up to $\sim38\%$ from $g$ through $K$ band in the GAMA sample [@Kelvinetal2012], or $\sim32\%$ across the same range in SPIDER [@LaBarberaetal2010a]. Nevertheless, different authors disagree on the extent of the reduction in sizes in various datasets. For example, in a recent study @Langeetal2015 revisited the GAMA sample with deeper NIR imaging data and found a smaller size decrease, $\sim13\%$ from $g$ to $K_s$ band.
At higher redshift, study of wavelength dependence of sizes is scarce in clusters. The star formation history and age gradient may contribute significantly to the size-wavelength dependence, for example the inside-out growth scenario suggests that younger stellar population are more widespread compared to the older population in the core of passive galaxies. Various authors have shown that measured sizes in the observed optical and NIR (i.e. rest-frame UV vs rest-frame optical for high-redshift galaxies) show a difference of $\sim$20–25% [e.g. @Trujilloetal2007; @Cassataetal2010; @Damjanovetal2011; @Delayeetal2014], although some find no difference [@Morishitaetal2014]. The comparisons are usually done with only two bands, hence it is unclear whether this dependence can change with redshift. Recent works from CANDELS studied the wavelength dependence of sizes for 122 early-type galaxies (ETG) in the COSMOS field in three HST bands (F125W, F140W and F160W) at redshift $0<z<2$, and found an average gradient of $d \log(a_{e}) / d \log(\lambda) = -0.25$ independent of mass and redshift [@Vanderweletal2014].
Figure \[fig\_sizewavelength\] shows the change in size with rest-frame wavelength for our sample. Here we use the light-weighted effective semi-major axis $a_{e}$ from GALFIT, as the galaxy size. We assume every galaxy in the sample is at the cluster redshift. We select 28 galaxies (out of 36) with no problematic fits in any of the five bands. The fraction of problematic fits is larger in $i_{775}$ and $Y_{105}$ due to shorter exposure time and lower throughput of the filter, which result in lower S/N. To facilitate comparison with the literature, the sizes in figure \[fig\_sizewavelength\] are normalised with the median $H_{160}$ sizes of our sample, which is approximately equal to the rest-frame $r$-band size. We plot the best-fitting relation for local spheroids by @Kelvinetal2012 and the SPIDER cluster sample, normalised in the same way, for comparison. We see a smooth variation of sizes decreasing from $i_{775}$ to $H_{160}$ bands (rest-frame $u$ to $r$). The reduction in the median size (from $i_{775}$ to $H_{160}$) is $\sim20\%$, which is consistent with the expected decrease across this wavelength range ($\sim19\%$) following the relation of @Kelvinetal2012 and the SPIDER cluster sample [@LaBarberaetal2010a]. The average size gradient of our sample from the best-fit power law is $d \log(a_{e}) / d \log(\lambda) = -0.31 \pm 0.27$.
We also attempt to divide the sample in mass bins as in @Langeetal2015 to investigate the size change with wavelength for different masses. @Langeetal2015 showed that the size reduction decreases from $\sim13\%$ for local passive galaxies with $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) = 10.0$ to $\sim11\%$ for those with $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) = 11.0$. On the other hand, @Vanderweletal2014 reported no discernible trends with mass in CANDELS. We split the sample in half at the median mass ($\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 10.6$ and $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) > 10.6$, 14 objects per bin), plotted in grey and slate grey in Figure \[fig\_sizewavelength\]. A steeper dependence can be seen for the high mass bins ($d \log(a_{e}) / d \log(\lambda) = -0.57 \pm 0.28$) compared to the whole sample, while the low mass bins ($d \log(a_{e}) / d \log(\lambda) = -0.29 \pm 0.34$) have the same if not slightly shallower wavelength dependence within the uncertainties. This is the opposite to the finding of @Langeetal2015. Nevertheless, the size gradients of the two bins are within 1$\sigma$, a larger sample is needed to confirm the mass dependence.
![Size-wavelength relation of the passive galaxies in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. Black circles show the median sizes of the sample in each band positioned at the rest-frame pivot wavelength, normalised with the median $H_{160}$-band sizes (approximately rest-frame $r$-band, $a_{e,r}$). Error bars show the uncertainty of the median in each band, estimated as $1.253\sigma/\sqrt{N}$, where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation and $N$ is the size of the sample. The best-fit power law to the sizes in our sample is shown as a red dashed line. The green dot-dashed line is the best-fit relation for the SPIDER cluster sample (from $g$-band to $K_s$-band), while the green diamonds are the median size of the sample in $g$-band and $r$-band, normalised in the same way. The blue dotted line is the best-fit relation for local galaxies from @Kelvinetal2012. Grey and slate grey are the median sizes for two mass bins ($\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq10.6$ and $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) > 10.6$) respectively.[]{data-label="fig_sizewavelength"}](fig9)
Stellar mass – light-weighted size relation {#sec:Stellar Mass -- Light-weighted Size Relation}
-------------------------------------------
In this section we show the stellar mass – $H_{160}$ light-weighted size relation of the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. The mass-size relation of this cluster (in $z_{850}$ band, rest-frame UV) has been studied in previous literature [@Strazzulloetal2010; @Delayeetal2014].
In the top panel of Figure \[fig\_lightmasssize\_mod\] we plot the mass – size relation for the passive population in the cluster selected from red sequence fitting. Circled objects are spectroscopically confirmed cluster members [@Grutzbauchetal2012]. The size we use from this point onwards is the circularised effective radius ($R_{e-circ}$), defined as: $$R_{e-circ} = a_{e} \times \sqrt{q}$$ where $a_{e}$ is the elliptical semi-major radius and $q = b / a$ is the axis ratio from the best-fit GALFIT Sérsic profile.
The integrated stellar masses are derived from the $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation and are scaled with the total GALFIT Sérsic magnitude (see Section \[sec:Integrated Stellar Masses\] for details). We also plot the local mass-size relation for the SDSS passive sample by @Bernardietal2012 for comparison. We note that although this relation was derived for galaxies regardless of their local density, a number of studies have established that there is no obvious environmental dependence on passive galaxy sizes in the local universe [@Guoetal2009; @Weinmannetal2009; @Tayloretal2010; @Huertascompanyetal2013; @Cappellari2013]. We pick the single Sérsic fit relation in @Bernardietal2012 for consistency, which is shown to have slightly larger sizes than the two-component exponential + Sérsic fit relation.
@Hydeetal2009 first demonstrated that the mass-size relation of passive galaxies shows curvature and @Bernardietal2012 fitted the curvature with a second order polynomial; their best-fit values were consistent with @Simardetal2011. As we have shown in the last section, size shows wavelength-dependence, hence care has to be taken to ensure the sizes being compared are at around the same rest-frame wavelength. The @Bernardietal2012 local relation is based on the Sloan $r$-band, while our sizes are measured in the $H_{160}$ band at a redshift of 1.39, which roughly corresponds to the same rest-frame band. As a result, no size-correction is required as the correction to $r$-band is negligible.
The $H_{160}$ band sizes of the passive galaxies in this cluster are on average $\sim40\%$ smaller than expected from the local relation by @Bernardietal2012 with $\langle \log(R_{e-circ} / R_{Bernardi}) \rangle = -0.21$ ($\sim45\%$ smaller for the spectroscopic confirmed members, $\langle \log(R_{e-circ} / R_{Bernardi}) \rangle= -0.25$). There are also galaxies whose sizes are $\sim70\%$ smaller than those of their local counterparts ($\log(R_{e-circ} / R_{Bernardi}) = -0.56$). As one can see from Figure \[fig\_lightmasssize\_mod\], the most massive object in the cluster is the BCG, which also has the largest size ($\sim24$ kpc) and lies on the local relation. This is consistent with findings from @Stottetal2010 [@Stottetal2011], who showed that as a population, BCGs have had very little evolution in mass or size since $z \sim 1$. @Tiretetal2011 suggested that major mergers at $z \geq 1.5$ are required to explain the mass growth of these extremely massive passive galaxies. Hence below we exclude the BCG when fitting the mass-size relation. We fit the mass-size relation with a Bayesian inference approach using Markov Chain Monte Carlo [MCMC; @Kelly2007] with the following linear regression:
$$\label{eqt-fit}
\log(R_{e-circ}/kpc) = \alpha + \beta~ (\log(M_{*} /M_\odot) - 10.5) + N(0, \epsilon)$$
where $N(0,\epsilon)$ is the normal distribution with mean 0 and dispersion $\epsilon$. The $\epsilon$ represents the intrinsic random scatter of the regression.
The best-fit parameters (the intercept $\alpha$, slope $\beta$ and the scatter $\epsilon$) for both the entire red-sequence selected sample (A) and the spectroscopically confirmed members only (B) are summarised in Table \[tab\_bestfit\]. For mass completeness and comparison to previous literature, we also fit only the massive objects with $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \geq 10.5$, the limiting mass adopted in @Delayeetal2014 (C & D). We notice that the slope of the relation can change by more than 1$\sigma$ depending on the considered mass range. We also fit the slope using the elliptical semi-major axis $a_{e}$ instead of $R_{e-circ}$), which gives us a significantly flatter slope ($\beta = 0.35 \pm 0.15$).
Our measured slope is consistent at the 1$\sigma$ level with the results of @Delayeetal2014, who studied the mass-size relation using seven clusters at $0.89 < z < 1.2$ in the rest-frame $B$-band (i.e. $\beta = 0.49 \pm 0.08$ for $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) > 10.5$). @Papovichetal2012 measured the sizes of passive galaxies in a cluster at $z = 1.62$ and found that ETG with masses $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) > 10.48$ have $\langle R_{e-circ} \rangle = 2.0$ kpc with the interquartile percentile range (IQR) of $1.2-3.3$ kpc. Sizes in XMMUJ2235-2557 are on average $40\%$ larger ($\langle R_{e-circ} \rangle = 2.80$ kpc, IQR $= 1.45-4.38$ kpc).
While the fits are consistent with each other on a 1$\sigma$ level, we notice that the relation in @Delayeetal2014 for this cluster is flatter ($\beta = 0.2 \pm 0.3$) compared to both our full sample fit (A) and massive sample fit (C). This difference could be due to a combination of a) their mass-size relation is computed in the $z$-band while ours is in $H_{160}$, b) the two red sequence samples are selected differently and c) the masses computed here are scaled with total GALFIT Sérsic magnitude instead of `MAG_AUTO` (the relation is slightly flatter: $\beta = 0.38 \pm 0.27$ instead of $0.43$ if we use the masses scaled with `MAG_AUTO`).
A caveat of the above comparison is that we have not considered the effect of progenitor bias [@vanDokkumetal2001]. Correcting the progenitor bias (in age and morphology) has been shown to reduce the magnitude of the observed size evolution [@Sagliaetal2010; @Valentinuzzietal2010a; @Beifiorietal2014]. Recently, @Jorgensenetal2014 corrected the progenitor bias by removing galaxies that are too young in the Coma cluster to be the descendants of a cluster at $z = 1.27$ and found no size evolution with redshift.
![Stellar mass – size relations of the passive galaxies in XMMUJ2235-2557. Top: with light-weighted sizes. Green dots show the sample selected with the passive criteria described in Section \[sec:Object Detection, Sample Selection and Photometry\]. Spectroscopically confirmed objects are circled with dark red. The green line is a linear fit to the full passive sample (Case A), while the dot-dashed lines represent $\pm 1\sigma$. The dark grey line corresponds to the local $r$-band mass-size relation from @Bernardietal2012. Bottom: with mass-weighted sizes. Individual objects are shown in orange. The orange solid line corresponds to the full sample fit (Case A) for the mass– mass-weighted size relation, and the orange dot-dashed lines represent $\pm 1\sigma$. The green line is the same linear fit in the top panel for comparison. The BCG is indicated with the black diamond. The cross shows the typical uncertainty of the sizes and the median uncertainty of the integrated mass in our sample.[]{data-label="fig_lightmasssize_mod"}](fig10)
[@clccc@]{}\
Case & Mass range & $\alpha \pm \Delta \alpha$ & $\beta \pm \Delta \beta$ & $\epsilon$\
A & $10.0 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ & $ 0.263 \pm 1.441$ & $0.359 \pm 0.135$ & 0.235\
B & $10.0 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ (spec) & $ 0.329 \pm 2.096$ & $0.138 \pm 0.192$ & 0.195\
C & $10.5 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ & $ 0.114 \pm 1.876$ & $0.576 \pm 0.173 $ & 0.195\
D & $10.5 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ (spec) & $ 0.149 \pm 2.935$ & $0.447 \pm 0.268 $ & 0.175\
\
Case & Mass range & $\alpha \pm \Delta \alpha$ & $\beta \pm \Delta \beta$ & $\epsilon$\
A & $10.0 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ & $ 0.074 \pm 1.733$ & $0.240 \pm 0.162$ & 0.235\
B & $10.0 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ (spec) & $ 0.037 \pm 2.467$ & $0.141 \pm 0.227$ & 0.212\
C & $10.5 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ & $ -0.043 \pm 2.093$ & $0.477 \pm 0.192 $ & 0.182\
D & $10.5 \leq M_{*} \leq 11.5$ (spec) & $ -0.152 \pm 3.839$ & $0.411 \pm 0.350 $ & 0.209\
Colour gradients in the passive cluster galaxies {#sec:Colour Gradients in the Early-type Cluster Galaxies}
------------------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig\_colourgrad\] we show the $1''$ aperture colour, colour gradients $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$ and $\log (M_{*}/L)$ gradients $\nabla_{\log(M/L)}$ of the passive sample as a function of stellar mass. The $\log (M_{*}/L)$ gradients are derived from fitting 1D $M_{*}/L$ profiles, which are derived from 1D colour profiles using the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation. Note that since the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation is essentially a one-to-one mapping, measuring the colour gradient is qualitatively equivalent to measuring the $\log (M_{*}/L)$ gradient.
More massive galaxies appear to have a redder $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour, as also shown by @Strazzulloetal2010 with HST/NICMOS data. Redder colour implies a higher median $M_{*}/L$ from the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation. The passive sample has a range of colour from $\sim1.2 \leq z_{850} - H_{160} \leq 2.0$, which corresponds to a range of $M_{*}/L$ of $-0.37 \leq \log(M_{*}/L) \leq -0.85$.
Most of the galaxies have negative colour gradients. 28 out of 36 galaxies ($\sim 78\%$) show a negative gradient, and 15 out of 36 ($\sim 42\%$) have very steep gradients with $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}} < -0.5$. The median colour gradient and $1\sigma$ scatter is $\langle \nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}} \rangle = -0.45 \pm 0.43$ (error on the median 0.09) and the median $\log (M_{*}/L)$ gradient $\nabla_{\log(M/L)}$ is $-0.27 \pm 0.25$ (error on the median 0.05). This is consistent with previous findings at higher redshift $1.3 < z < 2.5$ [@Guoetal2011] which showed that passive galaxies have red cores and bluer stellar population at the outskirts. We find no strong dependence of colour gradients with stellar mass, with a median Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of $\rho \simeq 0.32, p \simeq 0.06$ computed using a bootstrapping method.
At redshift 1.39, the observed $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$ colour gradient corresponds to rest-frame $\nabla_{U-R}$. To ensure rest-frame $\nabla_{U-R}$ matches $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$, we compute $\nabla_{U-R}$ from the observed $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$ and $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour using simple stellar population models (SSPs) of @BruzualCharlot2003 as a sanity check. The details of the methodology are described in Section \[sec:Methodology\]. We confirm that the median gradient $\langle \nabla_{U-R} \rangle = -0.53$ is comparable to $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$.
We overplot the average local $(U-R)$ colour gradient from @Wuetal2005 on Figure \[fig\_colourgrad\] ($\nabla_{U-R} = -0.21 \pm 0.04$) for comparison. @Wuetal2005 studied the colour gradients for a sample of $36$ local field early-type galaxies from SDSS and 2MASS. Due to a lack of deep $U$-band imaging, the $(U-R)$ colour gradient is not available in most local galaxy surveys. In order to take into account the average age difference between field and cluster passive galaxies [e.g. @Thomasetal2005; @Thomasetal2010], we evolve the gradients of @Wuetal2005 for an additional $2$ Gyr with @BruzualCharlot2003 SSP models (assuming an age gradient of $-0.05$ and a metallicity gradient of $-0.2$ consistent with the literature [@LaBarberaetal2005; @Wuetal2005]). The extrapolated value ($\nabla_{U-R} = -0.20$) is very close to the one for local ETGs. The average $(U-R)$ colour gradient at $z\sim1.39$ is found to be $\sim2$ times steeper than colour gradients observed locally.
As a consistency check, we repeat the colour gradient measurements in $\nabla_{Y_{105} - H_{160}}$ ($\sim$ rest-frame $g-r$), and find consistent results with the $U-R$. We also compare them with the $g-r$ colour gradient in the SPIDER cluster sample and note that the $g-r$ gradients at $z\sim1.39$ (median and $1\sigma$ scatter $\langle \nabla_{g-r} \rangle = -0.16 \pm -0.16$) are steeper than the local $g-r$ gradients ($-0.042 \pm 0.144$), although with a smaller dynamic range. Details are described in Appendix \[sec:The g-r color gradients and the evolution with redshift\]. Appendix \[sec:The g-r color gradients and the evolution with redshift\] also explores the dependence of the local $g-r$ gradients on environment within the full SPIDER sample. We report to later sections for a discussion on the origin of colour or $M_{*}/L$ gradient in these high redshift passive galaxies.
![Colour and colour gradients in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. From top to bottom: $z_{850} - H_{160}$ aperture colour ($1''$ in diameter), colour gradient $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$ and $\log (M_{*}/L)$ gradient $\nabla_{\log(M/L)}$ as a function of stellar mass. Spectroscopically confirmed objects are circled in dark red. At redshift 1.39, this roughly corresponds to rest-frame $(U-R)$ colour gradient. The black dashed line in each panel shows the reference zero level. The red dotted line shows the average local $(U-R)$ gradient from @Wuetal2005. The grey line in each panel shows the running median and the error bars show the uncertainty of the median in each bin. When there is only one point in the bin, the uncertainty of the quantity is plotted instead.[]{data-label="fig_colourgrad"}](fig11)
Comparison of light-weighted to mass-weighted structural parameters {#sec:Comparison of Light-weighted to Mass-weighted Structural Parameters}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig\_lightmasscomp\], we compare the light-weighted sizes ($R_{e-circ}$) measured in $H_{160}$ band to the mass-weighted sizes (hereafter $R_{e-circ,mass}$) measured from the mass maps. The mass-weighted sizes are $\sim41\%$ smaller than the $H_{160}$ light-weighted sizes, with a median difference of $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass}/ R_{e-circ})\rangle = -0.23$. The scatter $\sigma_{\log(R_{e-circ,mass}/ R_{e-circ})} $ is $\sim0.11$. In the most extreme case the mass-weighted size can be up to $\sim60\%$ smaller than its light counterpart (excluding the cluster BCG which is $\sim65\%$ smaller).
The general trend of mass-weighted sizes being smaller is in qualitative agreement with the study at similar redshift by @Szomoruetal2013, who computed the mass-weighted sizes using radially binned 1D surface brightness profiles for passive field galaxies in CANDELS. As we will show in the discussion, this is consistent with the colour gradients in high redshift passive galaxies, in the sense that they usually have redder cores and bluer outskirts [see also, e.g. @Sagliaetal2000; @Wuytsetal2010; @Szomoruetal2011; @Guoetal2011]. Negative colour gradients can lead to smaller mass-weighted sizes compared to light-weighted sizes, as a higher ${M_{*}/L}$ ratio at the centre results in a more concentrated mass distribution compared to the light distribution (hence, a smaller $a_e$).
![Comparison between mass-weighted size $R_{e-circ,mass}$ and light-weighted size $R_{e-circ}$ of passive galaxies in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. Spectroscopically confirmed objects are circled in dark red. The dashed line is the one-to-one relation. Each successive grey line represents a 10% decrement to the one-to-one relation. 50% decrement are marked with a thick grey line. The galaxies are colour coded with their integrated mass. The cross shows the median uncertainty of the light-weighted sizes and mass-weighted sizes. Note that the two uncertainties are correlated to some extent.[]{data-label="fig_lightmasscomp"}](fig12)
Stellar mass – mass-weighted size relation {#sec:Stellar Mass -- Mass-weighted Size Relation}
------------------------------------------
In the bottom panel of Figure \[fig\_lightmasssize\_mod\] we show the mass – size relation with the mass-weighted sizes. In the above section we have demonstrated that the mass-weighted sizes are $\sim$41% smaller than light-weighted sizes. Here we investigate how using mass-weighted sizes can affect the mass – size relation.
We fit the stellar mass – mass-weighted size relation, using equation \[eqt-fit\]. The best-fit parameters are summarised in the second half of Table \[tab\_bestfit\]. The fact that the mass-weighted sizes are smaller can be seen from the intercept of the fits. Apart from the intercept, there seems to be a slight change in the slope of the relation if mass-weighted sizes are used. The best-fitted relation for the full sample has a value $\beta = 0.240$, $34\%$ lower than the light-weighted size – mass relation, though the two relations are consistent within $1\sigma$.
We check that the change of slope is not due to the discarded objects. More statistics are required to confirm if there is a shallower mass dependence for mass-weighted sizes with respect to light-weighted sizes.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
Dependence of ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted sizes on galaxy properties
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:Comparison of Light-weighted to Mass-weighted Structural Parameters\] we have shown that the mass-weighted sizes are smaller than the corresponding light-weighted sizes and that the majority of the galaxies have negative colour gradients steeper than local passive galaxies. Intuitively, one might expect some correlation between the ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted sizes ($\log(R_{e-circ,mass}/R_{e-circ})$, hereafter the size ratio) on the physical parameters that are related to the underlying stellar population, such as colour, stellar mass, and various structural parameters.
Hence, here we investigate the origin of the size ratio in our cluster by examining the correlation with a number of integrated properties. In Figure \[fig:massmapdep\] we show the correlations between the size ratio with the stellar mass, colour gradient $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$, $M_{*}/L$ gradient $\nabla_{\log(M/L)}$, $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour, light-weighted / mass-weighted Sérsic indices, sizes, mean surface brightness $\Sigma$, mean surface mass density $\Sigma_{mass}$ and the mean surface mass density within a radius of 1 kpc $\Sigma_{1}$. Recent works have shown that $\Sigma_{1}$ is tightly correlated with stellar mass and is closely related to quenching of star formation [@Fangetal2013; @vanDokkumetal2014; @Barroetal2015]. All parameters plotted are given in Table \[tab\_para\]. Running median and $1 \sigma$ scatter are over-plotted in each panel.
We search for possible correlations with these physical parameters and compute the correlation coefficients again using the bootstrapping method. We see a mild dependence with the mass surface density with a $\rho$ value of $-0.45, p \simeq 0.01$. There is also a weak dependence for the colour gradient and the $M_{*}/L$ gradient, with $\rho \simeq 0.32, p \simeq 0.07$ and $\rho \simeq 0.38, p \simeq 0.04$. In addition, we see a weak dependence with the mass-weighted size, which has the highest $\rho$ among the light-weighted and mass-weighted structural parameters. In Section \[sec:Stellar Mass – Mass-weighted Size Relation\], we suspect a difference in the mass dependence for the mass-weighted sizes with respect to the light-weighted sizes, which if genuine, implies a correlation between size ratio and the stellar mass. Nevertheless, there is no significant correlation with mass. All other correlations have a $|\rho|$ value $< 0.3$.
In summary, with the exception of mass surface density, most of the parameters do not show significant dependence with the size ratio. That our measured mass-weighted sizes tend to be significantly smaller than light-weighted sizes can only happen because there are gradients in mass-to-light ratio and colours, as seen previously. Therefore it is encouraging to see that there are (mildly significant) positive correlations between the ratio of sizes and the gradients in colour and ${M_{*}/L}$. That the correlations are not perfect illustrates the contributions of both uncertainties in the data and method, and the fact that our Sérsic fits are actually quite different from a straightforward linear 1D fit as used to derive the gradients. A more sophisticated fit to these parameters, and better correlations, require higher S/N and / or a larger sample.
Evolution of the ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted sizes to $z\sim0$ {#Evolution of ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted sizes over redshift}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To investigate the evolution of the size ratio, we compare the size ratio of the cluster sample with the local size ratio computed from a sample of local passive galaxies in high-density environment selected from the SPIDER survey in Figure \[fig\_SPIDER\] (the SPIDER cluster sample, see Section \[Local Comparison Sample\] for details). We also compare with the SPIDER sample for completeness. We binned the size ratio of the SPIDER cluster sample (and the SPIDER sample) in mass bins of 0.2, in the mass range $10.2 \leq \log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 11.6$ ($10.0 \leq \log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 11.6$ for the SPIDER sample), to ensure there are sufficient numbers of local galaxies ($>50$) in individual bins.
We find that the mass-weighed sizes in the SPIDER cluster sample are on average $\sim$ 12% smaller than the $r$-band sizes with a median $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass}/R_{e-circ}) \rangle = -0.055$ ($\sim$13 % for the SPIDER sample, $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass}/R_{e-circ}) \rangle = -0.062$), consistent with previous result [@Szomoruetal2013].
In addition, we find that there is an intriguing offset between the median size ratio of the cluster sample and the SPIDER cluster sample, with a difference of $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass,1.39} / R_{e-circ,1.39}) - \log(R_{e-circ,mass,0}/R_{e-circ,0}) \rangle = -0.18$ ($-0.17$ for the SPIDER sample).
A possible issue is the effect of recently quenched galaxies on the size evolution, i.e. the progenitor bias. It has been shown to have a non-negligible effect on inferred size evolution, and is able to explain part if not all of the observed size evolution [e.g. @Sagliaetal2010; @Valentinuzzietal2010b; @Carolloetal2013; @Poggiantietal2013; @Jorgensenetal2014; @Bellietal2015; @Keatingetal2015]. The effect on the evolution of the size ratio is however unclear, as the newly quenched galaxies may have a range of $M_{*}/L$ gradients that depends on the quenching mechanism involved.
Using age measurements from @LaBarberaetal2010c, we try to correct the progenitor bias in the size ratio of the SPIDER cluster sample. An age cut is applied to the SPIDER cluster sample to remove galaxies that are younger than 8.98 Gyr, the time duration from $z\sim1.39$ to $z\sim0$. The result is shown as a light brown line and wheat band in Figure \[fig\_SPIDER\] in the mass range $10.2 \leq \log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 11.6$. Although some changes can be seen, the size ratios of the progenitor bias corrected sample are in general consistent with the SPIDER cluster sample, with median $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass}/R_{e-circ}) \rangle = -0.065$. The median logarithmic size ratios in each bin between the two are within $\pm 0.05$. The offset between the median size ratio of the cluster sample and the progenitor bias corrected SPIDER cluster sample is $-0.16$. Hence, the progenitor bias alone does not explain the observed offset.
The smaller size ratio at $z\sim1.39$ suggests that the $M_{*}/L$ gradient is larger (i.e. steeper) in these high redshift passive cluster galaxies compared to the local ones. This implies an evolution of $M_{*}/L$ gradient with redshift, consistent with our finding that the colour gradient at high redshift cluster passive galaxies is much steeper than the local ones. In the next section, we try to explore the origin of the colour (and $M_{*}/L$) gradient and the physical processes for the evolution of these passive galaxies.
![Comparison of the ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted sizes vs. stellar mass at different redshift. Same as top leftmost panel of Figure \[fig:massmapdep\] but includes the local size ratios from the SPIDER cluster sample. Spectroscopically confirmed objects are circled in dark red. The brown line corresponds the running median in mass bins of 0.2 with a window of width 0.3, and the error bars show the uncertainty of the median in each bin. The median size ratio of the SPIDER cluster sample (from mass range $10.2 \leq \log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 11.6$) is plotted as a dark magenta line, while the median size ratio of the SPIDER sample (from mass range $10.0 \leq \log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 11.6$) is plotted as a slate grey line in mass bin of 0.2. The light brown line and wheat shaded region correspond to the median size ratio and $\pm1\sigma$ error on the median for the progenitor bias corrected SPIDER cluster sample (age $> 8.98$ Gyr and $\log(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) \geq 14$) from mass range $10.2 \leq \log(M_{*}/M_\odot) \leq 11.6$.[]{data-label="fig_SPIDER"}](fig14)
Origin and evolution of colour gradients with redshift {#sec:Evolution of the colour gradients over redshift}
------------------------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:Colour Gradients in the Early-type Cluster Galaxies\] we have shown that the median colour gradient in our sample is $\sim2$ times steeper than the measured local $(U-R)$ gradient $\nabla_{U-R}$ from @Wuetal2005.
The origin of the colour gradients is directly related to how the stellar population in galaxies assembled and evolved. It is however challenging to segregate the impact of age or metallicity using a small sample of galaxies due to degeneracies between colour, age and metallicity. In previous studies, colour gradients are mostly interpreted as either age gradients ($\nabla_{age} = d \log(age) / d \log(a)$) at fixed metallicity or metallicity gradients ($\nabla_{Z} = d \log(Z) / d \log(a)$) at fixed age. Some works in clusters at $z\sim0.4$ [@Sagliaetal2000] and local clusters [e.g. @TamuraOhta2003] showed however that the colour gradients may be preferentially produced by radial variation in metallicity rather than age. The age gradients in local passive galaxies are consistent with 0 (or slightly positive), while the average metallicity gradient is found to be of $\nabla_{Z} \approx -0.1 $ to $ -0.3$ [see also @Mehlertetal2003; @Wuetal2005; @LaBarberaetal2009b]. This result is also supported by recent studies with integral field spectroscopy [e.g @Kuntschneretal2010; @GonzalezDelgadoetal2014; @Oliva-Altamiranoetal2015; @Wilkinsonetal2015].
Our $(U-R)$ and $(g-r)$ colour gradient measurements alone unfortunately do not allow us to break the age-metallicity degeneracy. Nevertheless, with additional colour information at $z\sim0$, by studying the evolution of the colour gradient with redshift we can shed light on the origin of the colour gradients in our sample of early type galaxies in clusters.
### Methodology {#sec:Methodology}
We investigate quantitatively the evolution of colour gradients by modeling them in our cluster sample under different assumptions of the radial variation of stellar population properties. Simply put, we would like to evolve the observed $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour gradients $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$ in the cluster sample to see under which conditions in age and metallicity gradient will they match the observed $(U-R)$ gradient at $z\sim0$.
For simplicity, here we assume the stellar populations in the passive galaxies are coeval and chemically homogeneous in the regions we considered, hence they can be described by simple stellar populations (SSP) models. We use the models of @BruzualCharlot2003 (hereafter BC03) and adopt a Chabrier IMF. The BC03 distribution provides SSP models with metallicities $Z = [0.0001, 0.0004, 0.004, 0.008, 0.02, 0.05]$ from $t = 0$ to the age of the Universe in unequally spaced time steps. The results below do not strongly dependent on the choice of IMF, since the $U-R$ broad band optical colours under different IMFs (e.g. Chabrier vs. Salpeter) are in reasonable agreement with each other. In Appendix \[sec:Evolution of colour gradients using exponentially declining tau models\] we show that adopting exponentially declining $\tau$-models for this analysis (instead of SSPs), does not change the results.
We compute the rest-frame $U-R$ colour for individual SSP models with different ages and metallicities by convolving the model SEDs with the $U$ and $R$ filters. The colours are then interpolated with a cubic spline to obtain an equally spaced colour grid in age and metallicity. Figure \[fig\_URcolourgrid\] shows the $U-R$ colour at different ages (left, i.e. the colour-age relations) and metallicities (right, i.e. the colour-metallicity relations) as an example. Using the same method, we compute a $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour grid by redshifting the SSP models to $z=1.39$.
Similar to Section \[sec:Colour Gradients in the Early-type Cluster Galaxies\], we have also repeated the above analysis using the $g-r$ colour gradients and find results which are completely consistent (Appendix \[sec:The g-r color gradients and the evolution with redshift\]). Since the $g-r$ colour has less dynamic range in the evolution, in the following we will mainly discuss the result of the $U-R$ colour gradients.
![Rest-frame $U-R$ colour of stellar populations with different ages and metallicities. Left panel: $U-R$ colour-age relations. The black line shows the stellar populations with solar metallicity ($Z=0.02$). The red lines show populations with different metallicities ($Z=0.0001,0.0004,0.004,0.008,0.05$) as indicated. The grey dotted line shows the current age of the Universe (13.45 Gyr) with our choice of cosmology and the grey dashed line shows the age of Universe at redshift 1.39 (4.465 Gyr). Right panel: $U-R$ colour-metallicity relations. The black lines shows populations with different ages (in Gyr) as indicated.[]{data-label="fig_URcolourgrid"}](fig15)
To simplify the modeling process, we analyse the evolution of colour at two radii, $0.5 a_e$ and $2 a_e$, representing the inner region and outer region of the galaxy respectively. In similar studies [e.g. @Sagliaetal2000] more central regions are used instead ($0.1-0.2 R_{e}$), but this is not possible at this redshift due to limited resolution. Nevertheless, our choice of radial range is sufficient for the purpose as the colour gradients are well-fitted by a linear relation in logarithmic radius (see Figure \[fig\_colourgradexample\]).
Because of the age-metallicity degeneracy, we consider several scenarios with additional assumptions in the age or metallicity gradients. In this study we explore three possibilities (cases) to interpret the colour gradient evolution:
- **Case I - Pure age-driven gradient evolution** – In this case we explore the possibility of using a single age gradient to interpret the evolution of colour gradients. The inner and outer regions are assumed to have identical metallicities (i.e. flat metallicity gradients $\nabla_{Z} = 0$). Assuming a certain metallicity for the inner regions (and equivalently the outer regions), we derive ages of the stellar population of the inner and outer regions in each galaxy respectively through matching the observed $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colours to the derived $z_{850} - H_{160}$ SSP colours.
- **Case II - Pure metallicity-driven gradient evolution** – In this case we assume that the stellar population in the inner and outer region are coeval (i.e. flat age gradients $\nabla_{age} = 0$). Assuming a certain metallicity for the inner regions, we derive the inner ages in each galaxy using the same method as I. The same age is then applied to the outer regions. With ages and $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colours, metallicities in the outer regions are then derived using the colour-metallicity relations.
- **Case III - Age-driven gradient evolution with an assumed metallicity gradient** – Same as case I, but assume a fixed metallicity gradient with $\nabla_Z = -0.2$, which is the mean value observed in local passive galaxies [e.g. @TamuraOhta2003; @Wuetal2005; @Broughetal2007; @Redaetal2007] as well as in recent simulations [e.g. @Hirschmannetal2015]. Again assuming a certain metallicity for the inner regions, we derive the inner ages from the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour. The metallicity in the outer regions is then computed according to the assumed gradient; outer ages are then derived with the computed metallicity.
In summary, in each case we obtain the ages and metallicities in the inner and outer region of each cluster galaxy. We then evolve the corresponding SSPs in both regions to $z=0$, and compute the corresponding local $(U-R)$ colour gradients. We also compute the rest-frame $(U-R)$ gradient for the high-redshift sample for comparison. For each of the three cases above, we test three scenarios with different assumed metallicity for the inner regions, sub-solar, solar and super-solar ($Z = 0.008, 0.02, 0.05$ or equivalently $[Fe/H] = -0.33, 0.09, 0.56$) [@BruzualCharlot2003]. Assuming metallicities with $Z < 0.008$ or $Z > 0.05$ is unphysical for most galaxies in the cluster sample.
Under different assumed metallicity for the inner region, occasionally the age (or metallicity for case II) determination for some galaxies results in an unphysical age (or metallicity). With our choice of cosmological parameters, the age of universe at $z=1.39$ is 4.465 Gyr. Deduced ages that are too old ($> 4.465$ Gyr for $z=1.39$ or $> 13.45$ Gyr for $z=0$ within $1\sigma$ uncertainty) are rejected to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions. Galaxies that are rejected may simply be unphysical to be modelled with particular metallicity (see, for example in Figure \[fig\_URcolourgrid\], a galaxy with $U-R > 2.15$ at $z=1.39$ will result in an unphysical age if one assumes $Z=0.008$) or have a more complicated star formation history, which cannot be well-represented by SSPs.
![Evolution of colour gradient under different assumptions in the age / metallicity gradient. From top to bottom: Case I – Pure age-driven gradient evolution, Case II – Pure metallicity-driven gradient evolution and Case III – Age-driven gradient evolution with assumed metallicity gradient. Only the solar ($Z=0.02$) metallicity scenario in each case is shown. Grey diamonds correspond to the $(U-R)$ gradient at redshift 1.39, with the median plotted as the grey dashed line. Black circles indicate the predicted $(U-R)$ gradient at redshift 0 of the same galaxy, and the black dot-dashed line indicate the median. Their masses remain unchanged as we do not consider any mass growth over the period. The grey arrow in each panel shows the direction of evolution of the median gradient. The red dotted line corresponds to the observed $(U-R)$ gradient at redshift 0 by @Wuetal2005.[]{data-label="fig_gradevo"}](fig16)
### Case I – Pure age-driven gradient evolution
In the top panel of Figure \[fig\_gradevo\], we show the evolution of the rest-frame $(U-R)$ colour gradient from $z=1.39$ to $z=0$ under the assumption of pure age gradient. We show the scenario with assumed solar metallicity ($Z=0.02$) in the inner region. We find that although the gradients evolve in the correct direction, the median gradient of the evolved sample is too shallow. The result is almost identical if we assume sub-solar or super-solar metallicity for the inner region instead, with median evolved colour gradient of $(Z, \nabla_{U-R}) = (0.008, -0.036), (0.02, -0.034), (0.05, -0.037)$. Under the assumption of sub-solar metallicity, 19 out of 36 galaxies have a physical age. On the other hand, most of the galaxies are retained if we assume a solar (33 out of 36) or super-solar metallicity (36 out of 36). We conclude that in the reasonable range of metallicity that we covered, a pure age-driven gradient is not able to match the observed evolution of colour gradient.
The reason behind the rapid evolution is the flattening of the SSP colour-age relation over time. Since we assume identical metallicities for both inner and outer regions, the inner and outer region of an individual galaxy lie on the same colour-age relation in Figure \[fig\_URcolourgrid\]. Take the solar metallicity $Z=0.02$ case (black solid line) as an example, the $U-R$ colour increases sharply from 0 to 4 Gyr but flattens after, hence the $(U-R)$ gradient evolves to almost zero at redshift 0.
### Case II – Pure metallicity-driven gradient evolution
Instead of using a flat metallicity gradient as case I, the middle panel of Figure \[fig\_gradevo\] shows the evolution of the $(U-R)$ gradient under the assumption of pure metallicity-driven gradient, or in other words, a flat age gradient $\nabla_{age} = 0$. Again, we show the scenario with assumed solar metallicity ($Z=0.02$) in the inner region. Similar to case I, galaxies that have unphysical ages / metallicities are discarded. 21, 33 and 31 out of 36 galaxies are retained in each metallicity scenario ($Z=0.008,0.02,0.05$) respectively. From Figure \[fig\_gradevo\], we can see that the median gradient of the evolved sample is even steeper compared to the one at redshift 1.39. Hence, it is clear that a pure metallicity-driven gradient fails to reproduce the observed gradient. The median gradients of the evolved sample in the three metallicity scenarios are $(Z, \nabla_{U-R}) = (0.008, -0.691), (0.02, -0.920), (0.05, -0.900)$.
The evolution can be explained using the colour-metallicity relations in the right panel of Figure \[fig\_URcolourgrid\]. As the population ages, the $U-R$ colour-metallicity relation steepens (for example, from 2 Gyr to 4 Gyr), which causes the colour gradient to become more negative. The steepening stops at around $\sim4$ Gyr, thus the colour gradient after then remains unchanged. For the solar metallicity scenario, the median metallicity gradient and $1\sigma$ scatter we found is $\langle \nabla_{Z} \rangle \sim -1.32 \pm 1.22$ at $z=1.39$, much higher than that observed in local galaxies. Of course in reality metallicity in individual galaxies differs, but mixing galaxies with different metallicity within our metallicity range would not change this conclusion.
### Case III – Age-driven gradient evolution with assumed metallicity gradient
The bottom panel of Figure \[fig\_gradevo\] shows the evolution of the $(U-R)$ gradient with a metallicity gradient as observed in local passive galaxies: $\nabla_{Z} = -0.2$. Similar to case I, galaxies with unphysical ages in the inner or outer regions are rejected. 19, 33 and 36 out of 36 galaxies are retained in each metallicity scenario respectively. The solar metallicity scenario works reasonably well for the majority of the sample with evolved median gradient of $(Z, \nabla_{U-R}) = (0.02, -0.198)$, which is in close agreement with the observed value in the local universe by @Wuetal2005. Despite a number of objects have to be discarded due to unphysical age, the median gradient as well as the individual gradients of the evolved samples in the sub-solar metallicity scenario $(Z, \nabla_{U-R}) = (0.008, -0.180)$ is also close to but slightly smaller than the observed local value. Assuming super-solar metallicity for the inner regions on the other hand, predicts gradients that are slightly too steep $(Z, \nabla_{U-R}) = (0.05, -0.232)$.
Besides the median values, the scatter in the evolved colour gradients is also in excellent agreement to the local value by @Wuetal2005 ($\nabla_{U-R} = -0.21 \pm 0.04$). For example, for the solar metallicity scenario the scatter reduces from 0.37 at $z\sim1.39$ to 0.06 at $z=0$.
### Implications and limitations {#sec:Implications and Limitations}
From the above case study, we find that the presence of an age gradient is a necessary condition for the evolution of the colour gradient, and with metallicity gradient they can sufficiently reproduce the magnitude of the evolution of the colour gradient from $z=1.39$ to $z=0$.
An age-driven gradient evolution with a metallicity gradient close to the local value is the most probable scenario, as it can well-reproduce the observed evolution of the colour gradients over redshift in both median and scatter. Below we try to understand why this is the case. Among the three metallicity scenarios, the one with solar metallicity seems to best match the evolution of colour gradients for most galaxies. In this scenario we find a median age gradient and $1\sigma$ scatter of $\langle \nabla_{age} \rangle = -0.33 \pm 0.37$ at $z=1.39$ (i.e. a median age difference $\sim 1.4$ Gyr between the inner and outer regions).
Figure \[fig\_gradevoT2\] shows the evolution of the colour gradient in this case (case III), assuming a formation redshift of the inner regions of $z_{form} = 3.0$ and an age gradient of $\langle \nabla_{age} \rangle = -0.33$ at $z=1.39$. The top left panel shows the change in the evolution for different formation redshifts $z_{form} = 2.0, 4.0, 5.0$, selected to be consistent with findings in recent spectroscopic studies at similar redshift [@Gargiuloetal2012; @Bellietal2015]. The net evolution from $z\sim1.39$ to $z\sim0$ is clearly insensitive to the formation redshift. On the other hand, the path of evolution depends largely on the age gradient; from the top right panel we show that with different initial age gradient at $z=1.39$, a large range of colour gradients at $z=1.39$ can reach similar value at $z\sim0$. In other words, if the colour gradients in high redshift passive galaxies are mainly due to radial variation in age, this assumption would be able to match the evolution of colour gradient for most galaxies.
This is in agreement with @Gargiuloetal2012, who investigated the origin of the colour gradient on a sample of early-type galaxies at $0 < z < 1.9$ with spatially resolved colour and global SED fitting. They found that the colour gradients of $\sim50\%$ of their sample can be reproduced with pure age gradients, while invoking pure metallicity gradients can only explain a small subset of their sample. In addition, extremely steep metallicity gradients are required that are only marginally comparable with those observed in the local Universe. A similar recent study by @DeProprisetal2015 studied the ratio of galaxy sizes in two bands (as a proxy of the colour gradient) in red sequence galaxies in four clusters with $<z> \sim 1.25$ (including this cluster) also found an indication of negative colour gradients, which they also attribute to due to the presence of age gradients.
Our result is also not inconsistent with studies on local and intermediate redshift passive galaxies which suggest colour gradients are mainly due to metallicity gradients [e.g. @Sagliaetal2000; @TamuraOhta2003]. For example, @Kuntschneretal2010 found a mean $\nabla_{Z} = -0.25 \pm 0.11$ and mean $\nabla_{age} = 0.02 \pm 0.13$ for galaxies with age $> 8$ Gyr. Nevertheless, the age gradient (or its presence) is very difficult to constrain in local passive galaxies. As @Gargiuloetal2012 pointed out, the effect of the age difference in the inner and outer regions is much more enhanced when the stellar population is young (i.e. at high redshift). Indeed, the age gradient flattens quickly over redshift. For example, with a median age gradient of $\langle \nabla_{age} \rangle = -0.33 \pm 0.37$ at $z=1.39$ (from our best scenario); assuming passive evolution this corresponds to a median age gradient of $\langle \nabla_{age} \rangle = -0.05 \pm 0.06$ at $z=0$, which is consistent with a flat age gradient.
Given the assumption that the cluster passive galaxies at $z=1.39$ have the same metallicity gradient as the local ones, it is implied that the evolution of colour gradients from $z\sim1.4$ to $0$ can be explained simply through passive evolution. This is consistent with luminosity function studies in clusters [e.g. @Andreonetal2008; @DeProprisetal2013].
### Physical processes responsible for the evolution of size and colour gradient
While passive evolution is a very tempting conclusion, it alone cannot explain the observed size evolution in clusters over redshift. In Figure \[fig\_lightmasssize\_mod\] we have shown that the cluster passive galaxies are $\sim40\%$ smaller than their local counterparts. Similarly, a large number of previous studies have confirmed that the sizes of passive galaxies in high redshift clusters are smaller than those in the local Universe [e.g. @Retturaetal2010; @Strazzulloetal2010; @Papovichetal2012; @Strazzulloetal2013], although a part of this size evolution [e.g. @Sagliaetal2000] or even all [@Jorgensenetal2014] may be due to progenitor bias. If we assume this observed size evolution is genuine, in the sense that it is not completely an effect of progenitor bias, additional physical processes must be in place over redshift to increase the size of the population but not significantly their stellar mass, and at the same time cannot severely disrupt the existing stellar population gradients.
The “puffing-up” scenario (or adiabatic expansion) is one of the candidates to explain the size evolution of passive galaxies [@Fanetal2008; @Fanetal2010]. While it may work for increasing the size, it is yet unclear whether it can sufficiently explain the observed evolution of colour gradients. Further detailed investigation with an accurate model is required to test this scenario, but current models [e.g. @Fanetal2008] are much simplified.
Minor mergers, on the other hand, seem to be a viable scenario as the effects are primarily on the outer part of the galaxies. @Hilzetal2013 showed from n-body/SPH simulations that for minor (with a mass ratio 1:10) or intermediate (1:5) dry mergers, the inner region of the galaxy remains almost unchanged and the accreted mass assembles predominately in the outer part of the galaxy. This is also seen in the cosmological simulations of @RodriguezGomezetal2015 where the accreted stars from mergers with lower mass ratio (i.e. merging with smaller galaxies) dominate at outer radius. Hence, the inner stellar populations of the galaxy can age through passive evolution without major disturbance. The negative age gradients we find here seem to be consistent with this picture given that the minor mergers are dry and the stars accreted are relatively young.
The minor merger scenario has been known to be a viable mechanism in the field. It is consistent with the observed inside-out growth as seen from the evolution of the stellar mass surface density profiles of passive field galaxies over redshift [e.g. @vanDokkumetal2010; @Pateletal2013]. Nevertheless, traditionally this type of merger activity is believed to be suppressed in virialized clusters because of the high velocity dispersion, resulting in high relative velocities between cluster members [e.g. @Conroyetal2007; @Lotzetal2013]. The exception being mergers of satellite galaxies onto the BCG due to dynamical friction [e.g @Burkeetal2013; @Burkeetal2015], which contribute to the mass growth of BCG and the intracluster light (ICL). On the other hand, merger events are thought to be very common in galaxy groups where the velocity dispersion is lower, or when the cluster is still assembling. Recent works have found that sizes of massive passive galaxies are larger in clusters compared to the field at high redshift [e.g. @Cooperetal2012; @Zirmetal2012; @Papovichetal2012; @Lanietal2013; @Strazzulloetal2013; @Jorgensenetal2013; @Delayeetal2014], but not in the local Universe [e.g. @Huertascompanyetal2013; @Cappellari2013], suggesting an accelerated size evolution in high density environments. This accelerated size evolution is probably due to an enhanced rate of mergers during infall of groups, when the cluster is being assembled [@Lotzetal2013; @Delayeetal2014; @Newmanetal2014]. While this explains the elevated sizes in cluster compared to the field at fixed redshift, it does not provide an explanation to the subsequent size evolution observed in clusters over redshift $z <1.5$.
Despite the suppression of galaxy merging activity in clusters based on relative velocity arguments, it is clear that clusters themselves and their associated dark matter halos continue to grow by accreting galaxy groups. It is possible that some accretion can still happen to the cluster galaxy population during infall of these group-scale structures. Simulations of mergers with cluster mass halos have shown that the accreted mass resides mainly in the satellite galaxies and the ICL, but only mildly in the BCG [e.g. @Whiteetal2007; @Brownetal2008]. Recent simulations also demonstrate that the size of clusters members can grow significantly via major and minor mergers and the frequency of mergers is sufficient to explain the observed size growth in clusters since $z\sim2$ [@Laporteetal2013]. In addition, the observed merger rate in the cluster galaxy population, excluding the BCG, is poorly constrained. If this is possible, this kind of gradual mass growth is able to explain at the same time the evolution of both size and colour gradient in clusters.
If we take the size evolution into account and assume the mass growth takes place predominately at the outskirts, the stellar population we considered here in the colour gradient ($a < 3.5 a_{e}$) will correspond to the central population at $R < 1.5 - 2 R_{e-circ}$ in local cluster galaxies. If the evolution is primarily merger or accretion driven as we suggest above, one would expect that the outer stellar population depends on past merger activity.
Interestingly, there has been some evidence indicating changes in stellar population properties at the outer region of local massive passive cluster galaxies [e.g. NGC 4889 in Coma cluster @Coccatoetal2010] as well as in field ellipticals [e.g. @Puetal2010]. More recent studies have extended the age and metallicity measurements to large radii ($\sim 8-10 R_e$, for example in @LaBarberaetal2012) and revealed that the outer age or metallicity gradients at $\gtrsim1-2 R_e$ are distinct from those in the inner region [e.g. @Greeneetal2013; @Pastorelloetal2014; @Raskuttietal2014]. These changes in stellar population gradients are commonly interpreted to be result of mergers. Nevertheless, these changes can also come from recent quenched galaxies that underwent minor mergers before infalling to the cluster. A progenitor biased corrected sample is needed to address this issue.
### Monolithic collapse model
Traditional monolithic models predict very high metallicity gradients in passive galaxies, around $\nabla_Z \sim -0.5$, and a flat if not slightly positive age gradients [e.g. @Larson1974; @Carlberg1984]. The fact that we find that on average a negative age gradient is necessary to explain the evolution of the colour gradient is hence inconsistent with the monolithic collapse scenario. This conclusion is independent of the metallicity gradient we assumed; in case III we assume the metallicity gradient to be $\nabla_{Z} = -0.2$ as observed in local passive galaxies, but using a steeper metallicity gradient would not work. The bottom two panels in Figure \[fig\_gradevoT2\] show the effect of assuming a metallicity gradient $\nabla_Z = -0.5$ as predicted by traditional monolithic models. While the $U-R$ colour gradient at redshift 1.39 is in reasonable agreement with the observed value, the evolved gradient is too steep (i.e. insufficient evolution) compared to the observed value at redshift 0.
We also compare our observed $z_{850}-H_{160}$ colour gradients at redshift 1.39 with recent simulations based on a revised version of the monolithic model by @Pipinoetal2008a [@Pipinoetal2010]. With semi-cosmological initial conditions, they are able to match the age gradients and metallicity gradients observed in local passive galaxies. @Tortoraetal2013 computed the colour gradients from the @Pipinoetal2010 simulations using BC03 SSP models, for which we can directly use for the comparison. Among the four models presented in their work (E1, E2, E3, E4), we find that our observed median colour gradient seems to be in reasonable agreement with models that predict steep metallicity gradient (E2, $\nabla_Z \sim -0.35$ and E4, $\nabla_Z \sim -0.45$) and nearly flat age gradient at $z=0$. The comparison with the colour gradients in @Gargiuloetal2011 [@Gargiuloetal2012] at redshift $1<z<2$ also gives a similar result. However, the local colour gradient at $z \sim 0$, as well as the $F606W - F850LP$ gradients of high-redshift galaxies in @Gargiuloetal2011 favours the other two models (E1, E3) instead, so there is not a single model that can explain the evolution of colour gradients. Hence, our result cannot be reproduced by the revised monolithic collapse model.
### Effect of dust obscuration
A complication that we have not considered above is the effect of dust obscuration. The colour gradient can be affected by the radial variation of dust content. For local passive galaxies, @WiseSilva1996 pointed out that their colour gradients can be reproduced by a dust gradient, albeit with much higher dust masses than observed [@Sagliaetal2000]. Hence the colour gradient in these galaxies should be driven from the variation of the stellar population. Nevertheless, the amount of dust can vary with radius; it is not uncommon to find dust at the centre, for example in @Laueretal2005, central dust is visible in almost half of the local passive sample.
At high redshift, measuring the radial variation of dust content is even more difficult due to the compact nature of passive galaxies and limited angular resolution. Several studies suggest that although the effect of dust cannot be completely neglected, it plays only a minor role in driving colour gradients. @Bellietal2015 showed that their early-type sample at $1.0 < z < 1.6$ have little to no dust extinction [see also @Mendeletal2015]. For the radial variation of dust, @Guoetal2011 demonstrated from spatially resolved annular SED fitting that, for their sample of six $z \sim2$ galaxies dust partly contributes to the observed colour gradients, the inferred dust gradient and global extinction have a value of $d E(B-V)/ d \log(R) \sim -0.07$ and $\langle E(B-V) \rangle \sim0.1$. On the other hand, among the 11 early-type galaxies at $1.0 < z < 1.9$ in @Gargiuloetal2012, half of the sample have no dust extinction (i.e. $A_V = 0$) from global SED fit and for most galaxies the main driver of the colour gradients is certainly not the radial variation of dust.
It is not possible to derive reliable dust gradients from our multi-band photometry data. Hence, for completeness we test whether the effect of dust would affect our conclusion. Assuming dust mainly affects the central region as in local passive galaxies, we deredden the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour in the inner region by a certain magnitude but leaving the outer part unchanged to reduce the observed gradient, then recompute all the evolution under different assumptions. We find that on average a decrease of 0.14 mag in the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour at the inner region ($\sim 0.25$ mag at $0.1 a_{e}$) will remove the observed evolution, i.e. the difference of the observed median colour gradient at $z=1.39$ with local passive galaxies. Assuming the extinction curve by @Calzettietal2000, this corresponds to a gradient of $d A_V / d \log(a) \sim -0.40$ or $d E(B-V) / d \log(a) \sim -0.10$. Hence, our conclusion is robust if the dust gradient is less steep than this value. If the genuine colour gradient is shallower at $z=1.39$, the evolution will be best explained with a shallower age gradient (as seen from the top right panel of Figure \[fig\_gradevoT2\]), and will not change any of our conclusions. Nevertheless, although unlikely, we cannot rule out the possibility that the observed colour gradients are driven by a large amount of dust located in the central region.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:Conclusion}
=======================
We have presented the structural parameters, resolved stellar mass distribution and colour gradient of a sample of 36 passive galaxies in the red sequence of the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557 at redshift $z\sim1.39$. With HST/ACS and WFC3 data we derive light-weighted structural parameters independently in five different bands ($i_{775}, z_{850}, Y_{105}, J_{125}, H_{160}$) through 2D Sérsic fitting. We compute 1D $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour profiles for individual galaxies and fit logarithmic gradients $\nabla_{z_{850}-H_{160}}$ in the range of PSF HWHM $< a < 3.5 a_e$ to derive colour gradients. In addition, we derive resolved stellar mass surface density maps for individual galaxies with an empirical $M_{*}/L$-colour relation and the $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ images. Mass-weighted structural parameters are derived from the resolved stellar mass surface density map. We find the following:
1. From our multi-band light-weighted structural parameter measurements, the passive galaxies in this cluster show a reduction of $\sim20\%$ in sizes from $i_{775}$ to $H_{160}$, consistent with the wavelength-dependence found in local passive galaxies.
2. The $H_{160}$ band sizes in this cluster are on average $\sim40\%$ smaller than that expected from the local mass-size relation by @Bernardietal2012 at the same rest-wavelength, with a median of $\langle \log(R_{e-circ} / R_{Bernardi}) \rangle = -0.21$. In the extreme cases the galaxies can be $\sim70\%$ smaller than their local counterparts.
3. The mass-weighted sizes of the galaxies are $\sim41\%$ smaller than their own light-weighted sizes, with a median $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass}/R_{e-circ}) \rangle = -0.23$, in the extreme cases the mass-weighted sizes can be up to $\sim60\%$ smaller.
4. $78\%$ of the galaxies in our sample show a negative colour gradient $\nabla_{z_{850}-H_{160}}$, with redder colours at the core and bluer colour in the outskirts. $42\%$ have steep gradients with $\nabla_{z_{850}-H_{160}} < -0.5$. The median colour gradient is $\langle \nabla_{z_{850}-H_{160}} \rangle = -0.45$, two times steeper than the colour gradient found in local passive galaxies in previous studies.
5. The ratio of mass-weighted to light-weighted size does not show any significant correlation to galaxy properties, and is only mildly correlated to $M_{*}/L$ gradient, mass surface density and mass-weighted size. The mild correlation with $M_{*}/L$ gradients supports our findings about smaller mass-weighted sizes compared to light-weighted sizes.
6. By using the local SPIDER sample we find that the mass-weighted sizes are on average $\sim13\%$ smaller than the rest frame $r$-band light-weighted sizes, consistent with previous studies. Comparing the cluster sample to the local SPIDER cluster sample, we find an offset in the ratio of mass-weighted sizes to the $H_{160}$ band light-weighted sizes with a median difference of $\langle \log(R_{e-circ,mass,1.39} / R_{e-circ,1.39}) - \log(R_{e-circ,mass,0}/ R_{e-circ,0}) \rangle = -0.18$, which we attribute to an evolution of the $M_{*}/L$ gradient over redshift. We also find that the progenitor bias cannot explain this observed offset. This also seems to be consistent with the steeper colour gradient we find in the cluster galaxies compared to those seen in local passive galaxies.
We then investigate the origin and the evolution of the observed colour gradient by modeling the colour gradients with SSPs under three different assumptions. We analyse the evolution of the rest-frame (U-R) colour gradient at two radii, $0.5 a_{e}$ and $2 a_{e}$, representing the inner and outer region of the galaxy respectively. We subdivide each of the assumptions summarised below into three different metallicity scenarios: we fix the metallicity of the inner regions to sub-solar, solar and super-solar $Z=(0.008,0.02,0.05)$:
1. **Case I - Pure age-driven gradient evolution** – Evolution of colour gradients is solely due to age gradient. The inner and outer regions of the passive galaxies are assumed to have identical metallicities (i.e. flat metallicity gradients $\nabla_{Z} =0$). We find that although an age gradient alone is sufficient to reproduce all the evolution in the colour gradient, it over-predicts the evolution over redshift, causing the evolved local gradients to be too shallow compared to the observation.
2. **Case II - Pure metallicity-driven gradient evolution** – Evolution of colour gradients is solely due to metallicity gradient. We assume the inner and outer regions have identical ages (i.e. flat age gradients $\nabla_{age} = 0$). A metallicity gradient alone cannot explain the observation as the evolution it predicts goes into the wrong direction.
3. **Case III - Age-driven gradient evolution with an assumed metallicity gradient** – Evolution of colour gradients is due to a combination of age and metallicity gradients. The galaxies are assumed to have a fixed metallicity gradient identical to that observed in local passive galaxies, $\nabla_Z \simeq -0.2$. This model works well, the solar metallicity scenario can well reproduce the observed evolution of the colour gradients from $z\sim1.39$ to $z\sim0$.
4. We show that the above findings are still robust if any central dust reddening at $0.5 a_{e}$ is $\lesssim 0.14$ mag, or equivalently an extinction gradient $d A_V/d \log(a) \sim 0.40$ or $d E(B-V) /d \log(a) \sim -0.10$.
Our case study indicates that the presence of an age gradient at high redshift is a necessary condition to explain the observed evolution of the colour gradients, while metallicity gradients probably dominate at $z\sim0$. We also repeat the study using the rest-frame $g-r$ colour gradient and obtain completely consistent results. This conclusion is partially consistent with other studies [@Sagliaetal2000; @Guoetal2011; @Gargiuloetal2012]. For the best-matching scenario (Case III with solar metallicity), the median age gradient of our cluster sample is $\langle \nabla_{age} \rangle \sim -0.33 \pm 0.37$, while the metallicity gradient we assumed is $\nabla_Z \simeq -0.2$. Given the assumption that passive galaxies at z = 1.39 have the same metallicity gradient as the local ones, the evolution of colour gradients from $z\sim1.4$ to $z\sim0$ can be explained by passive evolution.
This general picture is also consistent with a more gradual mass growth mechanism such as via minor mergers, in the sense that the inner region of the galaxies remains undisturbed and the accreted younger material settles at the outskirts.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Francesco La Barbera for sharing the SPIDER structural parameter catalogue for the comparison of our cluster sample with local passive galaxies. The authors would also like to thank Thorsten Naab for stimulating discussions. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments that led to an improved presentation. J.C.C. Chan acknowledges the support of the Deutsche Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) via Project ID 50OR1513. David J. Wilman and Matteo Fossati acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via Project ID 3871/1-1. This work was also supported by the Astrophysics at Oxford grants (ST/H002456/1 and ST/K00106X/1) as well as visitors grant (ST/H504862/1) from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. Roger L. Davies acknowledges travel and computer grants from Christ Church, Oxford. Roger L. Davies is also grateful for support from the Australian Astronomical Observatory Distinguished Visitors programme, the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics, and the University of Sydney during a visit. Ryan C. W. Houghton is supported by the Science and Technology Facilities Council \[STFC grant numbers ST/H002456/1, ST/K00106X/1 & ST/J002216/1\]. John P. Stott gratefully acknowledges support from a Hintze Research Fellowship.
Details of the simulations {#Details of the simulations}
==========================
We perform extensive simulations with a set of 50000 simulated galaxies with surface brightness profiles described by a Seŕsic profile on the ACS $z_{850}$ and WFC3 $H_{160}$ band images to give a more realistic estimate of the uncertainty of the photometry, light-weighted structural parameters and mass-weighted structural parameters. Here we describe the set-up and the procedures involved in these simulations.
Constructing the set of simulated galaxies {#Constructing the set of simulated galaxies}
------------------------------------------
The simulated galaxies (hereafter SGs) are uniformly distributed within a magnitude range of $19.0 < H_{160} < 25.0$ and a colour range of $0.4 < z_{850} -H_{160} <2.2$ (hence a range of $z_{850}$ magnitudes $19.4 < z_{850} < 27.2$). This selected magnitude range is a good representation of the cluster sample, and is also the range where our $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation is calibrated as we explained in Section \[sec:Stellar Mass-to-light Ratio-Colour relation\]. Each galaxy is described by a Sérsic profile with input structural parameters randomly drawn from Gaussian distributions with means and dispersions taken from the real galaxies distributions in the $H_{160}$ band.
The input structural parameters are identical in the two bands. The means and dispersions of the Sérsic indices $n$, effective semi-major axis $a_e$ and axis ratio $q$ are $(\langle n \rangle, \sigma_{n}) = (3.19, 2.18) $, $(\langle a_e \rangle, \sigma_{a_e}) = (6.07, 5.16 (pixel))$ and $(\langle q \rangle, \sigma_{q}) = (0.67, 0.20) $. The position angle $P.A.$ is uniformly distributed within $0^{\circ} < P.A. < 180^{\circ}$. To ensure the simulated profiles are physical, we further apply the following constraints: $n > 0.2$, $a_e > 0.3$, $0.01 < q \leq 1$.
The SGs were then convolved with the adopted PSFs. @Morishitaetal2014 pointed out that there are differences in the central part of the Sérsic profiles produced by `IRAF gallist` and `mkobjects` compared to those produced by GALFIT, which possibly originates with the PSF convolution procedure. In our case, we produce our simulated galaxies using a custom-built IDL routine[^2] that over-samples the central part of the Sérsic profiles before resampling it onto a 2D grid.
To check whether the Sérsic profiles we generated are consistent with those used in GALFIT, we first fit the noise-free SGs with GALFIT and examine the residual maps to compare the Sérsic profiles. Without PSF convolution, we notice there are residuals at the centre in the residuals map output by GALFIT, although the difference is negligible ($< 0.005\%$ of the flux). Including the PSF convolution does not noticeably increase this difference.
We then inject the SGs one by one uniformly to the sky regions of both the WFC3 $H_{160}$ images and the PSF-matched and resampled ACS $z_{850}$ images at the same location (i.e. 50000 set of $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ images). The segmentation maps from SExtractor are used as a reference to avoid direct overlap with existing objects in the field.
Photometry uncertainty test {#Details of the simulations-light}
---------------------------
We run SExtractor on the SG images using the same setting as for the science sample. We then assess the detection rate of the SGs in different magnitudes, as well as investigate the uncertainties of the galaxy magnitude $\tt{MAG\_AUTO}$ and the $z_{850} - H_{160}$ colour derived from $1''$ aperture magnitudes.
Light-weighted structural parameter uncertainty test {#Details of the simulations-lightstruct}
----------------------------------------------------
We assess the accuracy of our light-weighted structural parameter measurements by measuring the structural parameters of the SGs with the same GALAPAGOS routine.
In Section \[sec:Quantifying the uncertainties on the photometry\] we mention there is a bias in the recovered effective radius at high mean surface brightness ($< 19$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$) due to unresolved SGs in our simulations. Here we expand the discussion on this. Figure \[fig:lightuncertaintysub\] shows the difference between input and recovered structural parameters by GALFIT for three subpopulations of SGs with descending range of input $a_e$ in terms of the size of PSF. We find that the bias between input and recovered effective radii increases sharply for SGs with input $a_e <$ PSF HWHM. For SGs with input $a_e$ in range of $1.0$ PSF HWHM $< a_e < 2.0 $ PSF HWHM, the average bias is typically limited to $1-2\%$, while it increases to $\sim10\%$ for SGs with $0.5$ PSF HWHM $< a_e < 1.0 $ PSF HWHM. For those with $a_e < 0.5$ PSF HWHM, the average bias rises sharply to $\sim50\%$. We conclude that our method is unable to measure sizes reliably from galaxies with $a_e < 0.5$ PSF HWHM. However, since the sizes of high-redshift galaxies can indeed be very small, we do not exclude this small-sized population from our set of simulated galaxies.
None of the galaxies in our sample have light-weighted sizes smaller than $0.5$ PSF HWHM. Nevertheless, in the case of mass-weighted sizes, three of the objects at the low-mass end have sizes $< 0.5$ PSF HWHM and are hence discarded in the subsequent analyses.
![Differences between input and recovered effective semi-major axes by GALFIT $\delta a_e = (a_{e-out} - a_{e-in})/a_{e-in}$ in function of input mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness. From top to bottom: simulated galaxies with different ranges of input effective radius, $1.0$ PSF HWHM $< a_e < 2.0 $ PSF HWHM, $0.5$ PSF HWHM $< a_e < 1.0 $ PSF HWHM and $a_e < 0.5$ PSF HWHM. The red line indicates the median and $1\sigma$ dispersion in different bins (0.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ bin width) and the green-shaded 2D histogram in each panel shows the number density distribution of the simulated galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:lightuncertaintysub"}](figa1)
Mass-weighted structural parameter uncertainty test {#Details of the simulations-massstruct}
---------------------------------------------------
We also perform a similar test to investigate the biases and uncertainties of our mass-weighted structural parameter measurements. We start with the $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ postage stamps output from the light uncertainty test. These images are converted into mass maps with the pipeline described in Section \[sec:Resolved Stellar Mass Surface Density Maps\]. The resultant stacked mass maps are then fitted with GALFIT.
As mentioned in Appendix \[Constructing the set of simulated galaxies\], the galaxies we inject have identical initial structural parameters in both $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ bands, there is no internal colour gradient within the set of simulated galaxies. Nevertheless, this allows us to assess the accuracy of the output mass-weighted structural parameters, as the retrieved parameters should be in theory, exactly the same as the input (light) structural parameters. As the Voronoi binning and stacking take a certain time, we perform the mass map conversion for a subsample of galaxies ($\sim1500$). This sample is sufficient to provide an uncertainty estimates on the mass-weighted sizes in different bins of surface brightness.
In deriving the mass maps, we implement an extrapolation scheme to determine the $M_{*}/L$ in regions with insufficient signal-to-noise (described in Section \[sec:From Colour to Stellar Mass Surface Density\]). The low S/N or sky regions are problematic as the colours (and hence $M_{*}/L$) are not well determined. Converting mass directly on these regions will induce a huge scatter of mass in the background, which in turn have serious effects on the structural parameter measurements. Our extrapolation scheme can preserve the sky noise and at the same time provide a reasonable $M_{*}/L$ estimate to these regions. We illustrate this effect in Figure \[fig:massuncertaintysub\]. The top panel shows the differences between input and recovered sizes by GALFIT with extrapolation, while the bottom panel shows the differences without applying the extrapolation. In the absence of extrapolation, a huge bias can be seen in all bins of surface brightness. Sizes are more underestimated in galaxies with low surface brightness.
Previous studies use a different method to solve this issue, for example in @Langetal2014 who derived mass maps for galaxies in CANDELS, these low S/N regions are assigned the average $M_{*}/L$ of the three nearest Voronoi bins. The data we used in this study is not as deep as the CANDELS HST imaging. We find that averaging the nearest three Voronoi bins does not work as well as our annular average extrapolation. For star-forming galaxies which have sub-structures such as star forming clumps and spiral arms [see, e.g. @Wuytsetal2012], it might be more suitable to use the nearest neighbour extrapolation as in @Langetal2014. Our method, on the other hand, works well for early-type galaxies which usually have smooth(er) surface brightness profiles.
![Differences between input and recovered effective semi-major axes by GALFIT $\delta a_e = (a_{e-out} - a_{e-in})/a_{e-in}$ in function of input mean $H_{160}$ surface brightness. Top: sizes derived from mass maps with the extrapolation applied, same as the middle panel in Figure \[fig:massuncertainty\]. Bottom: sizes derived from mass maps without applying the extrapolation scheme. Red line indicates the median and $1\sigma$ dispersion in different bins (0.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ bin width) and blue-shaded 2D histogram in each panel shows the number density distribution of the simulated galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:massuncertaintysub"}](figa2)
Details of PSF matching {#app:psfmatching}
=======================
We first stack the unsaturated stars in the $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ bands to obtain characteristic PSFs respectively. The matching kernel is generated using the `psfmatch` task in IRAF. Cosine bell tapering is applied to filter the high frequency component of the input $z_{850}$ PSF, which is presumably induced by noise, to clean the output kernel. In the `psfmatch` task, there are some free parameters that can be tweaked (e.g. kernel sizes, highest cosine bell frequencies and apodize), a systemic search is performed to find the best parameters to match the PSFs.
We assess the accuracy by comparing the fractional encircled energy of the $z_{850}$ PSF before and after the procedure to the $H_{160}$ PSF. The convolved $z_{850}$ PSF matches almost perfectly to the $H_{160}$ PSF with only tiny difference in the wing ($<1\%$). We also re-constructed a new $z_{850}$ PSF from the PSF matched $z_{850}$ images to assess the result. Figure \[fig:psfcompare\] shows the fractional encircled energy of the PSFs constructed from images before and after PSF matching. The ratios of their growth curves deviate by $< 2.5\%$ from unity.
![Fractional encircled energy of the $z_{850}$ and $H_{160}$ PSFs. The green dashed line corresponds to the $z_{850}$ PSF while the black solid line corresponds to the $H_{160}$ PSF. Left: before PSF matching. Right: after PSF matching.[]{data-label="fig:psfcompare"}](figb1)
Comparison of masses derived using $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation with SED fitting {#app:masscomparison}
===============================================================================
In this study, the stellar masses of the galaxies are derived from an empirical $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation and the total $H_{160}$ luminosity from 2D GALFIT Sérsic fitting. Other studies usually estimate the stellar masses through spectral energy distribution fitting of multiple photometric bands [e.g. @Strazzulloetal2010; @Delayeetal2014]. The advantage of using $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation over SED fitting is that it does not require a number of photometric bands, hence is a relatively inexpensive mass indicator. The accuracy of the stellar mass estimates of then depends on how well constrained the $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation is, which in turn depends on the colour used [see discussion in e.g., @BelldeJong2001; @Belletal2003]. Here we assess whether our mass estimates is biased.
For this cluster, @Delayeetal2014 estimated stellar masses of our galaxies through SED fitting with four bands (HST/ACS $i_{775}$, $z_{850}$, HAWK-I, $J$, $K_s$) with BC03 models, exponential declining SFHs and a @Chabrier2003 IMF. The setting is almost identical to the stellar masses from the NMBS catalogue we picked to construct the $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation, thus can be compared directly.
Figure \[fig:massdelaye\] shows a direct comparison of the mass estimated using our $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation and SED fitting from @Delayeetal2014. Our sample covers 10 out of 13 early-type galaxies in their sample. The remaining 3 galaxies are out of the field of view of our WFC3 images (but are in the FOV of the ACS $z_{850}$ image), thus are not included in our sample. The mass estimates from the two methods are consistent with each other, with a median difference and $1\sigma$ scatter of $0.03 \pm 0.09$ dex. The object that deviates from the one-to-one relation the most (at $\log(M_{*}/M_\odot) = 11.11$) is a galaxy close to the core of cluster with a very close neighbour (ID 368), which probably affect the mass estimates in both methods. Removing this object reduces the median difference to $0.01 \pm 0.07$ dex. Therefore we conclude that the masses derived using $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation are not biased.
As we mentioned in Section \[sec:Integrated Stellar Masses\], the typical uncertainty of the mass estimates from $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation is $\sim 0.1$ dex, which is comparable to the uncertainties obtained from SED fitting. These uncertainties are correct for the relative masses of multiple galaxies. Note that the uncertainty of the absolute stellar masses is larger as in the case of SED fitting, depending on the details of NMBS SED fitting and choice of IMF.
![Comparison of masses derived using $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation with SED fitting from @Delayeetal2014. The red circles are the stellar mass estimates of 10 galaxies that are common in our sample to @Delayeetal2014. The stellar masses in @Delayeetal2014 are derived from SED fitting with four bands, while our masses are from $M_{*}/L$ - colour relation. The solid black line is the one-to-one relation. The error bars are the $1\sigma$ uncertainties from both methods.[]{data-label="fig:massdelaye"}](figc1)
Evolution of colour gradients using exponentially declining tau models {#sec:Evolution of colour gradients using exponentially declining tau models}
======================================================================
In Section \[sec:Evolution of the colour gradients over redshift\] we discuss the evolution of colour gradients assuming the stellar population in the inner and outer regions can be well described by simple stellar population models (SSPs). Here we present the result of using exponentially declining tau models with different $\tau$ ($\tau = [0.2, 0.4, 0.6]$) instead of SSPs.
Figure \[fig\_URcolour\_tau\] shows the $U-R$ colour at different ages (left, i.e. the colour-age relations) from models with various $\tau$ using BC03, similar to Figure \[fig\_URcolourgrid\]. The methodology is described in Section \[sec:Methodology\]. Comparing to SSPs, due to the continual star formation the $(U-R)$ colour is bluer for a given age, which is more pronounced if $\tau$ is larger. We stop at $\tau = 0.6$ as otherwise the $(U-R)$ colour would be too blue to account for the observations. Using $\tau$ models also has the effect of reducing the colour differences between different metallicities when the galaxy is young (see the trend before the grey dashed line), while the evolution is very similar for later ages when the contribution of young stars falls off.
Using $\tau$ models instead of SSPs does not change our main conclusion. Since the evolution of the colour gradient at later times is very similar to SSPs, we find that an age-driven gradient evolution with a metallicity gradient close to the local value (case III) remains the best scenario to explain the colour gradients independent of the $\tau$ used. Figure \[fig\_gradevoTtau\] shows the best-fit scenario of the evolution of the colour gradients with different $\tau$ (case III with solar metallicity). Within the range of $\tau$ the evolution can still be well modelled. Nevertheless, due to the change in $(U-R)$ colour over time (see Figure \[fig\_URcolour\_tau\]), the resulting age gradient, age difference of the inner and outer population and formation redshift for the best-fit scenario varies by a certain amount with $\tau$. With an increasing $\tau$, a flatter but still significant age gradient (e.g. $\langle \nabla_{age} \rangle = -0.21$ for $\tau = 0.4$) is needed to explain the colour gradient. This strengthens our result that an age gradient is a necessary component in the colour gradient at high-redshift. The values of the median age gradient, the evolved age gradient at $z=0$ and the formation redshift for the best-fit scenario with different $\tau$s can be found in Table \[tab\_age\].
-------- ------------------ ------------------------ --------------------
$\tau$ $\nabla_{age}$ Evolved $\nabla_{age}$ Formation redshift
at $z=1.39$ at $z = 0$ z
SSP $-0.33 \pm 0.37$ $-0.05 \pm 0.06$ 3.0
0.2 $-0.29 \pm 0.29$ $-0.04 \pm 0.06$ 3.5
0.4 $-0.21 \pm 0.22$ $-0.04 \pm 0.04$ 4.0
0.6 $-0.19 \pm 0.19$ $-0.05 \pm 0.04$ 7.0
-------- ------------------ ------------------------ --------------------
: The derived median age gradient at $z=1.39$, $z=0$ and formation redshift with exponentially declining $\tau$-models (Case III)[]{data-label="tab_age"}
![Evolution of colour gradient over redshift in case III (age and assumed metallicity gradient $\nabla_{Z} = -0.2$) using SSP and tau models with $\tau = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6$ with assumed solar metallicity $Z=0.02$. The solid yellow line shows the result with SSP models and is identical to one in the top left panel of Figure \[fig\_gradevoT2\]. Green, blue and red lines show the result with tau models with $\tau = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6$ respectively. The derived initial age gradient at $z=1.39$ as well as formation redshift for each $\tau$ can be found in Table \[tab\_age\]. Red circle corresponds to the median $z_{850}-H_{160}$ gradient of our sample at redshift 1.39, and the observed $(U-R)$ gradient at redshift 0 by @Wuetal2005. The error bars show the uncertainty of the median.[]{data-label="fig_gradevoTtau"}](figd2)
color gradients and their evolution with redshift {#sec:The g-r color gradients and the evolution with redshift}
==================================================
Here we present the measurements of the $Y_{105} - H_{160}$ colour gradient in XMMUJ2235-2557 and the $g-r$ colour gradient in the local SPIDER cluster sample. To compute the $g-r$ colour gradient from the SPIDER sample, we again make use of the structural parameters in $g$-band and $r$-band of the publicly available multiband structural catalogue from @LaBarberaetal2010b. We generate 2D Sérsic model images in the two bands with fitted parameter from the structural catalogue, then convert the 2D image in both bands into 1D radial surface brightness profiles, similar to the procedure described in Section \[sec:Elliptical aperture photometry and color gradients\]. This allows us to derive 1D $g-r$ colour profiles and measure the colour gradients of the galaxies in the SPIDER sample by fitting the logarithmic slope of their $g-r$ profiles along the major axis. The sample is split into low density and high density environment with a halo mass cut ($\log(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) < 14$ and $\log(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) \geq 14$). The detail selection is described in Section \[Local Comparison Sample\]. We also apply the age cut (age > 8.98 Gyr) using age measurements from @LaBarberaetal2010a to correct for the progenitor bias in the SPIDER sample. The median $g-r$ gradient and $1\sigma$ scatter in the local SPIDER cluster sample is $\nabla_{g-r} = -0.042 \pm 0.144$ (error on the median 0.008), while the median gradient in the low density sample is $\nabla_{g-r} = -0.060 \pm 0.158$ (error on the median 0.008), consistent with @LaBarberaetal2005.
We derive the $Y_{105} - H_{160}$ colour gradient in XMMUJ2235-2557 with structural parameters of the $Y_{105}$ and $H_{160}$ bands. This is because the above $g-r$ colour gradients are intrinsic gradients without PSF convolution, hence for better comparison and consistency we use the same method as above. Figure \[fig\_yhcolourgrad\] shows the $Y_{105} - H_{160}$ colour gradients, roughly corresponds to rest-frame $g-r$. $\nabla_{Y_{105} - H_{160}}$ is less steep compared to $\nabla_{z_{850} - H_{160}}$, with a median and $1\sigma$ scatter of $\langle \nabla_{Y_{105} - H_{160}} \rangle = -0.16 \pm -0.16$ (error on the median 0.08). Hence, the $g-r$ colour gradient at $z=1.39$ is also much steeper than the local sample.
![$Y_{105} - H_{160}$ colour gradients in the cluster XMMUJ2235-2557. At redshift 1.39, this roughly corresponds to rest-frame $g-r$ colour gradient. The red dotted line shows the median local $g-r$ gradient from the SPIDER cluster sample. The black dashed line shows the median $Y_{105} - H_{160}$ colour gradients.[]{data-label="fig_yhcolourgrad"}](fige1)
We repeat the analysis described in Section \[sec:Methodology\] to model the $g-r$ colour gradients under different assumptions in the radial variation of stellar population properties. The $g-r$ colour is less sensitive to age variation than $(U-R)$ colour, as the $g$-band is on the 4000Å break. Hence, the evolution in the $g-r$ colour gradient is less pronounced than the $(U-R)$ gradients.
Figure \[fig\_gradevoTgr\] shows the evolution of the $g-r$ colour gradients (case III with solar metallicity). Despite the lack in dynamic range, the result with the $g-r$ colour gradient is completely consistent with the $(U-R)$ colour gradients, in the sense that an age-driven gradient evolution with a metallicity gradient close to local value (case III) is the best scenario to explain its evolution. A pure age gradient would predict $g-r$ gradients that are too shallow at $z=0$, while a pure metallicity gradient would predict gradients that are too steep. In addition, we find that the derived median age gradient is in good agreement with the one derived from $(U-R)$ gradients. The evolution can be well described with an age gradient of $\nabla_{age} = -0.33$, identical to the one we found from $(U-R)$ gradients. The consistent result from $g-r$ colour gradients reinforces our conclusion that age gradient is necessary to explain the colour gradient at high-redshift.
![Evolution of $g-r$ colour gradient over redshift in case III (age and metallicity gradient) with assumed solar metallicity $Z=0.02$. The inner region is assumed to have a formation redshift $z_{form} = 3.0$. The initial age gradient at $z=1.39$ is $\nabla_{age} = -0.33$, and the assumed metallicity gradient is $\nabla_{Z} = -0.2$. The dotted lines show the evolution with different initial age gradient as indicated ($\nabla_{age} = -0.1, -0.5, -0.7, -0.9$). Red circles correspond to the median $Y_{105}-H_{160}$ gradient of our sample at redshift 1.39, and the observed local $g-r$ gradient from the SPIDER cluster sample. The error bars show the uncertainty of the median.[]{data-label="fig_gradevoTgr"}](fige2)
Galaxy properties and best-fit light weighted and mass-weighted structural parameters {#parametertablesection}
=====================================================================================
----- ------------ --------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------ --
ID R.A. Decl. $\log M_{*}\textsuperscript{a} $ $z_{850}-H_{160}$^b^ $\nabla_{z_{850}-H_{160}}$^c^ $\nabla_{\log(M/L)}$^c^ $a_{e}$ $n$ $q$ $a_{e,mass}$ $n_{mass}$ $q_{mass}$ $\Sigma$^d^ $\log(\Sigma_{mass})$^d^ $\log(\Sigma_{1})$^e^
(J2000) (J2000) ($M_\odot$) (AB mag) (kpc) (kpc) (mag kpc$^{-2})$ $(M_\odot$ kpc$^{-2})$ $(M_\odot$ kpc$^{-2})$
36 338.829468 $ -25.974178$ $ 11.04\pm 0.08$ $ 1.765\pm 0.010$ $ -0.033\pm 0.096$ $ -0.038\pm 0.220$ $ 4.12\pm 0.41$ $ 4.77\pm 0.48$ $ 0.79\pm 0.03$ $ 3.66\pm 0.85$ $ 7.43\pm 1.11$ $ 0.79\pm 0.05$ $ 25.87\pm 0.09$ $ 9.12\pm 0.20$ $ 9.74\pm 0.03 $
61 338.815826 $ -25.971949$ $ 10.44\pm 0.05$ $ 1.359\pm 0.018$ $ -0.540\pm 0.145$ $ -0.386\pm 0.296$ $ 5.16\pm 1.08$ $ 0.61\pm 0.12$ $ 0.69\pm 0.06$ $ 3.64\pm 1.07$ $ 2.54\pm 0.73$ $ 0.52\pm 0.06$ $ 27.23\pm 0.18$ $ 8.52\pm 0.25$ $ 9.13\pm 0.10 $
77 338.818085 $ -25.972015$ $ 10.51\pm 0.08$ $ 1.844\pm 0.037$ $ -1.190\pm 0.154$ $ -0.576\pm 0.309$ $ 5.47\pm 1.48$ $ 0.64\pm 0.17$ $ 0.55\pm 0.06$ $ 3.65\pm 1.12$ $ 1.24\pm 0.42$ $ 0.49\pm 0.08$ $ 27.94\pm 0.23$ $ 8.59\pm 0.27$ $ 9.10\pm 0.14 $
148 338.833374 $ -25.967278$ $ 10.53\pm 0.07$ $ 1.527\pm 0.024$ $ -0.740\pm 0.017$ $ -0.470\pm 0.015$ $ 9.27\pm 3.22$ $ 0.65\pm 0.21$ $ 0.18\pm 0.03$ $ 7.03\pm 3.44$ $ 1.73\pm 0.83$ $ 0.17\pm 0.03$ $ 28.53\pm 0.30$ $ 8.04\pm 0.42$ $ 9.02\pm 0.18 $
159 338.825348 $ -25.968397$ $ 10.30\pm 0.07$ $ 1.259\pm 0.015$ $ -1.199\pm 0.048$ $ -0.719\pm 0.105$ $ 4.09\pm 0.68$ $ 1.20\pm 0.19$ $ 0.64\pm 0.04$ $ 1.97\pm 0.47$ $ 3.42\pm 0.68$ $ 0.73\pm 0.07$ $ 26.93\pm 0.15$ $ 8.91\pm 0.21$ $ 9.31\pm 0.06 $
170 338.836761 $ -25.961046$ $ 11.82\pm 0.07$ $ 1.956\pm 0.009$ $ -0.133\pm 0.038$ $ -0.129\pm 0.094$ $ 24.62\pm 6.62$ $ 4.49\pm 1.18$ $ 0.62\pm 0.07$ $ 8.39\pm 2.56$ $ 3.91\pm 1.31$ $ 0.64\pm 0.10$ $ 28.11\pm 0.23$ $ 9.17\pm 0.26$ $ 10.00\pm 0.21 $
198 338.824432 $ -25.936956$ $ 10.22\pm 0.05$ $ 1.377\pm 0.025$ $ -0.626\pm 0.585$ $ -0.499\pm 0.995$ $ 1.02\pm 0.07$ $ 2.05\pm 0.28$ $ 0.86\pm 0.05$ $ 0.71\pm 0.10$ $ 1.09\pm 0.15$ $ 0.34\pm 0.02$ $ 24.28\pm 0.06$ $ 9.72\pm 0.13$ $ 9.58\pm 0.02 $
220 338.845001 $ -25.940239$ $ 10.82\pm 0.06$ $ 1.694\pm 0.013$ $ -0.482\pm 0.190$ $ -0.342\pm 0.348$ $ 2.34\pm 0.19$ $ 4.91\pm 0.50$ $ 0.71\pm 0.03$ $ 1.53\pm 0.27$ $ 8.64\pm 1.69$ $ 0.37\pm 0.02$ $ 25.09\pm 0.07$ $ 9.65\pm 0.15$ $ 9.98\pm 0.06 $
239 338.824738 $ -25.942131$ $ 10.51\pm 0.06$ $ 1.699\pm 0.018$ $ -0.365\pm 0.314$ $ -0.212\pm 0.587$ $ 1.37\pm 0.10$ $ 4.00\pm 0.43$ $ 0.84\pm 0.03$ $ 0.90\pm 0.15$ $ 8.38\pm 1.72$ $ 0.55\pm 0.04$ $ 24.71\pm 0.06$ $ 9.80\pm 0.14$ $ 9.81\pm 0.04 $
296 338.839996 $ -25.957035$ $ 10.54\pm 0.05$ $ 1.377\pm 0.011$ $ -0.392\pm 0.110$ $ -0.259\pm 0.220$ $ 3.00\pm 0.28$ $ 1.37\pm 0.14$ $ 0.59\pm 0.02$ $ 2.20\pm 0.50$ $ 2.07\pm 0.30$ $ 0.48\pm 0.03$ $ 25.83\pm 0.08$ $ 9.06\pm 0.20$ $ 9.53\pm 0.05 $
308 338.832703 $ -25.957813$ $ 10.89\pm 0.05$ $ 1.360\pm 0.006$ $ -0.426\pm 0.098$ $ -0.310\pm 0.204$ $ 2.99\pm 0.19$ $ 3.99\pm 0.34$ $ 0.79\pm 0.02$ $ 1.50\pm 0.24$ $ 4.40\pm 0.67$ $ 0.72\pm 0.04$ $ 24.93\pm 0.06$ $ 9.74\pm 0.14$ $ 9.92\pm 0.04 $
343 338.840668 $ -25.959299$ $ 10.55\pm 0.08$ $ 1.844\pm 0.022$ $ -0.371\pm 0.558$ $ -0.189\pm 0.887$ $ 1.18\pm 0.07$ $ 2.38\pm 0.24$ $ 0.39\pm 0.01$ $ 1.23\pm 0.18$ $ 0.89\pm 0.15$ $ 0.13\pm 0.02$ $ 24.51\pm 0.05$ $ 9.57\pm 0.13$ $ 9.85\pm 0.03 $
352 338.836304 $ -25.962229$ $ 11.24\pm 0.07$ $ 1.919\pm 0.009$ $ -0.287\pm 0.086$ $ -0.240\pm 0.157$ $ 4.58\pm 0.45$ $ 4.70\pm 0.47$ $ 0.57\pm 0.02$ $ 3.42\pm 0.78$ $ 6.86\pm 1.02$ $ 0.37\pm 0.02$ $ 25.84\pm 0.08$ $ 9.38\pm 0.20$ $ 10.23\pm 0.06 $
357 338.829987 $ -25.959751$ $ 10.33\pm 0.05$ $ 1.436\pm 0.014$ $ 0.117\pm 0.124$ $ 0.105\pm 0.254$ $ 2.38\pm 0.22$ $ 1.19\pm 0.13$ $ 0.40\pm 0.02$ $ 1.92\pm 0.44$ $ 1.78\pm 0.27$ $ 0.26\pm 0.02$ $ 25.96\pm 0.08$ $ 8.96\pm 0.20$ $ 9.47\pm 0.04 $
365 338.833984 $ -25.960121$ $ 10.53\pm 0.08$ $ 1.847\pm 0.021$ $ -0.158\pm 0.612$ $ -0.111\pm 0.964$ $ 1.38\pm 0.10$ $ 3.98\pm 0.47$ $ 0.53\pm 0.02$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $ 24.91\pm 0.06$ $-$ $-$
368 338.837128 $ -25.959915$ $ 10.89\pm 0.08$ $ 1.869\pm 0.013$ $ -0.906\pm 0.184$ $ -0.491\pm 0.401$ $ 2.41\pm 0.24$ $ 5.78\pm 0.61$ $ 0.89\pm 0.03$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $ 25.25\pm 0.09$ $-$ $-$
385 338.837341 $ -25.959743$ $ 10.62\pm 0.08$ $ 1.735\pm 0.013$ $ -0.619\pm 0.213$ $ -0.418\pm 0.356$ $ 1.73\pm 0.11$ $ 3.00\pm 0.28$ $ 0.35\pm 0.01$ $ 1.65\pm 0.27$ $ 1.92\pm 0.31$ $ 0.29\pm 0.02$ $ 24.99\pm 0.06$ $ 9.39\pm 0.14$ $ 9.73\pm 0.04 $
407 338.836243 $ -25.960421$ $ 11.25\pm 0.07$ $ 1.915\pm 0.008$ $ -0.448\pm 0.108$ $ -0.272\pm 0.206$ $ 3.03\pm 0.20$ $ 4.85\pm 0.43$ $ 0.70\pm 0.02$ $ 1.53\pm 0.25$ $ 3.62\pm 0.56$ $ 0.60\pm 0.03$ $ 24.92\pm 0.06$ $ 10.08\pm 0.14$ $ 10.25\pm 0.04 $
433 338.829346 $ -25.964228$ $ 10.95\pm 0.07$ $ 1.915\pm 0.013$ $ -0.299\pm 0.150$ $ -0.193\pm 0.266$ $ 2.76\pm 0.23$ $ 4.10\pm 0.40$ $ 0.70\pm 0.02$ $ 1.72\pm 0.35$ $ 4.29\pm 0.67$ $ 0.55\pm 0.03$ $ 25.47\pm 0.07$ $ 9.68\pm 0.18$ $ 10.00\pm 0.04 $
478 338.853668 $ -25.943596$ $ 11.16\pm 0.07$ $ 1.955\pm 0.013$ $ -0.649\pm 0.099$ $ -0.339\pm 0.225$ $ 5.14\pm 0.67$ $ 5.61\pm 0.69$ $ 0.78\pm 0.03$ $ 2.41\pm 0.46$ $ 5.53\pm 0.75$ $ 0.73\pm 0.04$ $ 26.37\pm 0.11$ $ 9.59\pm 0.16$ $ 10.06\pm 0.05 $
516 338.840942 $ -25.952995$ $ 10.32\pm 0.07$ $ 1.292\pm 0.011$ $ -0.686\pm 0.130$ $ -0.313\pm 0.248$ $ 2.33\pm 0.22$ $ 0.94\pm 0.09$ $ 0.77\pm 0.03$ $ 1.89\pm 0.43$ $ 1.74\pm 0.26$ $ 0.69\pm 0.04$ $ 25.69\pm 0.08$ $ 8.97\pm 0.20$ $ 9.35\pm 0.05 $
534 338.840820 $ -25.953827$ $ 10.26\pm 0.07$ $ 1.527\pm 0.021$ $ -1.536\pm 0.203$ $ -0.924\pm 0.419$ $ 2.51\pm 0.30$ $ 1.08\pm 0.13$ $ 0.84\pm 0.04$ $ 1.25\pm 0.24$ $ 1.67\pm 0.25$ $ 0.64\pm 0.04$ $ 26.37\pm 0.10$ $ 9.27\pm 0.16$ $ 9.39\pm 0.04 $
538 338.831543 $ -25.945869$ $ 10.49\pm 0.06$ $ 1.649\pm 0.018$ $ -0.846\pm 0.296$ $ -0.643\pm 0.566$ $ 1.65\pm 0.14$ $ 5.37\pm 0.63$ $ 0.82\pm 0.03$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $ 25.10\pm 0.07$ $-$ $-$
552 338.838593 $ -25.953201$ $ 10.46\pm 0.05$ $ 1.426\pm 0.026$ $ -0.777\pm 0.092$ $ -0.464\pm 0.217$ $ 6.69\pm 1.80$ $ 0.51\pm 0.14$ $ 0.80\pm 0.09$ $ 5.21\pm 1.59$ $ 0.84\pm 0.28$ $ 0.69\pm 0.11$ $ 27.84\pm 0.23$ $ 8.23\pm 0.26$ $ 8.52\pm 0.16 $
558 338.839447 $ -25.949474$ $ 11.10\pm 0.08$ $ 1.753\pm 0.009$ $ 0.562\pm 0.133$ $ 0.346\pm 0.306$ $ 4.93\pm 0.49$ $ 4.77\pm 0.48$ $ 0.73\pm 0.03$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $ 26.11\pm 0.09$ $-$ $-$
562 338.859161 $ -25.945955$ $ 11.32\pm 0.07$ $ 1.903\pm 0.008$ $ 0.231\pm 0.116$ $ -0.040\pm 0.271$ $ 3.66\pm 0.32$ $ 5.90\pm 0.57$ $ 0.92\pm 0.03$ $ 2.91\pm 0.60$ $ 9.04\pm 1.41$ $ 0.97\pm 0.05$ $ 25.14\pm 0.08$ $ 9.59\pm 0.18$ $ 10.33\pm 0.07 $
571 338.857452 $ -25.946079$ $ 10.35\pm 0.05$ $ 1.480\pm 0.016$ $ 0.194\pm 0.518$ $ 0.097\pm 0.688$ $ 1.16\pm 0.08$ $ 6.44\pm 0.84$ $ 0.68\pm 0.03$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $ 24.42\pm 0.06$ $-$ $-$
576 338.841461 $ -25.949100$ $ 11.01\pm 0.08$ $ 1.803\pm 0.008$ $ -0.417\pm 0.320$ $ -0.252\pm 0.447$ $ 2.18\pm 0.11$ $ 2.97\pm 0.24$ $ 0.36\pm 0.01$ $ 1.47\pm 0.21$ $ 4.13\pm 0.57$ $ 0.21\pm 0.01$ $ 24.62\pm 0.04$ $ 9.88\pm 0.13$ $ 10.20\pm 0.03 $
585 338.856934 $ -25.949547$ $ 10.49\pm 0.08$ $ 1.896\pm 0.023$ $ -0.494\pm 0.483$ $ -0.281\pm 0.762$ $ 1.05\pm 0.06$ $ 2.63\pm 0.28$ $ 0.58\pm 0.03$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $ 24.50\pm 0.05$ $-$ $-$
588 338.830658 $ -25.948841$ $ 10.81\pm 0.08$ $ 1.764\pm 0.015$ $ -0.605\pm 0.035$ $ -0.384\pm 0.084$ $ 5.42\pm 0.91$ $ 1.98\pm 0.31$ $ 0.35\pm 0.02$ $ 3.65\pm 0.86$ $ 2.38\pm 0.47$ $ 0.27\pm 0.03$ $ 27.04\pm 0.15$ $ 8.89\pm 0.21$ $ 9.65\pm 0.07 $
599 338.856018 $ -25.947937$ $ 11.40\pm 0.07$ $ 1.915\pm 0.008$ $ -0.451\pm 0.076$ $ -0.274\pm 0.148$ $ 7.05\pm 0.86$ $ 4.84\pm 0.57$ $ 0.52\pm 0.02$ $ 3.50\pm 0.66$ $ 5.69\pm 0.75$ $ 0.45\pm 0.03$ $ 26.39\pm 0.11$ $ 9.51\pm 0.16$ $ 10.27\pm 0.05 $
611 338.857452 $ -25.949520$ $ 10.47\pm 0.07$ $ 1.276\pm 0.012$ $ 0.324\pm 0.141$ $ 0.280\pm 0.325$ $ 4.70\pm 0.80$ $ 1.95\pm 0.31$ $ 0.83\pm 0.05$ $ 2.77\pm 0.66$ $ 1.14\pm 0.23$ $ 0.93\pm 0.09$ $ 26.84\pm 0.15$ $ 8.78\pm 0.21$ $ 9.03\pm 0.10 $
617 338.858368 $ -25.948902$ $ 10.70\pm 0.07$ $ 1.515\pm 0.016$ $ -0.610\pm 0.094$ $ -0.455\pm 0.193$ $ 6.86\pm 1.47$ $ 2.17\pm 0.44$ $ 0.61\pm 0.05$ $ 2.77\pm 0.82$ $ 4.19\pm 1.23$ $ 0.78\pm 0.09$ $ 27.45\pm 0.19$ $ 9.02\pm 0.26$ $ 9.46\pm 0.10 $
618 338.823639 $ -25.948795$ $ 10.65\pm 0.08$ $ 1.837\pm 0.023$ $ -1.025\pm 0.128$ $ -0.613\pm 0.278$ $ 3.37\pm 0.42$ $ 2.17\pm 0.27$ $ 0.79\pm 0.04$ $ 1.54\pm 0.29$ $ 2.50\pm 0.35$ $ 0.64\pm 0.04$ $ 26.52\pm 0.11$ $ 9.48\pm 0.16$ $ 9.64\pm 0.04 $
637 338.844788 $ -25.951603$ $ 10.69\pm 0.05$ $ 1.486\pm 0.008$ $ -0.325\pm 0.223$ $ -0.273\pm 0.403$ $ 1.46\pm 0.06$ $ 2.58\pm 0.23$ $ 0.82\pm 0.02$ $ 0.70\pm 0.10$ $ 4.86\pm 0.77$ $ 0.80\pm 0.03$ $ 24.07\pm 0.04$ $ 10.20\pm 0.12$ $ 9.97\pm 0.03 $
642 338.842316 $ -25.951626$ $ 10.55\pm 0.08$ $ 1.785\pm 0.019$ $ -0.341\pm 0.289$ $ -0.149\pm 0.445$ $ 1.71\pm 0.14$ $ 1.96\pm 0.20$ $ 0.38\pm 0.02$ $ 1.25\pm 0.25$ $ 1.45\pm 0.23$ $ 0.34\pm 0.02$ $ 25.22\pm 0.07$ $ 9.56\pm 0.18$ $ 9.74\pm 0.03 $
----- ------------ --------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------ --
: Galaxy parameters[]{data-label="tab_para"}
Notes:\
^a^ Total stellar masses are estimated using the $M_{*}/L$-colour relation, the $z_{850}-H_{160}$ aperture colours and the total luminosity $L_{H_{160}}$ from the best-fit Sérsic models.\
^b^ $1''$ aperture magnitudes from SExtractor.\
^c^ Colour gradients $\nabla_{z_{850}-H_{160}}$ and $M_{*}/L$ gradients $\nabla_{\log(M/L)}$ are defined as $d(z_{850} - H_{160}) / d \log(a)$ and $d(\log(M/L)) / d \log(a)$ respectively. The gradient is fitted in the radial range of PSF HWHM $< a < 3.5~a_{e}$.\
^d^ Mean surface brightness $\Sigma$ and mean surface mass density $\Sigma_{mass}$ are defined as mag $+ 2.5 \log(2\pi a_e^{2} )$ and $\log(M_{*}/2\pi a_{e,mass}^{2})$.\
^e^ Mean surface mass density within a radius of 1 kpc $\Sigma_{1}$ is defined as $\log(M_{*} $(<1kpc)$ /\pi $(1kpc)$^{2})$, derived from integrating the fitted 2D mass profiles.\
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Interactive Data Language, Exelis Visual Information Solutions, Boulder, Colourado
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract:
- 'We develop in this paper a method ensuring robustness properties to bang-bang strategies, for general nonlinear control systems. Our main idea is to add bang arcs in the form of needle-like variations of the control. With such bang-bang controls having additional degrees of freedom, steering the control system to some given target amounts to solving an overdetermined nonlinear shooting problem, what we do by developing a least-square approach. In turn, we design a criterion to measure the quality of robustness of the bang-bang strategy, based on the singular values of the end-point mapping, and which we optimize. Our approach thus shows that redundancy implies robustness, and we show how to achieve some compromises in practice, by applying it to the attitude control of a 3d rigid body.'
- 'This study has been performed in the frame of the CNES Launchers Research & Technology program.'
author:
- |
Antoine Olivier [^1] [^2] Thomas Haberkorn [^3] Emmanuel Trélat\
Éric Bourgeois David-Alexis Handschuh [^4]
bibliography:
- 'biblio\_cra.bib'
title: 'Redundancy implies robustness for bang-bang strategies'
---
Introduction
============
Overview of the method {#overview}
----------------------
To introduce the subject, we explain our approach on the control problem consisting of steering the finite-dimensional nonlinear control system $$\label{sys_intro}
\dot x(t) = f(t,x(t),u(t)),$$ from a given $x(0)=x_0$ to the target point $x(t_f)=x_f$, with a scalar control $u$ that can only switch between two values, say $0$ and $1$. The general method, as well as all assumptions, will be written in details in a further section.
Let $E(x_0,t_f,u) = x(t_f)$ be the end-point mapping, where $x(\cdot)$ is the solution of starting at $x(0)=x_0$ and associated with the control $u$. One aims at finding a bang-bang control $u$, defined on $[0,t_f]$ for some final time $t_f>0$, such that $E(x_0,t_f,u) = x_f$.
Many problems impose to implement only bang-bang controls, i.e., controls saturating the constraints but not taking any intermediate value. These are problems where only external actions of the kind on/off can be applied to the system.
Of course, such bang-bang controls can usually be designed by using optimal control theory (see [@lee1967foundations; @pontryagin1987; @Trelat1]). For instance, solving a minimal time control problem, or a minimal $L^1$ norm as in [@Caponigro2015], is in general a good way to design bang-bang control strategies. However, due to their optimality status, such controls often suffer from a lack of robustness with respect to uncertainties, model errors, deviations from the target. Moreover, when the Pontryagin maximum principle yields bang-bang controls, such controls have in general a minimal number of switchings: in dimension $3$ for instance, it is proved in [@Krener; @Kupka; @Schattler] (see also [@BonnardChyba; @Bonnard2005; @Trelat2012] for more details on this issue) that, locally, minimal time trajectories of single-input control-affine systems have generically two switchings. Taking into account the free final time, this makes three degrees of freedom, which is the minimal number to generically make the trajectory reach a target point in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, i.e., to solve three (nonlinear) equations.
In these conditions, a natural idea is to add redundancy to such bang-bang strategies, by enforcing the control to switch more times than necessary. These additional switching times are introduced by *needle-like variations*, as in the classical proof of the Pontryagin maximum principle (see [@lee1967foundations; @pontryagin1987]).
We recall that a needle-like variation $\pi_1=(t_1,\delta t_1,u_1)$ of a given control $u$ is the perturbation $u_{\pi_1}$ of the control $u$ given by $$\label{eq_needle}
u_{\pi_1}(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
u_1 & \textrm{if} & t\in [t_1,t_1+\delta t_1], \\
u(t) & \textrm{otherwise,}&
\end{array}\right.$$ where $t_1\in [0,t_f]$ is the time at which the spike variation is introduced, $\delta t_1$ is a real number of small absolute value that stands for the duration of the variation, and $u_1 \in [0,1]$ is some arbitrary element of the set of values of controls. When $\delta t_1<0$, one replaces the interval $[t_1,t_1+\delta t_1]$ with $[t_1+\delta t_1,t_1]$ in . It is well known that, if $\vert\delta t_1\vert$ is small enough, the control $u_{\pi_1}$ is admissible (that is, the associated trajectory solution of is well-defined on $[0,t_f]$) and generates a trajectory $x_{\pi_1}(\cdot)$, which can be viewed as a perturbation of the nominal trajectory $x(\cdot)$ associated with the control $u$, and which steers the control system to the final point $$\label{eq_var}
E(x_0,t_f,u_{\pi_1}) = E(x_0,t_f,u) + \vert \delta t_1 \vert\, v_{\pi_1}(t_f) + o(\delta t_1),$$ where the so-called variation vector $v_{\pi_1}(\cdot)$ is the solution of some Cauchy problem related to a linearized system along $x(\cdot)$ (see [@lee1967foundations; @pontryagin1987; @Silva2010] and Proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\]). Recall that the *first Pontryagin cone* $K(t_f)$ is the smallest closed convex cone containing all variation vectors $v_{\pi_1}(t_f)$; it serves as a local convex estimate of the set of reachable points at time $t_f$ (with initial point $x_0$).
![Changing the switching times induces a displacement at the final time.[]{data-label="fig_diff_epm"}](diff_epm_ter.pdf)
Assume that the nominal control $u$, which steers the system from $x_0$ to the target point $x_f$, is bang-bang and switches $N$ times between the extreme values $0$ and $1$ over the time interval $[0,t_f]$. We denote by $\mathcal{T} = (t_1, \ldots, t_N)$ the vector consisting of its switching times $0<t_1<\cdots<t_N<t_f$. Then the control $u$ can equivalently be represented by the vector $\mathcal{T}$, provided one makes precise the value of $u(t)$ for $t\in(0,t_1)$. One can also add new switching times: for instance if $u(t)=0$ for $t\in(0,t_1)$, given any $s_1\in(0,t_1)$, the needle-like variation $\pi_1=(s_1,\delta s_1,1)$ (with $\vert\delta s_1\vert$ small enough) is a bang-bang control having two new switching times at $s_1$ and $s_1+\delta s_1$.
In what follows, we designate a bang-bang control either by $u$ or by the set $\mathcal{T}=(t_1, \ldots, t_N)$ of its switching times. This is with a slight abuse because we should also specify the value of $u$ along the first bang arc. But we will be more precise, rigorous and general in a further section. The end-point mapping is then reduced to the switching times, and one has $E(x_0, t_f, \mathcal{T}) = x_f$. A variation $\delta\mathcal{T} = (\delta t_1, \ldots, \delta t_N)$ of the switching times generates $N$ variation vectors $(v_{1}(t_f), \ldots, v_{N}(t_f))$, and the corresponding bang-bang trajectory reaches at time $t_f$ the point (see Figure \[fig\_diff\_epm\], where two variations vectors are displayed, for two switching times $t_1$ and $t_2$) $$E\left(x_0, t_f, \mathcal{T} + \delta\mathcal{T}\right) = x_f + \delta t_1\cdot v_{1}(t_f) + \cdots + \delta t_N \cdot v_{N}(t_f) + \mathrm{o}(\| \delta\mathcal{T} \|) .$$ Therefore the end-point mapping $E$ is differentiable with respect to $\mathcal{T}$, and $$\label{eq_diff_epm_intro}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial\mathcal{T}}(x_0, t_f, \mathcal{T})\cdot \delta\mathcal{T} = \delta t_1\cdot v_{1}(t_f) + \cdots + \delta t_N \cdot v_{N}(t_f) .$$ Notice that compared to , the absolute values disappear. We will prove this result in details further in the paper. In particular, the range of this differential is the first Pontryagin cone $K(t_f)$ (see also [@Silva2010]). Obviously, the more switching times (i.e., degrees of freedom), the more accurate the approximation of the reachable set.
We now add *redundant* switching times $(s_1, \ldots, s_\ell)$ for some $\ell \in \N$ in order to generate more degrees of freedom to solve the control problem $$E\left(x_0,t_f,(t_1, \ldots, t_N, s_1, \ldots, s_\ell)\right) = x_f .$$ We order the times in the increasing order and we still denote by $\mathcal{T}$ the vector of all switching times.
#### Redundancy creates robustness.
We will see further that these redundant switching times contribute to make the trajectory robust to external disturbances or model uncertainties, we will develop a method to tune the switching times in order to absorb these perturbations and steer the system to the desired target $x_f \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
Here, in this still informal introduction, we show how to use the additional switching times to make the system reach targets $x_f+\delta x_f$ in a neighborhood of $x_f$. The idea is to solve the nonlinear system of equations $$E(x_0,t_f,\mathcal{T}+\delta\mathcal{T}) = x_f +\delta x_f .$$ Using , we propose to solve, at the first order, $$\label{eq_rec}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial\mathcal{T}}(x_0, t_f, \mathcal{T})\cdot \delta\mathcal{T} = \delta x_f ,$$ which makes $n$ equations with $N+\ell$ degrees of freedom. We assume that $N+\ell$ is (possibly much) larger than $n$ and that the matrix in is surjective. Then one can solve by using the *Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse* $\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial\mathcal{T}}\right)^{\dagger}$ of $\frac{\partial E}{\partial\mathcal{T}}$ (see [@Golub], or see [@Beutler1; @Beutler2] for a theory in infinite dimension), which yields the solution of minimal Euclidean norm $$\delta\mathcal{T} = \left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial\mathcal{T}}\right)^{\dagger} \cdot \delta x_f ,$$ and we have $$\label{eq_estimate_simple}
\left\| \delta\mathcal{T} \right\|_2 {\leqslant}\frac{\left\| \delta x_f \right\|_2}{\sigma_{min}} ,$$ where $\sigma_{min}$ is the smallest positive singular value of $\frac{\partial E}{\partial\mathcal{T}}$. This estimate gives a natural measure for robustness, that we will generalize.
The two main contributions of this paper are:
- the idea of adding redundant switching times in order to make a nominal bang-bang control more robust, while keeping it as being bang-bang;
- the design of a practical tracking algorithm, consisting of solving an overdetermined nonlinear system by least-squares, thus identifying a robustness criterion that we optimize.
They are developed in a rigorous and general context in the core of the paper.
State of the art on robust control design
-----------------------------------------
There is an immense literature on robust control theory, with many existing methods in order to efficiently control a system subjected to uncertainties and disturbances. Whereas there are many papers on $\mathcal{H}_2$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ methods, except a few contributions in specific contexts, we are not aware of any general theory allowing one to tackle perturbations by using only bang-bang controls. This is the focus of this paper.
Let us however shortly report on robustness methods when one is not bound to design bang-bang controls. In [@Koh:1999], a path-tracking algorithm with bang-bang controls is studied, for a double integrator and a wheeled robot. The technique relies heavily on the expression of the equations and does not apply to more general systems. In [@singh1994], the authors build a robust minimal time control for spacecraft’s attitude maneuvers by canceling the poles of some transfer function. A remarkable fact is that the robustified control presents more switchings than the minimal time control. In this case, the robustness is evaluated as the maximum amplitude on a Bode diagram (see also [@liu1992] and [@liu1993] for similar works). In [@You2000], the authors observe that bang-bang controls are intrinsically not robust, and use pieces of singular trajectories (hence, not bang-bang) to overcome this issue.
In the $\mathcal{H}_2$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ theories, control systems are often written in the frequency domain using the Laplace transform. For a transfer matrix $G(s)$, the two classical measures for performance are (see [@Doyle1989; @zhou1996robust]) the $\mathcal{H}_2$ norm and the $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ norm respectively: $$\left\|G\right\|_{2} = \left(\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int^{+ \infty}_{- \infty}{\text{Trace}(G(j \omega) G(j \omega)^*) d\omega} \right)^{1/2}\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\left\|G\right\|_{\infty} = \sup_{\omega \in {\mathbb{R}}} \overline{\sigma}(G(j \omega)),$$ where $\overline{\sigma}(G)$ is the largest singular value of $G$.
In the linear quadratic theory, the question of optimal tracking has been widely addressed: given a reference trajectory $\xi(\cdot)$, we track it with a solution of some control system $\dot{x}(t) =f(x(t),u(t))$, minimizing a cost of the form $$\int_0^{t_f} \left( \Vert x(t)-\xi(t)\Vert_W^2 + \Vert u(t)\Vert_U^2 \right)\, dt + \Vert x(t_f)-\xi(t_f)\Vert_Q^2 ,$$ with weighted norms (see [@Anderson; @Kwakernaak; @Trelat1]). The first term in the integral measures how close one is to the reference trajectory, the second one measures a $L^2$ norm of the control (energy), and the third one accounts for the distance at final time between the reference trajectory $\xi(\cdot)$ and $x(\cdot)$. Then, the control can be expressed as a feedback function of the error $x(t)-\xi(t)$, involving the solution of some Riccati equation. In [@AndreaNovel2013; @Khalil], the authors investigate the question of stabilizing around a slowly time-varying trajectory. They also introduce uncertainties on the model and study the sensitivity of the system to those uncertainties. In the case of the existence of a delay on the input, a feedback law is proposed. In [@Lin2007; @Tan2009], uncertainties $p$ are introduced in a linear system $\dot{x}(t) = A(p)x(t) + B u(t)$, and a tracking algorithm is suggested, under matching conditions on the uncertainties or not (see also [@Abdallah1991] for a survey on robust control for rigid robots).
In the late 1970’s, $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ control theory developed. The control system is often described by a plant $G$ and a controller $K$. Then, the dependency of the error $z$ (to be minimized) on the input $v$ can be written as $z = F(G,K) v$. The $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ control problem consists of finding the best controller $K$ such that the $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ norm of the matrix $F(G,K)$ is minimized: $\left\|F(G,K) \right\|_{\infty} = \sup_{\omega \in {\mathbb{R}}} \overline{\sigma}(F(G,K)(j \omega))$. It can be interpreted as the maximum gain from the input $v$ to the output $z$. This criterion was introduced in order to deal with uncertainties on the model (on the plant $G$). In [@Zames1981], the author introduced the notion and highlighted the connection with robustness. In [@Doyle1989], a link is shown between the existence of such a controller and conditions on the solutions of two Riccati equations. Following a notion introduced in [@Gahinet1992], the linear matrix inequality (LMI) approach was introduced in [@Gahinet1994], and used in [@apkarian2004; @noll2006] to solve the $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ synthesis. The Riccati equations are replaced with Riccati inequalities, whose set of solutions parameterizes the $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ controllers (see also [@boyd1994] for the use of LMIs in control theory). The papers [@Doyle1981; @McFarlane1992; @Xie1992] present design procedures in this context to elaborate the feedback controller $K$. In [@Ge1996], the theory is extended to systems with parameters uncertainties and state delays, as well as in [@Xu2006], with stochastic uncertainty.
In many optimal control problems, the application of the Pontryagin maximum principle leads to bang-bang control strategies, and the classical $\mathcal{H}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ theories were not designed for such a purpose. But the optimal trajectories are in general not robust. Adding needle-like variations is therefore a way to improve robustness, and is the main motivation of this paper. Of course, the method applies to any bang-bang control strategy, not necessarily optimal.
The approach that we suggest in this paper combines an off-line treatment of the control strategies, with a feedback algorithm based on the structure of the control. We emphasize here that this algorithm preserves the bang-bang structure of the control. It consists of applying a nominal control strategy (that needs to be computed *a priori*), and adjusting it in real time, allowing one to track a nominal trajectory. The off-line method takes a solution of the control problem and makes it more robust by adding additional switching times (i.e., *redundancy*), which can be seen as additional degrees of freedom. Note that our analysis is done in the state space, without needing to consider the frequency domain. A key ingredient to the method is the use of needle-like variations.
Structure of the paper
----------------------
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec2\], we develop an algorithm to steer a perturbed system to the desired final point. The method is similar to the one presented in Section \[overview\], except that we need to consider a backward problem. Indeed, the final point is fixed, and perturbations appear all along the trajectory. Besides, our measure for robustness comes out naturally in view of . Having identified the robustness criterion, we show in Section \[sec3\] how to add redundant switching times, leading one to solve a finite-dimensional nonlinear optimization problem. In Section \[sec4\], we provide some numerical illustrations on the attitude control problem of a 3-dimensional rigid body.
Tracking algorithm {#sec2}
==================
#### Setting.
In this paper, we consider the control system $$\dot{x}(t) = f(t,x(t),u(t)),
\label{dynamics}$$ where $f$ is a smooth function ${\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}^m \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the state $x(\cdot) \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the control $u(\cdot) \in L^{\infty}([0,t_f];\Omega)$, and $\Omega$ is the subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^m$: $[a_1,b_1] \times \cdots \times [a_m,b_m]$. We make two additional hypothesis: the controls we consider are “bang-bang”, with a finite number of switching times:
--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(H_1)$ $\forall i \in \llbracket1,m \rrbracket$, $u_i(t) \in \left\{a_i,b_i\right\}$, a.e.
$(H_2)$ $\forall i \in \llbracket1,m \rrbracket$, $u_i$ does not chatter.
--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A control is chattering when it switches infinitely many times over a compact time interval (see [@zhu2016; @fuller1963]). Therefore, our method does not apply to those controls. However, when the solution of an optimal control problem chatters, provided that it is possible, one could consider a sub-optimal solution, with only a finite number of switching times.
In the context of optimal control, we will denote the cost under the form $$C(u) = \int^{t_f}_0{f^0(t,x(t),u(t))\,dt}.
\label{cost}$$
We recalled in the introduction the (classical) definitions of the end-point mapping, of a needle-like variation (\[eq\_needle\]) and the expansion of the end-point mapping subject to a needle-like variation (\[eq\_var\]).
Reduced end-point mapping {#reduced_epm}
-------------------------
In this subsection, we give the definition of the reduced end-point mapping, and show a differentiability property.
Let us consider a bang-bang control $u(\cdot)$, and its associated trajectory $x(\cdot)$. For the sake of simplicity, we make the additional assumption that for every switching time $t_j$, one and only one component of the control commutes. Therefore, provided we specify the initial value of each component, the control $u$ is entirely characterized by the switching times of its components and can be represented by a vector: $$\left((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(t_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(t_N,i_N\right), t_f \right) \in \Omega \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2N+1},$$ where $u_{i0} \in \{a_i,b_i\}$ is the initial value for the control $u_i(\cdot)$ ($i \in \llbracket1,m\rrbracket)$, $N$ is the total number of switching times, $t_f$ is the final time, and $i_j$ is the component of the control that switches at time $t_j$. As this representation entirely characterizes the control, we will use indistinctly the notation $u$ and $\left((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(t_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(t_N,i_N\right), t_f \right)$ to speak about the control whose components switch at the times $t_j$. In the literature, $\left(\left(t_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(t_N,i_N\right)\right)$ is often called a switching sequence.
Had we wanted to allow simultaneous switching of multiple components, we would need to consider controls represented by: $$\left((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(t_1,\mathcal{I}_1\right), \ldots, \left(t_N,\mathcal{I}_N\right), t_f \right),$$ where $\mathcal{I}_j \subset \llbracket1,m \rrbracket$ represents the set of components that switch at time $t_j$.
We define the *reduced end-point mapping* by $$E(x_0,(u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(t_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(t_N,i_N\right),t_f) = x_u(x_0,t_f),$$ where $u$ is the control represented by $\left((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(t_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(t_N,i_N\right), t_f \right)$, and $x_u(x_0,t_f)$ is the associated state at time $t_f$, starting at $x_0$.
Note that in [@Maurer2005; @Maurer2004], the authors also reduce a bang-bang control to its switching points, in order to formulate an optimization problem in finite-dimension.
In the following, when writing this reduced end-point mapping, we may consider that the initial point $x_0$ is fixed, as well as the way the components of the control switch (i.e., we consider that the N-tuple $(i_1, \ldots, i_N)$ is fixed), the initial values $u_{i0}$ and the final time $t_f$. In this context, we may forget them in the notations, and denote the reduced end-point mapping by $$E(t_1, \ldots, t_N) = x_u(t_f).$$
A remarkable fact is that the reduced end-point-mapping is differentiable. Compared to the expansion with respect to a needle-like variation, the sign of $\delta t$ does not matter. For the sake of completeness, we give the proof in appendix.
\[prop\_differentiability\_epm\] The reduced end-point mapping is differentiable, and $$dE(t_1 , \ldots, t_N) =
\begin{pmatrix}
v_1(t_f) & \cdots & v_N(t_f)
\end{pmatrix}
\in \mathcal{M}_{n,N}({\mathbb{R}}),$$ where $v_j(\cdot)$ ($j \in \llbracket1,N \rrbracket$) is the solution of the Cauchy problem, defined for $t {\geqslant}t_j$: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}_j(t) &= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(t,x(t),u(t))v_j(t) \\
v_j(t_j) &= \left\{
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$f(t_j,x(t_j),(\ldots, a_{i_j}, \ldots)) - f(t_j,x(t_j),u(t_j^+))$ & if $u_{i_j}$ switches from $a_{i_j}$ to $b_{i_j}$. \\
$f(t_j,x(t_j),(\ldots, b_{i_j}, \ldots)) - f(t_j,x(t_j),u(t_j^+))$ & if $u_{i_j}$ switches from $b_{i_j}$ to $a_{i_j}$.
\end{tabular}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ The notation $(\ldots, a_{i_j}, \ldots)$ (resp. $(\ldots, b_{i_j}, \ldots)$) is used to show a difference with $u(t_j^+)$ (resp. $u(t_j^-)$) on the $i_j$-th component only.
\[rq\_affine\] In the special (and important in practice) case of a control-affine system $$\dot{x}(t) = f_0(x(t)) + \sum_{k=1}^m{u_k(t) f_k(x(t))},$$ the initial condition on $v_j$ can be written much more easily: $$v_j(t_j) = \left\{
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$ (a_{i_j} - b_{i_j}) f_{i_j}(x(t_j))$ & if $u_{i_j}$ switches from $a_{i_j}$ to $b_{i_j}$. \\
$(b_{i_j} - a_{i_j}) f_{i_j}(x(t_j))$ & if $u_{i_j}$ switches from $b_{i_j}$ to $a_{i_j}$.
\end{tabular}
\right.$$
Absorbing perturbations {#backward_epm}
-----------------------
As explained in the introduction, we present in this paper a closed-loop method to actually steer the system towards a point $x_f$, with bang-bang controls, even in the presence of perturbations.
First, for the sake of simplicity, we will explain how to control the system to some point $x_f + \delta x_f$. We will see that this idea can be adapted for our purpose of controlling a perturbed trajectory, by simply reversing the time.
#### Perturbations on the final point.
We briefly generalize the problem introduced in the introduction. Let $$\overline{u} = \left((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(\overline{t}_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(\overline{t}_N,i_N\right), t_f \right) \in \Omega \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2N+1}$$ be a control such that $x_{\overline{u}}(t_f) = x_f$. That is, using the definition of Subsection \[reduced\_epm\], we have that $$E(x_0,(u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(\overline{t}_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(\overline{t}_N,i_N\right), t_f) = x_f.$$ Or, considering that the final time $t_f$, the initial point $x_0$, the components $(i_1, \ldots,i_N)$ and the initial values $(u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0})$ are fixed, $$E(\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N) = x_f.$$ Let $\delta x_f$ be some perturbation of the final point $x_f$. We look for a vector $\delta \mathcal{T} = (\delta t_1, \ldots, \delta t_N)$ so that the system reaches the target point $x_f + \delta x_f$: $$E(\overline{t}_1 + \delta t_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N + \delta t_N) = x_f + \delta x_f.$$ As we have shown in Proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\] the differentiability of the reduced end-point mapping, we can write $$E(\overline{t}_1 + \delta t_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N + \delta t_N) = E(\overline{t}_1, \ldots,\overline{t}_N) + dE(\overline{t}_1, \ldots,\overline{t}_N) \cdot \delta \mathcal{T} + o(\| \delta \mathcal{T}\|).$$ At order one, the solution is given by the solution of the linear equation $$dE(\overline{t}_1, \ldots,\overline{t}_N) \cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = \delta x_f.$$ It is natural to target the final point $x_f +\delta x_f$ while shifting the switching times as little as possible. That is, we look for the solution of minimal euclidian norm of the previous equation, which is given by $\delta \mathcal{T} = dE(\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N)^{\dagger} \cdot \delta x_f$.
Therefore, we have shown how to compute, at order one, the correction to apply to control the system to some point $x_f + \delta x_f$: it boils down to solving a least-squares problem. Let us keep in mind that our definitive goal is to control systems that are perturbed all along their trajectory, to a fixed final point $x_f$. In other words, from a perturbed point $x(t) + \delta x(t)$ at some time $t \in [0,t_f)$, we want to absorb the perturbation $\delta x(t)$ and still reach the final point $x_f$. Even if this is a slightly different setting, we show that we can apply the same idea if we look at a *backward problem*.
#### Absorbing a perturbation at time $t$.
Let $(\overline{x}(\cdot),\overline{u}(\cdot))$ be a nominal solution of the control system . We assume that when applying in practice the control $\overline{u} = \overline{\mathcal{T}}$, because of model uncertainties and perturbations, we observe a perturbed trajectory $x_{per}(t) = \overline{x}(t) + \delta x(t)$.
Let $t \in [0,t_f]$. Starting from the perturbed point $\overline{x}(t) + \delta x(t)$, which stands as a new initial point, we want to reach the final point $x_f$ in time $t_f-t$. Hence, we look for a control $\overline{u} + \delta u$ such that $$E(\overline{x}(t) + \delta x(t),\overline{u}+\delta u,t_f-t) = x_f.$$ Assume for a moment that the perturbation of the control $\delta u$ is small in $L^{\infty}$ norm. Then, at least formally, one can write $$E(\overline{x}(t),\overline{u},t_f-t) + \frac{\partial E}{\partial x_0}(\overline{x}(t),\overline{u},t_f-t)\cdot \delta x(t) + \frac{\partial E}{\partial u}(\overline{x}(t),\overline{u},t_f-t)\cdot \delta u + o(\|\delta x(t)\|+\|\delta u\|)= x_f.$$ Therefore, at order one, we look for a solution of the (linear) equation $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial x_0}(\overline{x}(t),\overline{u},t_f-t)\cdot \delta x(t) + \frac{\partial E}{\partial u}(\overline{x}(t),\overline{u},t_f-t)\cdot \delta u = 0.
\label{eq_perturbations}$$
However, we do not want, in this paper, to apply small perturbations in the $L^{\infty}$ norm, as they would not result in bang-bang controls (However, this is similar to what is done while performing a Ricatti procedure to stabilize a system or track a reference trajectory). Nevertheless, reducing the end-point mapping to the switching times enables us to preserve the bang-bang structure: in the formalism previously introduced, we need to solve the nonlinear system of equations $$E(\overline{x}(t) + \delta x(t), \overline{\mathcal{T}} + \delta \mathcal{T}, t_f - t) = x_f.$$
The equation becomes $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial \mathcal{T}}(\overline{x}(t),\overline{\mathcal{T}},t_f-t)\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = - \frac{\partial E}{\partial x_0}(\overline{x}(t),\overline{\mathcal{T}},t_f-t)\cdot \delta x(t),
\label{eq_perturbations_1}$$ where the expression $\partial E / \partial \mathcal{T}$ is given by Proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\].
#### A backward problem.
Solving this equation requires the computation of the partial differential $\partial E/\partial x_0$ at the initial point $\bar{x}(t)$. We will see now that it can be overcome by introducing a backward problem. Of course, the two formulations are equivalent.
Let $u = (t_1, \ldots, t_N)$ be a bang-bang control, and $t \in [0,t_f]$. We define the backward end-point mapping by $$\tilde{E}(t, t_1, \ldots, t_N) = \tilde{x}(t_f - t),$$ where $\tilde{x}(\cdot)$ is the solution to the Cauchy problem $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\tilde{x}}(t) &= -f(t_f - t, \tilde{x}(t),u(t_f - t)), \\
\tilde{x}(0) &= x_f.\end{aligned}$$
Note that for the nominal trajectory $(\overline{x}(\cdot),\overline{u}(\cdot))$, we have that $$\tilde{E}(t, \overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N) = \overline{x}(t).$$ Indeed, we have in this case that $\overline{x}(t) = \tilde{x}(t_f - t)$: if we integrate the nominal system backward, starting from the point $x_f$ during a time period $t_f - t$, we end up at point $\overline{x}(t)$.
Let $t \in [0,t_f]$, and $j$ be the smallest index such that $\overline{t}_j > t$ (with the convention that $j = N+1$ if $t>t_N$). Then, note that $\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_{j-1}$ do not play any role in the computation of $\tilde{E}(t, \overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N)$. The differential of $\tilde{E}$ can be computed with the Proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\]. It is a matrix of size $n \times (N - j + 1)$.
In this context, the problem of adjusting the system back towards $x_f$ writes: at time $t$, find $(t_j, \ldots, t_N)$ such that $$\tilde{E}(t,{t}_1, \ldots, {t}_N) = x_{per}(t).
\label{prob_backward}$$
We see that reversing the time, we place ourselves in the setting previously described of aiming at a perturbed final point. Therefore, we have the following proposition.
At order one in $\delta x$, the solution of minimal norm of the problem is given by $\overline{\mathcal{T}} + \delta \mathcal{T}$, with $$\delta \mathcal{T} = d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})^{\dagger}\cdot \delta x(t),
\label{eq_recalage}$$ where $d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})^{\dagger}$ denotes the pseudo-inverse of $d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})$. Moreover, we have the estimate $$\left\| \delta \mathcal{T} \right\|_2 {\leqslant}\frac{1}{\sigma_{min}(t)} \left\| \delta x(t) \right\|_2,
\label{estimate_deltat}$$ where $\sigma_{min}(t)$ is the smallest positive singular value of $d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})$.
The scheme of the proof has already been exposed previously in the paper. However, we write it extensively here. Let $\delta \mathcal{T} = \mathcal{T} - \overline{\mathcal{T}}$. The problem writes $$\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}} + \delta \mathcal{T}) = x_{per}(t).$$ According to Proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\], the backward end-point mapping is differentiable (and we also know how to compute its derivative), so $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}} + \delta \mathcal{T}) &= \tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}}) + d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} + o(\| \delta \mathcal{T} \|) \\
&= \overline{x}(t) + d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} + o(\| \delta \mathcal{T}\|).\end{aligned}$$ So, at order one, the problem writes $$d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = \delta x(t).
\label{eq_perturbations_2}$$ It is well known (see [@allaire2002algebre] for instance), that the solution of minimal norm of this equation is $\delta \mathcal{T} = d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})^{\dagger}\cdot \delta x(t)$. Besides, let $\sigma_{max}(t) > \cdots > \sigma_{min}(t) > 0$ denote the positive singular values of $d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})$. We have that $\left\| d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})^{\dagger} \right\|_2 = {1}/{\sigma_{min}(t)}$ ($\left\| \cdot \right\|_2$ for a matrix denotes the induced norm corresponding to the euclidean norm), so that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \delta \mathcal{T} \right\|_2&= \left\| d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})^{\dagger}\cdot \delta x (t)\right\|_2 \\
& {\leqslant}\left\| d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})^{\dagger} \right\|_2 \cdot \left\| \delta x (t)\right\|_2 \\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\left\| \delta x (t)\right\|_2}{\sigma_{min}},\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
We have the relation that, for all vector of switching times $\mathcal{T}$ $$E(\tilde{E}(t,\mathcal{T}),\mathcal{T},t_f-t) = x_f.$$ Differentiating this equality with respect to $\mathcal{T}$, we have that, for all $\delta \mathcal{T}$ $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial x_0}(\tilde{E}(t,\mathcal{T}),\mathcal{T},t_f-t)\cdot d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{T})\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} + \frac{\partial E}{\partial \mathcal{T}}(\tilde{E}(t,\mathcal{T}),\mathcal{T},t_f-t)\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = 0.$$ Replacing the second term by its value in , it follows that $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial x_0}(\tilde{E}(t,\mathcal{T}),\mathcal{T},t_f-t)\cdot d\tilde{E}(t,\mathcal{T})\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = \frac{\partial E}{\partial x_0}(\tilde{E}(t,\mathcal{T}),\mathcal{T},t_f-t)\cdot \delta x(t).$$
It is easy to show that $\partial E/\partial x_0$ can be expressed as the resolvent of a linearized system. Therefore, the matrix $\partial E/\partial x_0 $ is invertible, and the equations and are equivalent. But solving only requires to compute the derivative of $\tilde{E}$. This is what we do in the following.
\[rq\_leastsquares\] Note that it might not always be possible to find a solution to the equation $d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{\mathcal{T}})\cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = \delta x(t)$. This may happen for instance if $t > t_{N-n+1}$, i.e., we do not have enough degrees of freedom left to absorb the perturbation $\delta x(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$. However, we can still give a meaning to the equation $d\tilde{E} \cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = \delta x(t)$. We look for a solution of the least-square problem: $$\min_{\delta \mathcal{T} \in {\mathbb{R}}^N} \left\| d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N) \cdot \delta \mathcal{T} - \delta x (t)\right\|^2_2,$$ for which $\delta \mathcal{T} = d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N)^{\dagger} \cdot \delta x(t)$ is still the solution of minimal norm (see [@allaire2002algebre]). We see here emerging the idea that the number of switching times (i.e., degree of freedom) left at time $t$, is going to be an important factor to track the system back towards the final point $x_f$.
#### Numerical algorithm.
At time $t$, Equation provides us with a formula to adjust the control so that the perturbed trajectory eventually reaches $x_f$. But it certainly does not enable us to face perturbations that would happen after time $t$. In order to absorb perturbations all along the trajectory, we suggest the following algorithm: Let $\mathcal{T}$ be an initial control. Given an integer $s$ and a subdivision $0 < \tau_1 < \cdots < \tau_s < t_f$ of the interval $[0,t_f]$, we adjust the control at each $\tau_i$ for all $i \in \llbracket 1,s\rrbracket$. That is, for each $i \in \llbracket 1,s\rrbracket$, we measure the drift $\delta x (\tau_i)= x_{per}(\tau_i) - x_{ref}(\tau_i)$, and compute the differential of the backward end-point mapping $d\tilde{E}(\tau_i,\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N)$. We deduce from that the correction to apply is then $\delta \mathcal{T} = d\tilde{E}(\tau_i,\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N)^{\dagger} \cdot \delta x(\tau_i)$. We then update the control by considering the new vector of switching times $\mathcal{T} + \delta \mathcal{T}$.
\[rq\_interchanging\] When computing the correction $\mathcal{T} + \delta \mathcal{T}$, it may happen that the new switching times are not ordered, i.e., there exists some integer $ j \in \llbracket1,N-1\rrbracket$ such that $t_{j+1} < t_j$. In this case, we consider that the correction is not physically acceptable, and we reject it. (Note that in some cases, we may want to continue the integration of the system even if two switching times are not ordered. In that case, we can always use the last admissible control, where all the switching times are ordered.)
The computation of the differential $d\tilde{E}(t,\overline{t}_1, \ldots, \overline{t}_N)$ is done via the integration of a system of ordinary differential equations, which can be done efficiently and quickly using numerical integrators. However, the size of the system (as well as the time required to compute the pseudo-inverse) directly depends on the number of switching times $N$ and on the state dimension $n$.
Promoting robustness {#sec3}
====================
Intuitively, we want to say that a control is robust whenever the correction $\delta \mathcal{T}$ required to absorb the perturbation $\delta x(t)$ is small. Since we have shown the estimate $\left\| \delta \mathcal{T} \right\|_2 {\leqslant}\left\| \delta x(t) \right\|_2 / \sigma_{min}(t)$, a robust trajectory is then one for which the values of $1/\sigma_{min}(t)$ remain small along the trajectory.
We define the following cost, that we will use to characterize the robustness of a trajectory $$C_r(t_1, \ldots, t_N) = \int^{t_N}_0{\frac{1}{\sigma_{min}(t)^2}\, dt}.
\label{cout_robu}$$
In the previous definition, the upper bound in the integral is $t_N$, because for $t > t_N$, the backward end-point mapping derivative $d\tilde{E}(t,t_1, \ldots,t_N)$ is not defined, and neither is $\sigma_{min}(t)$. For some reason, we may only want to have robustness up until some time $t^{\star} < t_N$. Then the previous definition would become $\int^{t^{\star}}_0{{1}/{\sigma_{min}(t)^2}dt}$.
In this section, we show how the switching times of a trajectory can be chosen to build one that is more robust. We also suggest a new way to design a trajectory, by adding redundant switching times, that give us more degrees of freedom. Note also that we will start from a solution of an *optimal* control problem, because it is of high importance in practice, but the method generally applies when starting from any control, as long as it satisfies the hypothesis $(H_1)$ and $(H_2)$. Starting from an initial control such that $E(t_1, \ldots, t_N) = x_f$, we look for *redundant* switching times $(s_1, \ldots,s_l)$ such that $E(t_1, \ldots, t_N,s_1, \ldots,s_l) = x_f$, while minimizing the cost that accounts for robustness: $$C_r(t_1, \ldots, t_N,s_1, \ldots,s_l).$$
An auxiliary optimization problem
---------------------------------
Let us consider a bang-bang trajectory (satisfying the hypothesis ($H_1$) and ($H_2$)) of the control system , optimal for the cost . That is, $\overline{u} = ((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left(\overline{t}_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left(\overline{t}_N,i_N\right),t_f)$ is an optimal solution of the optimization problem $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\min_{(i_1, \ldots, i_N)} & \min_{(t_1, \ldots,t_N)} & C(t_1, \ldots,t_N). \\
& \text{s.t. } E(t_1, \ldots, t_N) = x_f \\
\end{array}
\label{prob_ini}$$ Let us emphasize the fact that reducing the control to its switching times enables us to reduce a problem in infinite dimension $$\begin{array}{cc}
\min_{u \in L^{\infty}([0,t_f];\Omega)} & C(u) \\
\text{s.t. } E(u) = x_f \\
\end{array}$$ to a finite number of non-linear problems under non-linear constraints in finite dimension, provided we set $N$, as we left aside chattering trajectories.
In order to make the control more robust we suggest to solve the following problem. We fix the components of the control $(i_1, \ldots, i_N)$, and we introduce the cost that accounts for the robustness of a trajectory: $$\begin{array}{cc}
\min_{(t_1, \ldots,t_N)} & \lambda_1 C(t_1, \ldots,t_N) + \lambda_2 C_r(t_1, \ldots,t_N), \\
\text{s.t. } E(t_1, \ldots, t_N) = x_f \\
\end{array}$$ where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are two parameters, chosen to give more or less importance to the different costs. For instance, if $\lambda_1 \gg \lambda_2$, the solution is close to the initial one $(\overline{t}_1, \ldots,\overline{t}_N)$.
Redundancy creates robustness
-----------------------------
Let us consider a control $u = ((u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0}),\left({t}_1,i_1\right), \ldots, \left({t}_N,i_N\right),t_f)$. In order to reduce the optimization space, we will consider in the following subsection that the initial control values $(u_{10}, \ldots,u_{m0})$, the components $(i_1, \ldots, i_N)$ and the final time $t_f$ are fixed, so we will forget them in the notations.
We propose here to go further in order to improve the robustness of the corresponding trajectory. We do so by adding needles to some components of the control. By needle, we mean a short impulse on one of the control. Let us denote by $l$ the number of needles we are willing to add. It means that we look for additional switching times $[(s_1,s_2), \ldots,(s_{2l-1},s_{2l})]$ and components of the control $(j_1, \ldots, j_l)$, so that for all $i \in \llbracket 1,l \rrbracket$, $(s_{2i-1},s_{2i})$ are switching times for the $j_i$-th components of the control (see Figure \[fig\_redundancy\]). It aims at giving us more degrees of freedom while trying to absorb perturbations $\delta x$ by moving the switching times $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}) = (t_1, \ldots, t_N, (s_1,s_2), \ldots,(s_{2l-1},s_{2l}))$. Thus, we are solving the optimization problem $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\min_{(j_1, \ldots,j_l)} & \min_{(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S})} & \lambda_1 C(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}) + \lambda_2 C_r(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}). \\
& \text{s.t. } E(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}) = x_f \\
\end{array}
\label{prob_add_needles}$$
If the original bang-bang control strategy $\bar{u}$ does not come from an optimization process, that is there is no cost $C$ associated with it, we can still consider problem but with $\lambda_1 = 0$.
Let us denote by $\overline{\mathcal{T}}$ the solution of problem , and by $(\mathcal{T}^{\star},\mathcal{S}^{\star})$ the solution of problem . Then, we have that $$C(\overline{\mathcal{T}}) {\leqslant}C(\mathcal{T}^{\star}, \mathcal{S}^{\star}).$$ It means that the solution $(\mathcal{T}^{\star}, \mathcal{S}^{\star})$ is sub-optimal with respect to the initial cost $C$. However, this sub-optimality comes with a gain in terms of robustness. Besides, the loss of optimality (and therefore gain in robustness) can be controlled by the choice of the coefficients $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
This problem is a mixed problem, with integer variables (the components $\left(j_1, \ldots, j_l\right)$), and continuous variables (the switching times $\left(t_1, \ldots, t_N, (s_1,s_2), \ldots,(s_{2l-1},s_{2l})\right)$). However, if the components are fixed, we only have to solve a non-linear problem subject to non-linear constraints in finite dimension $$\begin{array}{cc}
\min_{(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S})} & \lambda_1 C(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}) + \lambda_2 C_r(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}). \\
\text{s.t. } E(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}) = x_f \\
\end{array}
\label{prob_fixed_modes}$$ We used an interior-point algorithm to solve . In [@Antsaklis2000; @Zhu2015], gradient-based algorithms are shown to be effective to solve such problems, when the sequence of indices $\left(j_1, \ldots, j_l\right)$ is fixed. Therefore a “naïve” way to proceed, if $m$ denotes the number of components of the control, is to solve $m^l$ optimization problems, which is extremely costly if $m$ or $l$ is big. A compromise has to be found between the potential benefit in robustness and the computational cost. Such a compromise will however depend on the particular problem at hand, so we do not elaborate too much on this issue and give an example in Section \[sec4\]. Let us cite [@Chyba2008; @Chyba2009], where the authors parametrize an optimal control problem (for the time-minimal and $L^1$ problem) with the switching times of the controls. They simplify its complex structure by fixing the number of switching times, and wonder how many switching times are required to obtain a cost close to the optimal one : the result is striking as 2 or 3 may be enough. However, they know from an *a priori* study the value of the optimal $L^1$ or time-minimal cost, and therefore can stop adding switching times when reaching a given percentage of this optimal value of the criterion. In our problem, we do not know what is the optimal value of the criterion we identified to quantify the robustness of a trajectory. It becomes necessary to find another way to decide how many needles to add.
One could consider tackling directly Problem \[prob\_add\_needles\], a combinatorial optimization problem (which is a class of problem known to be hard to solve). Recent years have seen the development of advanced numerical procedures to deal with the combinatorial nature of those problem at a reasonable computational cost. We give more details on this issue at the end of this section.
Let us make here a remark on the ordering of the switching times. In the vector $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S})$ are stored the switching times ${t}_{i}$ and $s_i$ that represent the control ${u}$. Those swicthing times are not necessarily ordered during or after the optimization process, so let $\mathbb{T} = (\tau_1, \ldots,\tau_{N+2l})$ denote the ordered equivalent to $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S})$. So far, we have made the implicit assumption that when we perform the numerical integration of the system, the switching times are ordered: $\tau_{i+1} - \tau_{i} {\geqslant}0$ for all $i \in \llbracket 0,N+2l-1 \rrbracket$. We recall that our goal is to absorb perturbations $\delta x$. As explained in Subsection \[backward\_epm\], we compute at order one the correction to apply $\delta \mathbb{T} = d{E}(\mathbb{T})^{\dagger}\cdot \delta x$. At this point, we could have that $\mathbb{T} + \delta \mathbb{T}$ does not satisfy this ordering property. Then, we consider that $\mathbb{T} + \delta \mathbb{T}$ is not admissible, and an estimate like would not hold. \[rq\_gap\]
In the following, in order to guarantee that we do not have an interchanging of the switching times (at least for small perturbations), we add an additional constraint whilst elaborating the robustified trajectory $({u}(\cdot),{x}(\cdot))$ at : $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\tau}_{i+1} - {\tau}_i {\geqslant}\eta & \text{for all} & i \in \llbracket 0,N+2l-1 \rrbracket,\\
\end{array}
\label{eq_gap}$$ for some $\eta > 0$, where $\mathbb{T} = (\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_{N+2l})$ denotes the re-ordering of the vector $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S})$. In that way, we ensure that two consecutive switching times ($\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ combined) are at least distant of $\eta$. Thus, if $\delta x$ is small enough, the elements of the vector $\mathbb{T} + d{E}(\mathbb{T})^{\dagger}\cdot \delta x $ remain in ascending order. Besides, such a constraint is often highly justified in practice, for instance if a physical system has to spend some minimum time $\eta$ before it switches to another mode. For example, in Section \[sec4\], the attitude control of a rigid body is studied. In real life, because of robustness issues and mechanical constraints, nozzles on a space launcher have indeed a minimum activation time.
Let $t_f$ denote the final time. If $\eta$ is the minimal time between two switchings in , then the total number of switchings $N + 2l$ has an upper bound of $\lfloor t_f/\eta \rfloor$.
The elaboration of a robust trajectory in can be seen as an optimal control problem of switched-mode dynamical system. A recent survey on switched systems can be found in [@Zhu2015]. This theory deals with control systems where the dynamics can only take a finite number of modes. To determine the command law, one has to determine the switching times, as well as the different modes of the system. If the modes are fixed (in our case, it means that the components $(i_1, \ldots, i_N, j_1, \ldots, j_l)$ are fixed), it is often called a timing-optimization problem ; if not, a scheduling optimization problem. In [@Piccoli1999; @Sussmann2000], necessary conditions are derived, for trajectories of hybrid systems considering a fixed sequence of modes of finite length (in our setting, it corresponds to the Problem ). In [@Ali2014; @Wardi2012], the authors develop numerical algorithms to solve both the timing and the scheduling problems. Their techniques rely heavily on gradient-like methods. However, the latter problem is much more complex because of its discrete nature: indeed the procedure needs to account for both continuous and discrete control variables, and can therefore be seen as a combinatorial optimization problem. Note that the paper [@Ali2014] deals with dwell time constraints. It consists in imposing a threshold $\eta$ between two consecutive switching times which is the constraint we introduced at . Let us also mention other techniques to solve scheduling optimization problems, like zoning algorithms [@Shaikh2005], or relaxation methods, where discrete variables are temporarly relaxed into continuous variables [@Bengea2005].
Numerical results {#sec4}
=================
In order to illustrate the results of Sections \[sec2\] and \[sec3\], we consider the problem of the attitude control of a rigid body. Let $\omega = (\omega_1,\omega_2, \omega_3)$ be the angular velocity of the body with respect to a frame fixed on the body. Introducing the inertia matrix $I$, the Euler’s equation for a rigid body, subjected to torques $(b^1, \ldots, b^m)$, writes: $$I \dot{\omega} = I \omega \wedge \omega + \sum_{k=1}^m {b^k}.$$
In the case when the axes of the body frame are the axes of inertia of the body, the matrix $I$ is diagonal: $I = \operatorname{diag}(I_1,I_2,I_3)$. The controlled Euler’s equations can then be reduced to $$\dot{\omega}(t) = f\left(\omega(t),u(t)\right),$$ where for $1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}m$, $u_k(t) \in \{0,1\}$ almost everywhere, and the function $f$ describing the dynamics writes: $$f(\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3,u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha_1 \omega_2 \omega_3 + \sum^m_{k=1}{b^k_1 u_k} \\
\alpha_2 \omega_1 \omega_3 + \sum^m_{k=1}{b^k_2 u_k} ~,\\
\alpha_3 \omega_1 \omega_2 + \sum^m_{k=1}{b^k_3 u_k} \\
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq_euler}$$ with $\alpha_1 = (I_2 - I_3)/I_1$, $\alpha_2 = (I_3 - I_1)/I_2$ and $\alpha_3 = (I_2 - I_1)/I_3$. This is with a slight abuse in the notations, because we still denote by $b^k$ the normalized vector $(b^k_1/I_1,b^k_2/I_2, b^k_3/I_3)$.
The controllability of such a system has been studied in [@bonnard2006mecanique]. Let us mention here the papers [@Krstic1999; @Outbib1992; @Windeknecht1963], that implement, in the special case of the stabilization of a rigid spacecraft, methods to stabilize the spacecraft towards the point $(0,0,0)$, but once again, the controls used are not bang-bang. Note that is a control-affine system, and therefore, Remark \[rq\_affine\] applies.
In the following, we consider the numerical values $\alpha_1 = 1$, $\alpha_2 = -1$, $\alpha_3 = 1$, $b^1 = [2,1,0.3]$, $b^2 = [-2,-1,-0.3]$, $b^3 = [0,0,1]$ and $b^4 = [0,0,-1]$, and initial and final conditions $x_0 = (0,0,0) $ and $x_f = (0.4,-0.3,0.4)$.
We start by building an optimal trajectory for the $L^1$ cost $\int^{t_f}_0{\sum_{j=1}^4 {|u_j(t)|dt}} + t_f$ (the presence of $t_f$ ensures us not to obtain a trajectory with infinite final time). The resolution of such a problem with a $L^1$ cost can be numerically challenging. Numerical methods in optimal control are often categorized in two categories: direct methods and indirect methods. Whereas direct methods consist in a total discretization of the state and control spaces, indirect methods exploit Pontryagin maximum principle. (see [@Trelat2012] for a survey on numerical methods in optimal control). The aim of the following subsection is to explain briefly the principle of a continuation method.
Computing the nominal trajectory
--------------------------------
The nominal trajectory, optimal for the $L^1$ cost, is computed with a continuation procedure. The idea of such a procedure is to solve first an “easier” problem, and deform it step by step to solve the targeted problem. We introduce the continuation parameter $\lambda \in [0,1]$, and we consider the optimal control problem $(\mathcal{P}_{\lambda})$ of steering the system from $x_0$ to $x_f$, by minimizing the cost $$\lambda \int^{t_f}_0{\sum^4_{i=1}{|u_j(t)|^2\, dt}} + (1-\lambda) \int^{t_f}_0{\sum^4_{i=1}{|u_j(t)|\, dt}} + t_f.$$ When $\lambda = 0$, we recognize our problem. For some $\lambda \in [0,1]$, solving problem $(\mathcal{P}_{\lambda})$ is done by finding the zeros of a shooting function that results from the application of Pontryagin maximum principle. Solving a shooting problem is done with Newton like methods. Such methods are highly sensitive to their initialization, that can be very difficult, especially in the case of the minimization of the $L^1$ norm $\int^{t_f}_0{|u(t)|dt}$. The continuation procedure is introduced to overcome this difficulty.
For $\lambda=1$, the cost is stricly convex in the controls, and writes $$\int^{t_f}_0{\sum^4_{i=1}{|u_j(t)|^2\, dt}} + t_f,$$ for which the initialization of the induced shooting method is much easier. Therefore, we solve a sequence of optimal control problems, for values of $\lambda$ decreasing from 1 to 0. The result of the shooting problem for some $\lambda \in ]0,1]$ serves as the initialization of another problem with $\lambda' < \lambda$.
Robustifying the nominal trajectory
-----------------------------------
From this $L^1$ - minimal trajectory, represented on Figure \[fig\_add\_needles\], with three switching times that we denote $(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ we build a new trajectory by solving the problem with 3 needles (i.e., $l=3$), $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and taking $\eta = 0.05$ in Equation . As explained in Remark \[rq\_leastsquares\], we see that it is worthwile to have the additional switching times available as long as possible. That is, we force the additional switchings to occur after $t_3$. Keeping in mind Equation , this constraint can be written: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
t_{i+1} - t_i {\geqslant}\eta~~ (\forall i \in \llbracket1,3\rrbracket) ,& s_{1}-t_{3} {\geqslant}\eta ,& s_{i+1} - s_i {\geqslant}\eta~~ (\forall i \in \llbracket1,6\rrbracket).
\end{array}$$ We find that the optimal triplet is $(j_1,j_2,j_3) = (1,4,2)$, for which we have $C = 0.77$ and $C_{r} = 2.22$. We found this optimal triplet by exploring the $4^3 = 64$ possibilities. We then used the heuristic that this solution would make a good choice to start looking for the solution with 4 needles (as it would have been to costly to examine the $4^4 = 256$ possibilities). However we could not make the cost dicrease significantly (the best cost we found was $C_r = 2.07$). This heuristic is very similar to what is used in Branch and Bound methods. Besides, as an element of comparison, the optimal couple when adding only two needles is $(j_1,j_2) = (1,4)$, for which $C_r = 4.25$, and the optimal solution when adding only on needle is $j_1 = 2$, for which $C_r = 30.28$. Thus, we notice a substantial improvement when increasing the number of needles from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3, whereas it seems less profitable to add a fourth one. We therefore stopped at 3 needles. The controls are displayed on Figure \[fig\_add\_needles\], and the components 1, 2 and 4, on which needles have been added, are represented in red.
In order to represent perturbations, we consider that the principal moments of inertia can vary, causing the coefficients $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3$ to vary. Thus we consider the perturbed dynamics $$f_{per}(t,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3,u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha^{per,\varepsilon}_1(t) \omega_2 \omega_3 + \sum^m_{k=1}{b^k_1 u_k} \\
\alpha^{per,\varepsilon}_2(t) \omega_1 \omega_3 + \sum^m_{k=1}{b^k_2 u_k}~, \\
\alpha^{per,\varepsilon}_3(t) \omega_1 \omega_2 + \sum^m_{k=1}{b^k_3 u_k} \\
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq_euler_per}$$ so that $\varepsilon$ models the size of the perturbation. More precisely, we take $\alpha_i^{per,\varepsilon}(t) = \alpha_i + \varepsilon h_i(t)$, where $h_i(\cdot)$ is some periodic function satisfying $\left\| h_i \right\|_{\infty} {\leqslant}1$ (note that the exact expression of $h_i$ is not relevant here, as it is supposed to model any perturbation of the $\alpha_i$). We denote by $x_{per}$ the solution of the Cauchy problem $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t) &= f_{per}(t,x(t),u(t)), \\
x(0) &= x_0.\end{aligned}$$
We denote by $x_{cor}$ the corrected trajectory computed with our algorithm. We show, on Figure \[fig\_tracking\], the three trajectories, for $\varepsilon = 0.78$ and a cost $C_{r} = 2.22$. We can see the perturbed trajectory $x_{per}$ drifting away from the reference trajectory $x_{ref}$ and away from the final point $x_f$, whereas the corrected trajectory $x_{cor}$ eventually reaches a point very close to $x_f$. Actually, for the trajectories represented on Figure \[fig\_tracking\], we have that $\left\| x_{cor}(t_f) - x_f \right\| / \left\|x_f\right\| = 5.5 \times 10^{-3}$, whereas $\left\| x_{per}(t_f) - x_f \right\| / \left\|x_f\right\| = 1.3 \times 10^{-1}$. Our algorithm has indeed been able to adjust the perturbed trajectory back towards $x_f$.
One may wonder how this method behaves with respect to the choice of $\varepsilon$. As explained in Remark \[rq\_interchanging\], we stop if two switching times are interchanged, that is, if $\delta T$ is too big, as the initial vector of switching times satisfies a gap property . Actually, this is not strictly true, as we could have a “big” correction that does not change the ascending order of the switching times, for instance if we shift all the switching times in the same direction. However, we experimentally notice that the cost $C_{r}$ *has an impact on the size of the perturbation we are able to absorb*.
We build several trajectories, for which we apply our algorithm for increasing values of $\varepsilon$, until the algorithm fails as explained in Remark \[rq\_interchanging\], for some $\varepsilon_{\max}$. We plot on Figure \[fig\_size\_perturbations\] the value of $\varepsilon_{\max}$ with respect to the cost $C_{r}$ (that is, for a given cost $C_r$, $\varepsilon_{max}$ is the smallest value for which there is an interchanging of switching times). Even if the curve is not decreasing (for the reason explained above), we can see that *having a low cost $C_{r}$ enables us to absorb bigger perturbations*.
![Size of the maximal perturbation absorbed with respect to the robustness of a trajectory[]{data-label="fig_size_perturbations"}](size_disruptions.pdf)
![Reference, perturbed and corrected trajectories for $\varepsilon = 0.78$, $C_{r} = 2.22$.[]{data-label="fig_tracking"}](tracking.pdf)
On Figure \[fig\_tracking\_results\], we show the relative error $\|x(t_f)-x_f\|/\|x_f\|$ for the perturbed $x_{per}$ and corrected $x_{cor}$ trajectories, for several values of $\varepsilon$. As we apply order one corrections, we see that our method shows better results for small values of $\varepsilon$, but also gives very satisfactory results for larger values of $\varepsilon$.
![Tracking results for several values of $\varepsilon$.[]{data-label="fig_tracking_results"}](tracking_results.pdf)
Conclusion
==========
Starting with the expansion of the end-point mapping with respect to a needle like variation, we have shown in this paper how redundant switching times can be added in order to make a control more robust, for general control systems of the form $\dot{x}(t) = f(t,x(t),u(t))$. Those additional switching times can be seen as extra degrees of freedom meant to help us absorb perturbations. A potential application is to start from a bang-bang solution of an optimal control problem, that is usually not robust, and make it more robust. Then the gain in robustness compensates for the loss in optimality.
In the presence of a perturbation $\delta x$, the correction to apply to the switching times is the solution of an equation $dE \cdot \delta \mathcal{T} = \delta x$. It is natural to try to solve this equation while shifting the switching times as little as possible. The least-squares problem formulation is then the appropriate setting to find the solution of minimal (euclidian) norm of the previous equation, and it is given by $\delta \mathcal{T} = dE^{\dagger} \cdot \delta x$, for which we have the norm estimation $\left\| \delta \mathcal{T} \right\|_2 {\leqslant}\left\| \delta x \right\|_2/\sigma_{min}$. This enabled us to identify the measure for robustness: $$\int{\frac{1}{\sigma_{min}(t)^2}\, dt}.$$
The numerical example studied in Section \[sec4\] is academic, and was used to legitimize the theoretical ideas explained previously. In a future work, we aim at applying the method to the complete (and more complex) attitude control system of a three-dimensional rigid body, for which we wish to control the angular velocity, as well as the orientation with respect to a fixed reference frame. To the three velocity variables will be added three angles to parametrize the orientation of the body. Thus, a challenge will come from the dimension of the state space (6), as well as the potentially bigger number of needle-like variations required to robustify a trajectory.
Proof of proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\]
=====================================================
In order to prove the differentiability of the end-point mapping, we start with the differentiability with respect to one component. The proof relies heavily on the expansion , that we recall first.
\[lemme\_aiguilles\] Let $t_1 \in [0,t_f[$, and let $u_{\pi_1}(\cdot)$ be a needle-like variation of $u(\cdot)$, with $\pi_1=(t_1,\delta t_1,u_1)$. Then $$x_{\pi_1}(t_f) = {x}(t_f) + \left| \delta t_1 \right| v_{\pi_1}(t_f) + \mathrm{o}(\delta t_1),$$ where $v_{\pi_1}(\cdot)$ is the solution of a Cauchy problem on $[t_1,t_f]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}_{\pi_1}(t) & = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(t, {x}(t), {u}(t))v_{\pi_1}(t),\\
v_{\pi_1}(t_1) & = f(t_1, {x}(t_1),u_1) - f(t_1, {x}(t_1), {u}(t_1)).\end{aligned}$$
We denote by $u$ the control $(t_1, \ldots, t_N,t_f)$ and $x(\cdot)$ the associated trajectory of the control system. Let $\delta t_1 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ be small enough. Then $$E(t_1+\delta t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_N, t_f) = E(t_1, \ldots, t_N, t_f) + \delta t_1 \cdot v_1(t_f) + o(\delta t_1),$$ where $v_1(\cdot)$ is the solution of the Cauchy problem on $[t_1,t_f]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}_1(t) &= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(t,x(t),u(t))v_i(t), \\
v_1(t_1) &= \left\{
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$f(t_1,x(t_1),(\ldots, a_{i_1}, \ldots)) - f(t_1,x(t_1),u(t_1^+))$ & if $u_{i_1}$ switches from $a_{i_1}$ to $b_{i_1}$. \\
$f(t_1,x(t_1),(\ldots, b_{i_1}, \ldots)) - f(t_1,x(t_1),u(t_1^-))$ & if $u_{i_1}$ switches from $b_{i_1}$ to $a_{i_1}$.
\end{tabular}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that at time $t_1$ the control $u_{i_1}$ switches from $a_{i_1}$ to $b_{i_1}$, and that $\delta t_1 > 0$. Let us define the needle-like variation $\pi = (t_1,\delta t_1, a_{i_1})$ for the $i_1$-th component of the control. Then, the control $u_{\pi}$ is represented by the vector $(t_1+\delta t_1, \ldots, t_N, t_f)$ (figure \[aiguille\_demo\]): adding the needle-like variation $\pi$ to the $i_1$-th component, with value $a_{i_1}$ and length $\delta t_1$ is equivalent to shifting the opening time to $t_1+\delta t_1$. Thus, we have that $u(t_1^+)_{i_1} = b_{i_1}$ and $u_{\pi}(t_1^+)_{i_1} = a_{i_1}$. Hence, we obtain that, according to lemma \[lemme\_aiguilles\] $$\label{var_pos}
x_{\pi}(t_f) = x(t_f) + \delta t_1 \cdot v_1(t_f) + o(\delta t_1),$$ where $v_1(\cdot)$ is the solution of the Cauchy problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}_1(t) &= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(t,x(t),u(t))v_1(t), \\
v_1(t_1) &= f(t_1,x(t_1),u_{\pi}(t_1^+)) - f(t_1,x(t_1),u(t_1^+)) \\
&= f(t_1,x(t_1), (\ldots, a_{i_1}, \ldots)) - f(t_1,x(t_1), (\ldots, b_{i_1}, \ldots)).\end{aligned}$$ (Between $u_{\pi}(t_1^+)$ and $u(t_1^+)$, only the $i_1$-th component differs.)
If $\delta t_1 <0$, define the variation $\pi = (t_1,\delta t_1, 1)$ for the $i_1$-th component of the control. Then again, the control $u_{\pi}$ is represented by the vector $(t_1+\delta t_1, \ldots, t_N, t_f)$ (figure \[aiguille\_demo\]). Thus, we have that $u(t_1^-)_j = a_{i_1}$ and $u_{\pi}(t_1^-)_{i_1} = 1$. Thanks to lemma \[lemme\_aiguilles\], we obtain that $$\label{var_neg}
x_{\pi}(t_f) = x(t_f) - \delta t_1 \cdot w_1(t_f) + o(\delta t_1),$$ where $w_1(\cdot)$ is the solution of the Cauchy problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{w}_1(t) &= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(t,x(t),u(t))w_1(t), \\
w_1(t_1) &= f(t_1,x(t_1),u_{\pi}(t_1^-)) - f(t_1,x(t_1),u(t_1^-)) \\
&= f(t_1,x(t_1), (\ldots, b_{i_1}, \ldots)) - f(t_1,x(t_1), (\ldots, a_{i_1}, \ldots)) \\
&= -v_1(t_1).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by uniqueness we have $w_1 = -v_1$, and from and , we obtain: $$x_{\pi}(t_f) = x(t_f) + \delta t_1 \cdot v_1(t_f) + o(\delta t_1).$$
We can proceed the exact same way if at $t_1$, the control $u_{i_1}$ switches from $b_{i_1}$ to $a_{i_1}$
The general result at proposition \[prop\_differentiability\_epm\] follows by an immediate iteration.
[^1]: Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS UMR 7598, Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, F-75005, Paris, France.
[^2]: CNES, Direction des lanceurs, 52 rue Jacques Hillairet, 75612 Paris cedex, France.
[^3]: Université d’Orléans, Laboratoire MAPMO, Rue de Chartres, B. P. 6759 - 45067 Orléans cedex 2, France.
[^4]: e-mail: <[email protected]> (corresponding author), <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Hybrid-ARQ protocols have become common in many packet transmission systems due to their incorporation in various standards. Hybrid-ARQ combines the normal automatic repeat request (ARQ) method with error correction codes to increase reliability and throughput. In this paper, we look at improving upon this performance using feedback information from the destination, in particular, using a powerful forward error correction (FEC) code in conjunction with a proposed linear feedback code for the Rayleigh block fading channels. The new hybrid-ARQ scheme is initially developed for full received packet feedback in a point-to-point link. It is then extended to various different multiple-antenna scenarios (MISO/MIMO) with varying amounts of packet feedback information. Simulations illustrate gains in throughput.'
author:
- 'Mayur Agrawal, Zachary Chance, David J. Love, and Venkataramanan Balakrishnan'
bibliography:
- 'ARQ.bib'
title: 'Using Channel Output Feedback to Increase Throughput in Hybrid-ARQ [^1]'
---
hybrid-ARQ, additive Gaussian noise channels, channel output feedback, MIMO fading channel, concatenated coding
Introduction
============
The tremendous growth in demand for throughput in wireless networks warrants new design principles for coding information at the lower layers. In recent years, packet-based hybrid automatic repeat request (ARQ), which integrates forward error correction (FEC) coding with the traditional automatic repeat request protocol, has sparked much interest. Any hybrid-ARQ scheme includes the transmission of an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative-acknowledgement (NACK) from the destination to the source. Although not normally viewed this way, the feedback of ACK/NACK can be seen as a form of *channel output information (COI)* indicating to the source the ‘quality’ of the channel output. Exploiting the full potential of COI at the source for hybrid-ARQ schemes, however, has not been explored in the literature. In fact most of the discussion about feedback in wireless systems has been limited to the use of *channel state information (CSI)* at the source [@love2; @SuMa06; @SaDi06].
Research since the 1960s [@Schal1; @Schal2; @butman] has long established the utility of using COI at the source to increase reliability in additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channels. The gain in reliability scales very fast in blocklength and relies on simple, linear coding schemes. These schemes achieve a doubly exponential decay in the probability of error as a function of the number of packet retransmissions; this is in stark contrast to open loop systems (without COI) that can achieve only singly exponential decay in the probability of error. Most of the the literature for COI assumes an information-theoretic perspective for analysis. In this work, however, we take a more signal processing approach to COI. In particular, we explore the efficacy of including COI to increase the throughput of a practical hybrid-ARQ scheme.
As is commonly done in hybrid-ARQ literature, we assume that the transmissions will take place over a *block fading channel* where the fading characteristics of the channel are assumed to be constant over the transmission of a packet (e.g., [@Caire1; @Caire3; @Caire; @4; @Love1]). In the context of this channel, there will be two main types of side-information that we consider to be available at the source: CSI and COI. CSI is commonly known as a complex-valued quantity that represents the spatial alignment of the channel. This can be either outdated, where the source has access to outdated values of CSI (i.e., the channel states for previous blocks), or current, where the source has access to the present value of CSI (i.e., the channel state for the current block). Outdated CSI is commonly obtained through feedback techniques from the destination. Current CSI can be obtained through numerous methods such as exploiting channel reciprocity through time division duplexing. In fact, most recent standards [@bruno] and technologies like multi-user MIMO, network MIMO, and OFDM incur major penalties in performance without the availability of current CSI [@SpPe04; @StBa04; @PaDa08]. The most common form of COI is simply the past received packet at the destination; we will be using this definition as the destination incurs no processing before feeding back the received packet. The main focus of the paper will be the integration of COI in to a hybrid-ARQ framework.
Hybrid-ARQ improves the reliability of the transmission link by jointly encoding or decoding the information symbols across multiple received packets. Specifically, there are three ways [@Lin] in which hybrid-ARQ schemes are implemented:
- *Type I*: Packets are encoded using a fixed-rate FEC code, and both information and parity symbols are sent to the destination. In the event that the destination is not able to decode the packet, it rejects (NACK) the current transmission and requests the retransmission of the same packet from the source. Subsequent retransmissions from the source are merely a repetition of the first transmission.
- *Type II*: In this case, the destination has a buffer to store previous unsuccessfully transmitted packets. The first packet sent consists of the FEC code and each subsequent retransmission consists of only the parity bits (*incremental redundancy*) to help the receiver at the destination jointly decode across many retransmissions of the same packet.
- *Type III*: This method is similar to Type II with one major difference. In Type III, every retransmission is self decodable, e.g., *Chase combining*[@Chase1]. Therefore the destination has the flexibility to either combine the current retransmission with all the previously received retransmissions or use only the current packet for decoding.
The first mention of hybrid-ARQ techniques can be traced back to papers from the 1960s (e.g., [@WozHor2]). However, most attention to this protocol has been given during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Throughput and delay analyses were done for the Gaussian collision channel in [@Caire1; @Caire2; @Caire3; @Caire4]. These topics were also investigated for wireless multicast in [@Love1] and for block fading channels with modulation constraints in [@Val]. The hybrid-ARQ technique has been looked at when using many different types of FEC codes including turbo codes [@Jung; @Rowitch; @Aci], convolutional codes [@Caire3; @Hag], LDPC codes [@Caire4; @Ha], and Raptor codes [@Varn; @Lee]. The performance analysis of a hybrid-ARQ scheme with CSI[@SuMa06; @SaDi06; @SuDi06; @SuDi07; @KiKa09] and without CSI at the source[@AsPo10] has also been studied in the literature. In addition, different ways to utilize the feedback channel have been investigated in [@Matsu; @Shea].
In this work, however, we explore the advantages of combining conventional CSI feedback *with COI feedback*. As we noted earlier, the potential of COI feedback in hybrid-ARQ has not been properly explored. The method we introduce is a variation of Type III hybrid-ARQ scheme that incorporates the use of COI feedback. In the event that no COI feedback is available, our proposed scheme simply reduces to the regular Chase combining in which packets are repeated for retransmission and the destination combines the received packets using *maximum ratio combining* (MRC). However when COI feedback is available, we look at implementing a linear feedback code that is a generalization of Chase combining to increase the performance of the packet transmission system. A linear feedback code is simply a transmission scheme in which the transmit value is a strictly linear function of the message to be sent and the feedback side-information [@ZaDa11]. We show that such codes provide advantages over merely repeating the last packet, while offering simpler analysis and implementation than conventional Type II incremental redundancy codes.
A relevant concern for the implementation of COI feedback techniques is practicality as it requires (possibly) sending large amounts of data from the destination back to the source. However, we hope to address these concerns by first studying the ideal scenarios (i.e., perfect COI feedback by feeding back the full received packet) to illustrate what is *theoretically* possible and then extend these results to limited-resource cases (i.e., noisy COI feedback and feeding back only parts of the received packet). This allows us to establish a trade-off in performance to allow for practical limitations on the system. Furthermore, COI feedback techniques can be especially beneficial when there is link asymmetry between the source and the destination. In other words, the situations in which the reverse link can support much higher rates than the forward link.
To accommodate the use of multiple-input single-output (MISO) and multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems, we first construct the proposed scheme for the simplest case of single-input single-output (SISO) transmission and then extend the scheme to the case with multiple transmit antennas. Specifically, the scheme is adapted for use with MISO and MIMO when current CSI is available at the source and either perfect or noisy COI feedback is available. It is also adapted for MIMO when perfect COI and only outdated CSI is available at the source.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:sm\], a brief high-level description of hybrid-ARQ is given to motivate the investigation into using more feedback in a packet retransmission scheme. In Section \[sec:lfc\], the feedback scheme to be integrated into a hybrid-ARQ protocol is introduced for SISO systems. We begin the section by describing the encoding process. It is followed by a discussion of decoding; this involves two different cases - systems with noiseless COI feedback and systems with noisy COI feedback. In Section \[sec:mas\], the SISO scheme is extended to various multiple antenna scenarios. In Section \[sec:harq\], the overall hybrid-ARQ system is discussed in detail where now the COI feedback schemes created are integrated as a generalization of Chase combining. Schemes that vary the amount of COI feedback being sent to the source are also discussed. In Section \[sec:sim\], throughput simulations are given to illustrate the performance of the proposed hybrid-ARQ scheme versus other commonly used hybrid-ARQ schemes such as [@HSDPA] and traditional Chase combining. Note that our comparison is with the incremental redundancy ARQ scheme in [@HSDPA] (not the standardized system in general). It is not our intention to assume the same conditions present in the transport channels as the ones discussed in [@HSDPA].
Notation: {#notation .unnumbered}
---------
The vectors (matrices) are represented by lower (upper) boldface letters while scalars are represented by lower italicized letters. The operators $(\cdot)^T,
(\cdot)^*, \textrm{tr}(\cdot)$, and $\lVert \cdot \rVert$ denote the transpose, conjugate transpose, trace, and Euclidean norm of a matrix/vector respectively. The expectation of a random variable or matrix/vector is denoted by $E[\cdot]$. The boldface letter $\bI$ represents the identity matrix.
System Model {#sec:sm}
============
Consider using the SISO hybrid-ARQ transmission system in Fig. \[hybrid\] where there is one antenna available at the source and the destination. The goal of the transmission scheme is to successfully send the binary information packet, $\bm \in GF(2)^{L_{\rm{info}}}$, to the destination over a maximum of $N$ packet retransmissions. $GF(2)$ denotes the Galois field with just two elements $\{0,1\}$, and $L_{\rm{info}}$ denotes the total number of information bits. Transmission is accomplished by first encoding the information packet using a rate $L_{\rm{info}}/L_{\rm{coded}}~(\textrm{where } L_{\rm{info}} \leq
L_{\rm{coded}})$ FEC code, producing a binary codeword of length $L_{\rm{coded}}$ referred to as $\bc \in GF(2)^{L_{\rm{coded}}}$. The codeword is then modulated using a source constellation $\Theta[N]$ (e.g., QAM, QPSK, etc.) to create a length $L$ packet of modulation symbols called $\btheta \in
\mathbb{C}^{1\times L}$. Note that the source constellation $\Theta[N]$ is a function of the maximum number of transmissions $N$. If $N$ is large for a fixed $L$ (i.e., $L/N$ is small), we may decide to choose a denser constellation to achieve higher throughput. This is then processed by a packet encoder that encapsulates most of the hybrid-ARQ process. At this stage, the modulated symbols are further encoded to generate the transmitted signal $\bx[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{1 \times L}$. It is worthwhile to contrast that $\btheta$ is the packet of desired information symbols and the entries of $\bx[k]$ are the actual signals sent at each channel use to convey that information to the destination. Note that some quantities have a retransmission index, $k$, which refers to time on the packet level (i.e., for each $k$ a length $L$ signal, $\bx[k]$, is transmitted). Furthermore, the transmit vector is constrained by the power constraint at the source given by $$\label{pow_const}
E\left[|\bx[k]|^2\right] \leq L\rho, \quad k =
1,\ldots, N,$$ where, as mentioned, $N$ is the maximum number of retransmissions allowed and $\rho > 0$ is the average power per channel use.
\
At the destination, the $k^{th}$ retransmission received signal, $\by[k] \in
\mathbb{C}^{1 \times L}$, is obtained. Using this setup, $\by[k]$ can be written as $$\label{sys1}
\by[k] = h[k]\bx[k] + \bz[k], \quad 1 \leq k \leq N,$$ where $\bz[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{1\times L}$ is additive noise whose entries are i.i.d. complex Gaussian such that $\bz[k] \sim \cC\cN(0,\bI)$, and $h[k] \in \mathbb{C}$ is a zero-mean complex Gaussian random variable with unit variance. Therefore, we assume that the retransmission takes place across a Rayleigh block fading channel with blocklength $L$. Note that $\bx, \by,$ and $\bz$ have been defined as row vectors; this is to aid the later extension of the scheme to a MISO/MIMO setting. After retransmission $k$, the received packet is combined using all previously received packets to create an estimate of the original modulated information packet, $\widehat{\btheta}[k]$. The combining stage, in Chase combining for example, combines all the received realizations for a given symbol using MRC. Improving upon the encoding and combining steps using COI forms the main thrust of this paper; this will be discussed in detail in the next section. It is worth pointing out that the incorporation of COI feedback into the hybrid-ARQ scheme is being implemented at the physical layer. After combining at the destination, the packet is then demodulated using either soft or hard decoding methods and then passed to the FEC decoder which then outputs a final estimate of the original information packet, $\widehat{\bm}[k]$.
It is important to note that a feedback channel is present between the destination and the source. In fact, for any ARQ protocol, a feedback channel is necessary so the destination can send back an ACK/NACK signal. In our setup, we assume that:
- The destination does not only send back ACK/NACK information but also feeds back CSI which could be outdated, current, or quantized.
- The destination can feed back the COI for the packet to the source where *COI feedback* is simply the destination feeding back exactly (or a subset of) what it has received. This is discussed further in Section V.
Explicitly, the causal COI at the source is equivalent to the source having access to the past values of $\by[k]$. However, since *noisy COI feedback* is also investigated, we introduce a feedback noise process $\bn[k]$ (see Fig. \[hybrid\]) so that the source now only has access to past values of $\by[k] + \bn[k]$. Note that the source might have access to all or only some of the entries in $\by[k] + \bn[k]$ based on how much COI is being fed back. Furthermore, the source can subtract out what it sent due to the availability of $h[k]$. Therefore, this is analogous to having access to past values of $\bz[k] + \bn[k]$. The feedback noise, $\bn[k]$, is assumed to be complex AWGN such that $\bn[k] \sim
\cC\cN(0,\sigma^2\bI)$ and also independent of the forward noise process, $\bz[k]$. Note that setting $\sigma^2 = 0$ yields *perfect COI feedback* as a special case.
Linear Feedback Combining {#sec:lfc}
=========================
We now narrow our focus to the packet encoding/combining steps of the hybrid-ARQ system; the full system including the FEC will be considered in Section V. Specifically, we consider employing COI feedback to better refine the destination’s packet estimate $\widehat{\btheta}[k]$ after each retransmission. Improving the quality of the estimate will lead to fewer decoding errors and higher throughput. To begin, we look at the most straightforward setup of SISO, where the source and destination each have one antenna and outdated CSI along with causal COI, whether it be noisy or perfect. The scheme will be extended for use with multiple antenna scenarios and the effects of varying the CSI feedback will be discussed in Section IV.
Overview
--------
To construct the new transmission strategy, we aim to develop a linear coding scheme with the objective of maximizing the post-processed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) after $N$ retransmissions. Initially, we focus on sending only one symbol or, in other words, assume that $L = 1$ where the information packet $\btheta$ is now a scalar, $\theta \in \mathbb{C}$. Note that this assumption is only done to reduce the amount of notation—the proposed scheme can be readily extended to arbitrary packet lengths as it is assumed that it will be utilized, in general, for $L \gg 1$. In the case that $L = 1$, however, the transmit and received vectors $\bx[k]$ and $\by[k]$ also reduce to scalars $x[k]$ and $y[k]$.
It is helpful at this stage to introduce a mathematical framework for linear feedback coding. It can be seen that if $L = 1$, then, gathering all packet transmissions together, (\[sys1\]) can be rewritten as $$\by = \bD\bx + \bz,\label{sys}$$ where $\by = \left[y[1],y[2],\ldots,y[N]\right]^T$ is a column vector (likewise for $\bx$ and $\bz$) and $\bD = \mathrm{diag}(h[1],h[2],\ldots,h[N])$ is a matrix formed with the channel coefficients down the diagonal. Note that the notation $\bD$ is chosen to give distinction between it and the commonly-used $\bH$ for a MIMO channel matrix which is used later in the paper. With this setup, we can write the transmit vector $\bx$ as $$\bx = \bg\theta + \bF(\bz + \bn),\label{trans}$$ where $\bg \in \mathbb{C}^{N \times 1}$ is the vector used to encode the symbol to be sent, $\theta$, and $\bF \in \mathbb{C}^{N \times N}$ is a strictly lower triangular matrix used to encode the side-information $\{\bz +
\bn\}$. The form of $\bF$ is constrained to be strictly lower triangular to enforce causality. Note that (\[trans\]) is the transmit structure of linear feedback coding—the transmitted value is a linear function of the side-information and of the information message. Furthermore, the encoding process is encapsulated by the matrix $\bF$ and the vector $\bg$.
Now, we shift focus to the destination. After receiving a packet, the destination forms an estimate of the packet by $$\widehat{\theta}[k] = \bq_{k}^*\by_{(k)},$$ where $\widehat{\theta}[k]$ is the destination’s estimate of the symbol $\theta$ after $k$ retransmissions, $\bq_{k} \in \mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ is the *combining vector* used for the $k^{th}$ retransmission, and the notation $\by_{(k)}$ refers to the first $k$ entries of $\by$. It can be seen that the packet estimation process can be completely described by the vectors $\bq_{k}$. Thus, the entire linear feedback code can be represented by the tuple $(\bg,\bF,\bq_{k})$ [@ZaDa11]. Thus, with this framework, the post-processed SNR for the system after $N$ retransmissions can be defined as $$SNR = \frac{|\bq^*\bD\bg|^2 \rho}{\|\bq^*(\bI+\bD\bF)\|^2 + \sigma^2\|\bq^*\bD\bF\|^2}.$$ where $\bq = \bq_{N}$; the subscript is dropped for convenience. We can now mathematically define the overall objective of this section: to construct a linear feedback code that maximizes the post-processed SNR given the channel coefficients $h[k]$; this is equivalent to finding $$(\bg,\bF,\bq)_{opt} = {\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}}_{(\bg,\bF,\bq)} \frac{|\bq^*\bD\bg|^2 \rho}{\|\bq^*(\bI+\bD\bF)\|^2 + \sigma^2\|\bq^*\bD\bF\|^2},\label{opt}$$ while satisfying the average power constraint (\[pow\_const\]) and causality of side-information.
In the special case of a SISO system with perfect COI ($\sigma^2 = 0$) and causal CSI, it can be shown that the solution to (\[opt\]) has the structure of the scheme given in [@liu1] (the specific derivation is omitted due to space concerns). Interestingly, the scheme in that work was derived using a control-theoretic approach instead of using post-processed SNR as an objective function [@El04]. Most importantly, the optimality of the scheme in the SNR sense motivates our construction. In particular, we develop a generalization of the feedback scheme presented in [@liu1] as this scheme was not only shown to achieve capacity but also achieve a doubly exponential decay in probability of error. In the proposed generalized scheme, we extend the original scheme for use with:
- single and multiple antennas (i.e., MISO and MIMO wireless systems),
- perfect and noisy COI feedback,
- outdated and current CSI at the source.
The details of the proposed scheme are given in the following sections.
Encoding
--------
The fundamental idea of the transmission scheme is to transmit the scaled estimation error from the previous transmission for each successive retransmission so that the destination can attempt to correct its current estimate [@elias; @gallager]. The scaling operation is performed so the transmitted signal meets the average power constraint (\[pow\_const\]). To further illustrate this concept and help motivate our construction, we now briefly present a heuristic overview of the scheme in [@liu1]. In this case, the transmitted signal, $x[k]$, is given as $$x[k+1] = \delta[k] e[k],\label{liuenc}$$ where $e[k] = \theta - \widehat{\theta}[k]$ is the error in the destination’s estimate of the message after the $k^{th}$ packet reception and $\delta[k]$ is the scaling factor chosen to appease the power constraint. After receiving $y[k]$, the destination then forms an estimate of the error, $\widehat{e}[k]$. This is then subtracted from the current estimate. As will be shown, our proposed scheme is motivated by this error-scaling technique.
We now define how the source encodes the message. As the encoding process for a perfect COI feedback and the encoding process for a noisy COI feedback are very similar, we now introduce the encoding process for both perfect and noisy COI feedback in a single framework. The encoding operation of the proposed scheme can be written compactly in the definitions of $\bF$ and $\bg$; they are constructed as:
- The $(i,j)^{th}$ entry of $\bF$, $f_{i,j}$, is $$f_{i,j} = \left\{\begin{array}{l r}
-\sqrt{\gamma}\rho\phi[i-1]h^*[j], & i>j,\\
0,& i \leq j,\end{array}\right.$$
- The $i^{th}$ entry of $\bg$, $g_{i}$, is $$g_{i} = \phi[i-1],$$
where $$\phi[k] = \left\{\begin{array}{l r}
\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{k}\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}[i], & k > 0\\
1, & k = 0,\\
\end{array} \right.$$ $$\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}[k] = \left(1 + (1+\sigma^2)\gamma\rho |h[k]|^2\right)^{-1/2},\label{betaeq}$$ and $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is a constant. Note that the scaling factor $\delta[k]$ in (\[liuenc\]) is now given its analog by the term $\phi[k]$ which ensures the proposed scheme meets the power constraint (\[pow\_const\]).
The scheme presented here in the form of $\bg$ and $\bF$ is a direct generalization of the error-scaling scheme in (\[liuenc\]) as the original scheme for perfect COI feedback can be obtained as a special case of these definitions by letting $\gamma = 1$ and $\sigma^2 = 0$. The main mechanism introduced into the proposed scheme is a power allocation variable, $\gamma$, to help combat the effect of the feedback noise, $n[k]$ [@ZaDa11]. Specifically, $\gamma$ is a degree of freedom introduced to allocate power between the encoding of feedback side-information and the information to be sent. It is only of use when the feedback channel is noisy; if feedback noise is not present, it should be set to $\gamma = 1$ and disregarded. In brief, as $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, this scheme simply repeats the packet on every retransmission (i.e., the scheme becomes equivalent to Chase combining). As $\gamma$ grows, the scheme uses most of the feedback power to mitigate the noise in the destination estimate. This quantity is discussed in detail later in the paper.
Now, with $\bg$ and $\bF$ defined, the encoding process is completely described, and we can now move on to verifying that it meets the average transmit power constraint (\[pow\_const\]). As will be shown, it is much easier to derive the average transmit power of the proposed scheme if it is rewritten in a recursive manner; thus, its recursive form is now presented. Assuming that the symbol is scaled such that $E[|\theta|^2] = \rho$, the first packet transmission is set to the symbol itself with $x[1] = \theta$. The subsequent transmissions can be written as $$x[k + 1] = \beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}[k]\left(x[k] - \sqrt{\gamma}\rho
h^*[k](z[k] + n[k]) \right),~1 < k \leq N.
\label{recur}$$ With the recursive formulation given, we can now present the following lemma.
The proposed scheme in (\[recur\]) meets the average transmit power constraint given in (\[pow\_const\]) for both noisy and perfect COI feedback.
The proof is based on a simple inductive argument. Since the symbol has been scaled to have a second moment of $\rho$, the average power of the first transmission is $E[|x[1]|^2] = \rho$. Assume that $E[|x[k]|^2] =
\rho$ for some $k$. Using (\[recur\]), we can write the average transmit power for the $(k + 1)^{th}$ retransmission of packet $\theta$ conditioned on channel realization $h[k]$ as $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[|x[k + 1]|^2 \Big{|} h[k]\right] & = &
E\left[\left|\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}[k]\left(x[k] - \sqrt{\gamma}\rho
h^*[k](z[k] + n[k]) \right)\right|^2\Big{|}h[k]\right]\\
& = & \frac{1}{1 +
(1+\sigma^2)\gamma \rho |h[k]|^2 } E\left[\left|x[k] - \sqrt{\gamma}\rho
h^*[k](z[k] + n[k]) \right|^2\Big{|}h[k]\right]\\
& = & \frac{1}{1 + (1+\sigma^2)\gamma \rho |h[k]|^2 }
\left(E\left[|x[k]|^2\Big{|}h[k]\right] + (1+\sigma^2)\gamma\rho^2
|h[k]|^2\right)\\ & \stackrel{(a)}{=} & \frac{1}{1 + (1+\sigma^2)\gamma\rho |h[k]|^2 }
\left(\rho + (1+\sigma^2)\gamma\rho^2 |h[k]|^2\right)\\
& = & \rho,\end{aligned}$$ where the equality in $(a)$ follows from $E\left[|x[k]|^2\Big{|}h[k]\right] = E\left[|x[k]|^2\right] =
\rho$. Therefore by the principle of mathematical induction, the equality holds for any arbitrary $k$.
Now that the encoding operation has been described and verified to meet the average transmit power constraint, it is possible to move on to the decoding stage.
Decoding
--------
In this section, we discuss the decoding process in the proposed scheme. It is worthwhile to point out that we only perform soft signal-level decoding—the output of the destination is an estimate that is not necessarily mapped to an output alphabet. Unlike the encoding operation, decoding at the destination significantly differs depending on whether perfect or noisy COI is available at the source.
### Perfect COI Decoding ($\sigma^2 = 0$)
First, we look into defining $\bq$ for perfect COI. In the special case when the feedback channel is perfect, this scheme assumes the structure of the feedback scheme in [@liu1]; we reproduce it in this section for completeness. In this case, the combining vector $\bq$ has a concise closed form. In particular using the definition in (\[betaeq\]), the $i^{th}$ component of $\bq$, $q_{i}$ can be given as $$q_{i} = \phi[i-1]\beta_{(1,0)}^{2}[i]\rho h^*[i].$$
Because of this definition, $\bq_{k}$ for perfect COI can be defined as $\bq_{k} = [q_{1},\ldots,q_{k}]^T$. Note that since the COI at the source is assumed to be perfect, $\sigma^2 = 0$ and $\gamma = 1$. Now that $\bq$ has been defined, the entire scheme for perfect COI feedback has been described, and the structure of $\bq$ can be used to formulate the decoding process in a recursive fashion. Thus, at this point, we introduce the following lemma:
\[lem2\] The coding scheme for perfect COI feedback can be alternatively represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{recenc}
x[k + 1] & = & \beta_{(1,0)}[k]\left(x[k] -
\rho h^*[k]z[k]\right)\\
\label{recdec} \widehat{{\theta}}[k] & = & \left(1 -
|\phi[k]|^2 \right)\theta + \rho
|\phi[k]|^2\sum_{m =
1}^{k}\phi^{-1}[m - 1]h^*[m]z[m].\end{aligned}$$
The proof has been relegated to the Appendix. Note that Lemma 2 suggests that the estimator of the proposed scheme is a biased one. However, we can easily make the final estimated output unbiased by performing the appropriate scaling. We can define the unbiased estimator of packet $\theta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \widehat{{\theta}}^u[k] & = & \left(1 -
|\phi[k]|^2
\right)^{-1}\widehat{{\theta}}[k]\\
\label{theta_ub} & = & \theta + \rho \left(1 -
|\phi[k]|^2
\right)^{-1} |\phi[k]|^2\sum_{m =
1}^{k}\phi^{-1}[m - 1]h^*[m]z[m].\end{aligned}$$
### Noisy COI Decoding ($\sigma^2 > 0$)
The source is now assumed to have corrupted COI from the destination. Note that the two main differences between perfect COI decoding and noisy COI decoding are:
- The power allocation variable, $\gamma$, is now a degree of freedom. This allows the source to allocate more or less power to the message signal to adapt to conditions of the feedback channel.
- The destination can no longer be derived in a simple form as in the noiseless feedback case. It is derived from the form of the optimal linear estimator of the symbol, $\theta$.
It can be shown that, if $\sigma^2 > 0$, the optimal $\bq$ that maximizes post-processed SNR with the setup in (\[sys\]) and (\[trans\]) is given by $$\bq =
\frac{\bC^{-1}{\bD}\bg}{\bg^{*}{\bD}^{*}\bC^{-1}{\bD}\bg},
\label{rec}$$ where $\bC = ({\bD}\bF + \bI)({\bD}\bF + \bI)^{*} +
\sigma^2{\bD}\bF\bF^{*}{\bD}^{*}$ is the effective noise covariance matrix seen at the destination. Note that this definition of $\bq$ assumes that all $N$ retransmissions are used as $\bq$ will be a length $N$ vector. To obtain $\bq_{k}$ where $1 < k < N$, one can simply truncate the vectors (and matrices) in (\[rec\]) to simply the first $k$ entries (rows and columns).
With this setup, the post-processed SNR, given the channel coefficients $h[k]$, can be written as $$SNR = \rho\left(\bg^{*}{\bD}^{*}\bC^{-1}{\bD}\bg\right).
\label{SNR}$$ It is difficult to derive a simple expression for (\[SNR\]); we instead formulate bounds on the post-processed SNR. This is done in the following lemma for the case of $N = 2$ in the low and high $\rho$ regimes.
Given the linear feedback code described above with blocklength $N = 2$, at small $\rho$ (i.e., $\rho\ll 1$), the average post-processed $SNR$ can be bounded by $$E[SNR_{N=2}] < 2\rho\left(1 + \sqrt{\gamma}\rho + \gamma
\rho^2\right),
\label{SNRupper}$$ and $$E[SNR_{N=2}] \underset{\rho \rightarrow 0}{>} 2 \rho \left(1 +
\sqrt{\gamma}\rho - \frac{1 + \sigma^2}{2}\gamma \rho\right).
\label{SNRlower}$$ Furthermore, at large $\rho$ (i.e., $\rho\gg1$), the average post-processed $SNR$ expression behaves as: $$E[SNR_{N=2}] \underset{\rho \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} \rho\left( 1 +
\frac{1}{\sigma^2}\right).
\label{SNRhigh}$$
In the case of $N = 2$, the post-processed SNR using (\[SNR\]) can be calculated to be $$SNR_{N=2} = \rho\left( |h[1]|^2 + \frac{\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]
|h[2]|^2 (1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho |h[1]|^2)^{2}}{1 + \sigma^2
\gamma\rho^2 \beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]|h[1]|^2 |h[2]|^2}\right).
\label{SNR2}$$
Using (\[betaeq\]) which states that $\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}[k]
< 1$ for any $k$, it is clear that, $$SNR_{N=2} < \rho \left(|h[1]|^2 + |h[2]|^2
(1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho |h[1]|^2)^{2} \right).$$ Now taking expectation on both sides and using the independence of fading blocks in time and $E[|h[1]|^2] = E[|h[2]|^2] =1, E[|h[1]|^4] = 2$, we immediately get $$E[SNR_{N=2}] < 2\rho\left(1 + \sqrt{\gamma}\rho + \gamma
\rho^2\right).$$ Using the inequality $(1 + \xi)^{-1} > (1 - \xi)$ valid for any real $\xi$ in (\[SNR2\]), $$SNR_{N=2} > \rho\left(|h[1]|^2 + \beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1] |h[2]|^2
(1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho |h[1]|^2)^{2}\left(1 - \sigma^2
\gamma\rho^2 \beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]|h[1]|^2 |h[2]|^2\right)\right).
\label{lb_SNR}$$ Taking the conditional expectation with respect to $h[2]$ in (\[lb\_SNR\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[SNR_{N=2}\Big{|}h[2]\right] & > & \rho\left(|h[1]|^2 +
\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1] \left(1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho |h[1]|^2\right)^{2}(1 - 2\sigma^2\gamma
\rho^2\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]|h[1]|^2)\right)\\
& = & \rho\left(|h[1]|^2 + \beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]
\left(1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho |h[1]|^2\right)^{2} + O(\rho^2)\right).\end{aligned}$$
By the definition of $\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]$ in (\[betaeq\]) and the inequality $(1 + \xi)^{-1} > (1 - \xi)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[SNR_{N=2}\Big{|}h[2]\right] & > & \rho\left(|h[1]|^2 + \left(1 - (1 +
\sigma^2)\gamma \rho |h[1]|^2\right)\left(1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho |h[1]|^2\right)^{2}
+ O(\rho^2)\right)\\
& = & \rho\left(|h[1]|^2 + 1 + 2\sqrt{\gamma}\rho|h[1]|^2 - (1 +
\sigma^2)\gamma \rho | h[1] |^2 + O(\rho^2)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Now taking expectation with respect to the channel realization $h[1]$, we immediately get $$E[SNR_{N=2}] > 2 \rho \left(1 + \sqrt{\gamma}\rho\left(1 - \frac{1 +
\sigma^2}{2}\sqrt{\gamma}\right) + O(\rho^2) \right).$$ Therefore in the small $\rho$ regime we have, $$E[SNR_{N=2}] \underset{\rho \rightarrow 0}{>} 2 \rho \left(1 +
\sqrt{\gamma}\rho\left(1 - \frac{1 + \sigma^2}{2}\sqrt{\gamma}\right)\right).$$
Hence for the proposed linear scheme to have better performance than MRC, we require that $\gamma < \sqrt{\frac{2}{1 + \sigma^2}}$.
In the case of large $\rho$, the expression in (\[SNR2\]) by approximating the second term can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
SNR_{N=2} & \underset{\rho \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} & \rho\left(
|h[1]|^2 + \frac{\beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1] |h[2]|^2 (1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho
|h[1]|^2)^{2}}{\sigma^2 \gamma\rho^2 \beta_{(\gamma,\sigma^2)}^2[1]|h[1]|^2
|h[2]|^2}\right)\\ & = & \rho\left( |h[1]|^2 + \frac{(1+\sqrt{\gamma}\rho
|h[1]|^2)^{2}}{\sigma^2 \gamma\rho^2 |h[1]|^2}\right)\\
& \underset{\rho \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} & \rho\left( |h[1]|^2 +
\frac{\gamma\rho^2 |h[1]|^4}{\sigma^2 \gamma\rho^2 |h[1]|^2}\right)\\
& = & \rho\left( |h[1]|^2 + \frac{1}{\sigma^2}|h[1]|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ Now, taking expectation we get, $$E[SNR_{N=2}] \underset{\rho \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} \rho\left( 1 +
\frac{1}{\sigma^2}\right).$$ Note that when $\sigma^2 \approx 0$, the above scheme yields significant benefits.
Power Allocation
----------------
In this subsection, we investigate the power allocation parameter $\gamma$ seen in the scheme for noisy COI feedback. As stated before, it can be roughly thought of as a measure of the amount of feedback side-information being used in the retransmission. Optimally choosing the value of $\gamma$ to maximize the post-processed SNR in (\[SNR\]) is clearly a non-causal problem. Therefore instead we define $\gamma_0^{(\rm fading)}$ to be the one that maximizes the post-processed SNR over the ensemble average of all channel realizations, i.e., $$\gamma_{0}^{(\rm fading)} = \max_{\gamma\in[0,1]}
E\left[\rho(\bg^{*}{\bD}^{*}\bC^{-1}{\bD}\bg)\right].$$
\
The difficulty of analytically calculating the above quantity stems from the post-processed SNR having non-linear dependencies on the fading coefficients $h{[1]},\ldots,h{[N]}$. However, it turns out that the optimal $\gamma$ in the i.i.d. Rayleigh block fading case ($\gamma_{0}^{(\rm{fading})}$) is very close to the optimal $\gamma$ in the AWGN case ($\gamma_{0}^{(\rm{AWGN})}$) as derived in [@ZaDa11]. This is displayed in Fig. \[gammafig\]. In Fig. \[gammafig\], we see that the peaks of both performance curves for block fading (averaged over 15,000 trials) and AWGN noise are quite close together. This is quite beneficial as it is very easy to numerically find the value of $\gamma$ that maximizes the post-processed SNR in the AWGN case, whereas it proves to be much more difficult in the presence of block fading. Because of the proximity of $\gamma_{0}^{(\rm{AWGN})}$ and $\gamma_{0}^{(\rm{fading})}$, we assume that the value of $\gamma$ that maximizes the average post-processed SNR, $\gamma_{0} = \gamma_{0}^{(\rm{AWGN})} \approx \gamma_{0}^{(\rm{fading})}$. The value of $\gamma_{0}$ does, however, change with the blocklength $N$. Furthermore, as the number of transmissions is not necessarily known ahead of time, it is intuitive to not choose $\gamma$ as a function of blocklength. Alternatively, we can fix $\gamma$ based on a reasonable number of packet retransmissions—this is discussed in the following example.
Example 1 {#example-1 .unnumbered}
---------
To illustrate the performance of the linear feedback scheme, we now provide some simulations. In this first plot (Fig. \[snrfig\]), the post-processed SNR of the scheme is plotted in contrast to MRC. MRC is analogous to using our scheme but setting $\gamma = 0$. In other words, the source simply repeats the packet at each retransmission. Then, retransmissions are combined using a linear receiver similar to the one in (\[rec\]). The simulations were run with an average transmit power of $\rho = 3$ and for both noiseless COI feedback and varying levels of noisy COI feedback. As can be seen, the linear feedback outperforms MRC with a gap that increases with decreasing feedback noise.
\[gamma\_plots\]
As mentioned above, $\gamma_{0}$ changes with blocklength, $N$, and therefore should be chosen appropriately. However, in hybrid-ARQ, the required number of retransmissions is often not known ahead of time. Despite this fact, not having this knowledge a priori provides very little penalty to performance. If the number of retransmissions is not assumed to be predetermined, $\gamma$ can be approximately chosen using the feedback noise variance $\sigma^2$ and the average transmit power $\rho$. The next figure, Fig. \[gammasnr\], illustrates the effect of fixing $\gamma$. As is illustrated, fixing $\gamma$ with respect to blocklength yields little performance degradation as long as $\gamma$ is chosen appropriately. The average post-processed SNR for $\gamma =
0.01$ performs very close to the scheme when using $\gamma_{0}$ from Fig. \[gammafig\]. Note that Fig. \[gammasnr\] has been plotted on a linear scale to help display the comparison.
Multiple Antenna Scenarios {#sec:mas}
==========================
In this section, we show how the feedback scheme for SISO systems can be implemented in both MISO and MIMO systems with current CSI at the source. In addition, an extension of the scheme is given for MIMO systems with perfect COI and only outdated CSI at the source. However, first we look at a MISO system with current quantized CSI along with perfect COI available at the source.
MISO with Current, Quantized Channel State Information at the Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider a MISO discrete-time system (Fig. \[miso\_main\]) with $M_t$ transmit antennas and only one receive antenna, where the received packet, $\by[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{1\times L}$ is given by $$\label{miso1}
\by[k] = \bh^T [k] \bX[k] + \bz[k], \quad k = 1, \ldots N,$$ where $\bh[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_t \times 1}$ is the channel gain vector, $\bX[k] \in
\mathbb{C}^{M_t \times L}$ is the transmitted packet matrix where the columns correspond to channel uses and the rows correspond to antennas, and $\bz[k] \in
\mathbb{C}^{1\times L}$ is additive noise during the $k^{th}$ retransmission with distribution $\cC\cN(\mathbf{0},\bI)$. Furthermore, the power constraint at the source is given as $E [\mathrm{tr}(\bX^*[k]\bX[k])] \leq
L\rho$, and it is assumed that there is perfect CSI at the destination. However, the source no longer has access to perfect CSI. The destination only feeds back the beamforming vector to be used for current packet retransmission. The previous channel quality information ($\bh^T[k-1]\bw[k-1]$) along with the unquantized channel output is also fed back to the source.
The transmitted packet matrix $\bX[k]$ is now generated as an outer product by $$\label{miso2}
\bX[k] = \bw[k]\widetilde{\bx}[k],$$ where $\bw[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_{t} \times 1}$ denotes the unit norm beamforming vector to be used during retransmission $k$ and $\widetilde{\bx}[k]\in \mathbb{C}^{1 \times L}$ is the effective SISO signal during retransmission number $k$. The power constraint on $\bX[k]$ now is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber E[\mathrm{tr}(\bX^*[k]\bX[k])] & = & \mathrm{tr}\left(E[\widetilde{\bx}^*[k]\bw^*[k]\bw[k]
\widetilde{\bx}[k]]\right)\\
\nonumber & = & E[|\widetilde{\bx}[k]|^2]\\
& \leq & L\rho.\end{aligned}$$ At this point, it is again assumed that $L = 1$ for simplicity which reduces $\by[k], \widetilde{\bx}[k]$, and $\bz[k]$ to scalars $y[k], \widetilde{x}[k]$, and $z[k]$. We now follow the standard model for limited feedback beamforming by constraining the design of beamforming vector $\bw[k]$ for packet transmission $k$ to a codebook $\cF[k]$ containing $2^B$ unit vectors [@love2]. We denote the codebook $\cF[k]$ as $$\cF[k] = \left\{ \bff _1[k], \ldots, \bff _{2^B}[k]\right\}, \quad \lVert
\bff _j[k] \rVert = 1, 1 \leq j \leq 2^B.$$ We can use any scheme available in literature to generate the unit beamforming vectors including random vector quantization (RVQ) [@honig],[@honig2] and Grassmannian line packing [@love3; @Mukka]. This codebook is accessible to both the source and destination simultaneously. For RVQ, there must be a random seed that is made available to both the source and destination before the communication starts.
The destination decides on the beamforming vector that the source uses during the $k^{th}$ retransmission by solving the following channel quality maximization problem $$\bw[k] = {\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}}_{\bff _j[k] \in \cF[k]}\left|\bh^T[k] \bff_j[k]\right|^2.$$ Effectively, the destination chooses the unit vector $\bw[k]$ in the codebook $\cF [k]$ along which the channel vector $\bh[k]$ has the largest projection. The information about $\bw[k]$ is conveyed back to the source in just $B$ bits. The limited feedback capacity ($C_{\rm{LF}}$) for a given codebook design $\{\cF[k]\}_{k = 1}^{\infty}$ can be expressed by $$C_{\rm{LF}} = E\left[\max_{\bff _j[k] \in \cF[k]}\log_2(1 + \rho |\bh^T[k]
\bff_j[k]|^2)\right].$$ Using the monotonicity of the logarithmic function, $C_{\rm{LF}}$ can be simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber C_{\rm{LF}} & = & E\left[\log_2(1 + \rho \max_{\bff _j[k] \in
\cF[k]}|\bh^T[k] \bff_j[k]|^2)\right]\\
& = & E\left[\log_2(1 + \rho |\bh^T[k]
\bw[k]|^2)\right].\end{aligned}$$ As the number of feedback bits $B$ approach infinity, $C_{\rm{LF}} \rightarrow
C_{\rm{MISO}}$, where $C_{\rm{MISO}} = E\left[\log_2(1 + \rho\lVert\bh
\rVert^2)\right]$. This is because limited CSI feedback becomes perfect CSI feedback for any codebook design with an infinite number of feedback bits. With the selection of beamforming vector $\bw[k]$ as described above and packet length $L = 1$, the received signal $y[k]$ is given as $$y[k] = \bh^T [k] \bw[k] \widetilde{x}[k] + z[k], \quad k = 1, \ldots N.$$ Pre-multiplying the received signal $\by[k]$ by $e^{-j\angle \bh^T [k] \bw[k]}$, we obtain $$\widetilde{y}[k] = \left|\bh^T [k] \bw[k]\right|\widetilde{x}[k] +
\widetilde{z}[k], \quad k = 1, \ldots N,$$ where $\widetilde{y}[k] = y[k]e^{-j\angle \bh^T [k] \bw[k]}$ and $\widetilde{z}[k]$ is distributed as $\cC\cN(0,1)$. If we let $\widetilde{\lambda}[k] = |\bh^T
[k] \bw[k]|$, we get the overall system in (\[miso1\]) as $$\widetilde{y}[k] = \widetilde{\lambda}[k]\widetilde{x}[k] + \widetilde{z}[k], \quad k =
1, \ldots N,\label{tildes}$$ Finally, gathering all packet retransmissions together as in (\[sys\]), we can rewrite (\[tildes\]) as $$\widetilde{\by}= \widetilde{\bLambda}\widetilde{\bx} + \widetilde{\bz},$$ where $\widetilde{\bLambda} =
\mathrm{diag}(\widetilde{\lambda}[1],\widetilde{\lambda}[2],\ldots,\widetilde{\lambda}[N])$. With this formulation, the MISO system is equivalent to the SISO system in (\[sys\]); therefore, the SISO scheme can be implemented by replacing the role of $h[k]$ with $\widetilde{\lambda}[k]$ (see Fig. \[miso\_main\]).
It can be proven in a similar way to Lemma 1 that the MISO scheme meets the average power constraint. Also, it can be shown that if the feedback channel is perfect, the MISO scheme achieves the capacity of the channel and obtains a doubly exponential decay in error probability. However, to avoid redundancy, this proof is only given for the MIMO case in the next section (Lemma 4). The effects of using different vector quantization techniques and the overall performance of the MISO scheme are now presented in an example.
Example 2 {#example-2 .unnumbered}
---------
To illustrate the potential of our scheme, consider a MISO system communicating over an i.i.d. Rayleigh block fading channel with each entry of $\bh[k]$ distributed as $\cC \cN({0, 1})$. In this example, the COI feedback is assumed to be noiseless (i.e., $\sigma^2 = 0$). Using a limited CSI feedback framework, Fig. \[fig3\_miso\] plots the packet probability of error curves against the number of retransmissions for two different normalized rates of $0.5$ and $0.9$ where normalized rate is the ratio of the rate of transmission to the channel capacity ($R/C_{\rm{MISO}}$). The plots are for $\rho = 0$dB with a two-antenna source averaged over $10^6$ i.i.d. fading realizations. The doubly exponential decay of the curves are clearly visible for all the feedback schemes: perfect CSI feedback and quantized CSI feedback – RVQ and Grassmanian line packing. Even with quantized CSI feedback and moderate normalized rate of $0.5$, only a few retransmissions are required to achieve a very low packet error rate of $1\%$ for both RVQ and Grassmanian line packing.
MIMO with Current Channel State Information at the Source
---------------------------------------------------------
Consider now a MIMO packet retransmission system (Fig. \[mimo\_sep\]) with $M_{t}$ transmit antennas and $M_{r}$ receive antennas where the number of spatial channels available is $M = \min(M_{r},M_{t})$. The received matrix, $\bY[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_{r}\times L}$, is given by $$\bY[k] = \bH[k]\bX[k] + \bZ[k],\label{mimosys}$$ where $\bX[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_{t}\times L}$ is, as in MISO, the transmit packet matrix, $\bH[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_{r}\times M_{t}}$ is the block Rayleigh fading channel matrix whose entries are i.i.d. zero-mean complex Gaussian random variables with unit variance, and $\bZ[k] \in
\mathbb{C}^{M_{r}\times L}$ is an additive noise matrix with i.i.d. zero-mean complex Gaussian entries with unit variance. Note that due to the availability of multiple spatial channels, the total packet length has increased to contain $ML$ symbols with $M$ symbols transmitted over each channel use. Again, for the sake of simplicity, we assume that $L = 1$ which reduces $\bY[k], \bX[k],$ and $\bZ[k]$ to column vectors $\vec{\by}[k], \vec{\bx}[k],$ and $\vec{\bz}[k]$. When the current block fading matrix is known both at the source and destination, we can effectively diagonalize the channel. Let $$\label{svd1}
\bH[k] = \bU[k] \mathbf{\Lambda}[k] \bV^{*}[k],$$ be a compact singular value decomposition (SVD) of the channel matrix $\bH[k]$, where $\bU[k] \in \mC^{M_r \times M}, \mathbf{\Lambda}[k] \in \mC^{M
\times M},$ and $\bV[k] \in \mC^{M_t \times M},$ with $$\label{svd2}
\mathbf{\Lambda}[k] = \mathrm{diag}\left(
\lambda_1[k], \ldots , \lambda_M[k] \right),\quad \lambda_1[k] \geq \lambda_2[k]
\ldots \geq \lambda_M[k] \geq 0,$$ $$\label{svd3}
\bU^* [k] \bU[k] = \bV^* [k]\bV[k] = \bI.$$ We can design the source vector $\vec{\bx}[k]$ as $$\label{x1}
\vec{\bx}[k] = \bV[k]\bs[k],$$ where $\bs[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{M \times 1}$ with $\bV[k]$ defined by (\[svd1\]) and (\[svd3\]). Also pre-multiplying the received vector by $\bU^*[k]$, we obtain the effective system described by (\[mimosys\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \bU^{*}[k]\vec{\by}[k] & = & \bU^{*}[k] \bH[k] \bV[k] \bs[k] +
\bU^{*}[k]\vec{\bz}[k]\\
\widetilde{\by}[k] & = & \mathbf{\Lambda}[k]\bs[k] + \widetilde{\bz}[k],
\label{effmimosys}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\by}[k] \in \mC^{M \times 1}$ and $\widetilde{\bz}[k] \in
\mC^{M \times 1}$. The effective noise $\widetilde{\bz}[k]$ is distributed as $\mathcal{CN}({\bf 0},\bI)$ due to the rotational invariance of complex i.i.d. Gaussian vectors. Due to the a priori knowledge of the channel at the source, spatial waterfilling can be performed across the $M$ parallel spatial channels for each packet transmitted. The entries of the waterfilling matrix $\mathbf{\Xi}[k] = \textrm{diag}\left(
\xi_1[k], \ldots , \xi_M[k] \right)$ are defined as $$\label{wfill2}
\xi_i[k] = \max\left(0, \frac{1}{\xi_0[k]} -
\frac{1}{{\lambda^2_i}[k]}\right), \quad 1 \leq i \leq M.$$ The value of the constant $\xi_0[k]$ is the water-filling level chosen to satisfy the power constraint $$\label{wfill3}
\sum_{i = 1}^{M}\xi_i[k] = 1.$$ Furthermore, the capacity $C_{\rm{TR}}$ of a MIMO channel with the fading matrix known both at the source and destination can be written as $$C_{\rm{TR}} = \sum_{i = 1}^{M}E\left[\log_2(1 + \rho
\xi_i{\lambda}_i^2)\right], $$ where we have dropped the retransmission index $k$ due to the i.i.d. nature of the block fading matrix. With current CSI at the source and destination, the overall channel capacity of the MIMO channel can be expressed as a sum of $M$ parallel non-interfering SISO spatial channels each with capacity $C_i$ where $C_i = E\left[\log_2(1 + \rho
\xi_i{\lambda}_i^2)\right], \quad 1 \leq i \leq M.$
With the aid of the waterfilling matrix defined in (\[wfill2\]), (\[effmimosys\]) can now be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \widetilde{\by}[k] & =
& {\mathbf{\Lambda}}[k]\mathbf{\Xi}[k]^{1/2}\widetilde{{\bx}}[k] +
\widetilde{\bz}[k],\end{aligned}$$ where $\bs[k] = \mathbf{\Xi}[k]^{1/2}\widetilde{{\bx}}[k]$. Note that the spatial waterfilling (or power adaptation) does not make use of the COI fed back to the source at all. Letting $\widetilde{\mathbf{\Lambda}}[k] =
{\mathbf{\Lambda}}[k]\mathbf{\Xi}[k]^{1/2}$, the overall system can be represented in matrix form as $$\label{effsys1}
\widetilde{\by}[k] = \widetilde{\mathbf{\Lambda}}[k]\widetilde{{\bx}}[k] +
\widetilde{\bz}[k].$$ We next transmit $M$ symbols over $M$ parallel spatial channels by exploiting the COI and previous CSI available at the source using a maximum of $N$ transmissions. In other words, with (\[effsys1\]), we can implement $M$ parallel instances of the COI feedback SISO scheme—one for each spatial channel. Similar to the MISO case, we replace the role of $h[k]$ with $\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}[k]$ for the $i^{th}$ spatial channel.
It is quite possible that each of the source constellations $\varTheta_i[N]$ has a different number of constellation points; note that $\varTheta_i[N]$ denotes the source constellation used for the $i^{th}$ spatial channel. The number of equally likely constellation points chosen for each channel depends on the spatial capacity $C_i$ of the subchannel. Therefore, the number of constellations points must be less than $2^{NC_i}$.
The overall schematic of the proposed scheme, shown in Fig. \[mimo\_sep\], clearly demonstrates the independent constellation mapping of each of the $M$ symbols of packet $\btheta$ along with the separation of the channel output adaptation from current channel state adaptation. Furthermore, it can be shown that, if the feedback channel is perfect, any rate less than capacity can be achieved by the above scheme at doubly exponential rate.
\[lem4\] If $\sigma^2 = 0$, the proposed scheme achieves any rate $R < C_{\rm{TR}}$. Viewing the rate $R$ as a sum of $M$ spatial channel rates, $R = \sum_{i = 1}^{M}R_i,$ the coding scheme can achieve any rate $R_i < C_i$ for the $i^{th}$ spatial channel. Furthermore the probability of error ($P_e$) for the packet decays doubly exponentially as the function of the number of transmissions $N$. In other words, for sufficiently large $N$, $$P_e \leq \beta_1\exp\left(-2^{(N\beta_2 + \beta_3)}\right),$$ where $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are positive constants, while $\beta_3$ is a real constant for a given rate $R$.
See Appendix.
MIMO with Outdated Channel State Information at the Source
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case when there are multiple antennas at both the source and destination and the source has access to only outdated CSI, a direct extension of the SISO scheme for perfect COI (Lemma \[lem2\]) can be made. Using the same system setup as in (\[mimosys\]), if $L = 1$, we can write the feedback scheme recursively as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{recenc}
\vec{\bx}[k + 1] & = & \left(\bI +
\rho\bH^*[k]\bH[k]\right)^{-1/2}\left(\vec{\bx}[k] -
\rho\bH^*[k]\vec{\bz}[k]\right)\\ \label{recdec}
\widehat{{\textrm{{\boldmath{$\theta$}}}}}[k] & = & \left(\bI -
\mathbf{\Phi}[k]\mathbf{\Phi}^*[k] \right)\textrm{{\boldmath{$\theta$}}} + \rho
\mathbf{\Phi}[k]\mathbf{\Phi}^*[k]\sum_{m = 1}^{k}(\mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}[m -
1])^{*}\bH^*[m]\vec{\bz}[m],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathbf{\Phi}[k] = \left(\bI + M\rho\bH^*[1]\bH[1] \right)^{-1/2}\cdots
\left(\bI + M\rho\bH^*[k]\bH[k] \right)^{-1/2}.$$
Unfortunately, even if the feedback channel is perfect but only outdated CSI is available at the source, it is difficult to prove a result similar to Lemma 4. Although it can be shown for some positive rates a doubly exponential decay of probability of error is achievable, it has not been proven for all rates below capacity. We now broaden our focus back to the view of the whole hybrid-ARQ scheme in the next section.
The Hybrid-ARQ Scheme and Variations {#sec:harq}
====================================
Rather than focusing on the packet estimate, $\widehat{\btheta}[k]$, we now consider the overall hybrid-ARQ scheme including the FEC. For the FEC, we assume the use of a systematic turbo code; although, any systematic block code can work. Because of this choice, we will perform only soft decoding at the output of the packet combining step. This means for each symbol in the estimated packet, $\widehat{\theta}_{i}[k]$, we will form a set of log-likelihood ratios as $$LLR_{i} = \left\{\log\left[\frac{p(\theta_{i} = \psi_{j}|\hat{\theta}_{i}[k])}{\sum_{\ell \neq j}p(\theta_{i} = \psi_{\ell}|\hat{\theta}_{i}[k])}\right]: j = 1,2,\ldots,\left|\Theta[N]\right|\right\},$$ where $\psi_{j}$ for $j = 1,2,\ldots,\left|\Theta[N]\right|$ are the points of the constellation $\Theta[N]$ utilized for modulation. Upon calculating these sets, they are then passed to the turbo decoder for decoding. The specific turbo code implemented is a rate $L_{\textrm{info}}/L_{\textrm{coded}} = 1/3$ turbo code defined in the UMTS standard; more details are given in the Simulations section.
Now, we introduce different configurations of the overall scheme that might help adapt to different circumstances (e.g., feedback link rate, transmit/receive duration, etc.). To do so, we look at varying the amount of COI feedback sent to the source; this is also done to illustrate the trade-off between performance (e.g., throughput, FER, etc.) and the amount of information fed back. Note that the case of CSI-only feedback has already been explored in the literature; see for example [@SuMa06; @SaDi06; @SuDi06; @SuDi07; @KiKa09]. Therefore the emphasis here is in varying the amount of COI feedback.
The most straightforward of the possible COI feedback configurations is one where the destination simply feeds back everything it receives without discrimination. This utilizes a noiseless/noisy version of the full received packet for feedback information; hence, we will refer to this method as *full packet feedback* (FPF). Alternatively, one can alter FPF by implementing a well-known concept in hybrid-ARQ with feedback [@Matsu]; instead of feeding back all the symbols of the received packet, we can instead feed back only the $T$ “least reliable” symbols with their indices. The measure of “reliability” can be based off metrics such as the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) or the logarithm of the a posteriori probabilities (log-APP) [@Shea]. Since only some of the symbols in the packet are fed back, we will refer to this scheme as *partial packet feedback* (PPF).
Full Packet Feedback (FPF)
--------------------------
In FPF, we propose a hybrid-ARQ scheme where the source is assumed to have access to a noiseless/noisy version of the last received packet. The performance of the perfect COI feedback scenario is used to demonstrate the maximum possible gains that can be achieved with the addition of channel output feedback. To help explicitly show the feedback information available, we now introduce $\br[k]$ as the channel output feedback side-information available at the source at packet transmission $k$. In FPF, $$\br[k] = \by[k-1] + \bn[k-1],$$ where, in this case, $\br[k] \in \mathbb{C}^{1\times L}$.
As mentioned before, the first transmission of packet $\textrm{{\boldmath{$\theta$}}}$ is assumed to be a codeword of a FEC code. If a NACK is received at the source, each subsequent packet is encoded symbol-wise by the linear feedback code described in Section III. This is used to refine the destination’s estimate of each symbol in the original packet. To display the performance of the scheme, we look at comparing the normalized throughput of this scheme with the turbo-coded hybrid-ARQ used in [@HSDPA]. This standard uses a rate-compatible punctured turbo code to encode the packet. Specifically, it uses a rate 1/3 UMTS turbo code [@UMTS] and then punctures it for use in hybrid-ARQ. If sending one packet and $M$ spatial channels are available for the MIMO setting, the assignment of $M$ symbols for $M$ spatial channels is done arbitrarily. Note that it is plausible that using dynamic adaptive modulation for each of the spatial channels or coordinating multiple retransmissions[@SuMa06] might result in improvement in throughput. However, we do not consider this here, but we point out that in most of the cases our proposed scheme can be combined with the innovations on using CSI more efficiently.
Partial Packet Feedback (PPF)
-----------------------------
For sake of practicality, it is desirable to minimize the amount of COI feedback information needed to be sent back to the source. As a step towards this, we now look at the effects of limiting the size of the COI feedback packet. We try to utilize the limited feedback channel in the most useful way by feeding back not the complete packet but only relatively few of the symbols in the received packet. As mentioned above, in the partial packet mode, the choice of COI feedback information is based on the relative reliability of soft decoded bits. This addition to the scheme is motivated by the technique used in [@Shea] where it was shown that focusing on the least reliable information bits can greatly improve the performance of turbo-coded hybrid-ARQ. The selection process to construct the feedback packet, $\br[k]$, is performed at the destination using the following method. The received packet $\by[k]$ (or $\bY[k]$ as in (\[mimosys\])) is combined with the $k - 1$ previous received packets using MRC in the case of Chase combining or as described above if linear COI feedback coding is employed. After combining, the destination now has an estimate of the desired packet, $\widehat{\btheta}[k]$. This packet estimate is now passed on to the turbo decoder, and its corresponding output is a set of LLRs for each original information bit. For notation, we refer to the LLR produced by the turbo decoder for the $i^{th}$ information bit, $m_i$, as $\ell_i$, which can be mathematically written as $$\ell_i = \log\left[ \frac{p(m_i = 0| \by[1])}{p(m_i = 1| \by[1])}\right], \quad
1 \leq i \leq L_{\rm info} .$$
The least reliable bits are chosen as the $T$ bits whose LLR values have the smallest magnitude, i.e., $|\ell_i| < \ell_{\rm th},$ where $\ell_{\rm th}$ is chosen appropriately. The magnitude of $\ell_i$ close to zero indicates that the bit is almost equally likely to be either a 1 or a 0. Then, the set of symbols whose realizations are to be fed back is $$I_{\rm{sym}} = \left\{\theta_k : m_i \in \theta_k \textrm{ and } |\ell_i| <
\ell_{\rm th}, \quad 1 \leq i \leq L_{\rm{info}}, \quad 1 \leq k \leq L\right\},$$ meaning the symbol is chosen to be fed back if it contains one of the least reliable information bits. Let $|I_{\rm sym}| = T_{\rm sym}$. With this technique, we can then write the feedback packet, $\br_T[k]$, as $$\br_T[k] = \by_{T}[k-1] + \bn_T[k-1],$$ where $$\by_{T}[k-1] = \left\{y_{i}[k-1]: \theta_i \in I_{\rm{sym}}\right\}.$$ Since $T_{\rm sym}$ channel outputs are being fed back, $\bn_T[k]$ is of length $T_{\rm sym}$. Note that the selection process is straightforward in this case because we assume the use of a systematic turbo code. It is also important to note that the $T_{\rm sym}$ symbols are chosen only once (after the first transmission). This process can be done after each retransmission but would require more feedback resources. Finally, if it is assumed that the number of channel uses per packet retransmission are constant, one can fill in the remaining $L - T_{\rm sym}$ channel uses in numerous ways. One particular way is what we will refer to as partial packet feedback with partial Chase combining (PPF-PC). In this mode, on the forward transmission, the new $T_{\rm sym}$ symbols generated for the $T_{\rm sym}$ least reliable symbols based on our linear coding scheme are sent in conjunction with the repetition of the remaining $(L - T_{\rm sym})$ other symbols used for Chase combining.
Simulations {#sec:sim}
===========
In this section we present numerical simulations to demonstrate the improvements possible with inclusion of our proposed linear COI feedback coding in hybrid-ARQ schemes. We assume that the channel is i.i.d. Rayleigh block fading. We limit the number of retransmissions to a maximum of four (i.e., $N = 4$). All the throughput calculations are done by averaging over $10^3$ new packet transmissions.
The metric defined for calculating normalized throughput is given as: $$\tau =
\frac{1}{E[B]},$$ where $1 \leq B \leq N$ is the number of transmissions needed for successful decoding of a packet $\btheta$. This can be equivalently thought of as a packet success rate or the inverse of the average number of packets needed for successful transmission. If the number of retransmissions reaches the maximum number before successful decoding, the throughput contribution is zero. Note that this metric is meaningful only when comparing constant-length packet schemes. Also the above throughput definition implies that as $\rho \rightarrow \infty, \tau
\rightarrow 1$ for all the protocols; including Chase and our proposed scheme.
Fig. \[fpf\_plot\] compares the performance of FPF scheme with perfect COI feedback against Chase combining for QPSK, 16-QAM, and 64-QAM constellations over a $2 \times 2$ MIMO channel. The FEC code used for simulations is a 1/3 UMTS turbo code with eight decoding iterations. It is seen that most of the gains from our proposed scheme are realized in the low SNR regime. The FPF for QPSK displays gains of around 1 dB over Chase combining, and in 16-QAM, it gives an improvement of about 2 dB over Chase combining. Furthermore, the gain increases to 3 dB when the denser constellation of 64-QAM is chosen. It should be noted that these gains have been realized directly at the packet level and not at the bit level. This shows that with four retransmissions the power required at the source can be halved with the inclusion of the proposed linear coding scheme.
In Fig. \[ppf\_plot\], we plot the normalized throughput for PPF-PC for perfect COI feedback against traditional Chase combining scheme for 16-QAM and 64-QAM over a SISO channel. The amount of COI feedback symbols from the destination to the source is varied from $33\%$ to $75\%$ of the total feedforward packet size. For 64-QAM with a 1/3 UMTS turbo code and $L_{\rm info} = 2020$, the length of the packet is $L = 1010$ symbols. Therefore the number of feedback symbols $T$ for 64-QAM is varied from $T = 337$ to $T = 757$. Again we can see the improvements for 16-QAM and 64-QAM. Although the gains are smaller than the ones for full packet feedback, they are still significant. It is actually interesting to note that in 16-QAM most of the improvement in performance is reached with only $50\%$ of COI feedback information. With $33\%$ COI feedback, PPF scheme still shows an improvement of 1 dB over Chase for 16-QAM and a substantial improvement of 2 dB for 64-QAM constellation.
Fig. \[hsdpa\_plot\] compares the normalized throughput for FPF with noisy COI feedback against Chase combining and the scheme in [@HSDPA]. It is seen that even with a noise of $\sigma^2 = 0.25$ on the channel output feedback channel, we see an improvement of about $0.5$ dB for the linear feedback scheme over the scheme in [@HSDPA] in the low SNR regime. Furthermore this gain is realized with only the addition of a very low complexity linear coder at source and destination.
Finally, Fig. \[quantized\_plot\] compares the normalized throughput for FPF with quantized COI feedback for 16-QAM constellation. At the destination, each of the components – inphase and quardature phase, are quantized using certain number of bits and then mapped to the QAM constellation. It is seen that even with 1-bit of quantization per phase leads to improvement in the performance over the conventional Chase combining. However, most of the gains are obtained for 5-bits per phase of quantization.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have investigated a new hybrid-ARQ scheme that utilizes COI feedback side-information from the destination. This is motivated by trying to close the performance gap between Chase combining and incremental redundancy using feedback in order to leverage the implementation savings of a Chase combining system [@Pal]. In normal Chase combining, packets are combined using maximum ratio combining (MRC); however, the proposed scheme incorporates feedback by combining the packets using a linear feedback code for fading channels with noisy feedback. Note that this also includes a new encoding step. It was shown through Monte Carlo simulations that the post-processed SNR performance of the linear feedback scheme greatly outperforms that of regular MRC. In addition, since the code is built on linear operations, it adds little complexity to the overall packet encoder and decoder assuming feedback side information is present. The full hybrid-ARQ scheme was analyzed using two main modes of operation: full packet feedback (FPF) in which the source was assumed to have access to a noiseless/noisy version of the last received packet and partial packet feedback (PPF) in which only a subset of the received symbol are fed back to the source. Simulations show that the addition of feedback to hybrid-ARQ greatly increases the performance and outperforms incremental redundancy in most cases.
Proof of Lemma \[lem2\]
-----------------------
The encoding for perfect COI feedback using (\[betaeq\]) can be written for each $x[k]$ as $$\label{enc1} x[k + 1] = \phi^{-1}[k]e[k],$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{enc3}e[k] & = & \theta -
\widehat{\theta}[k].\end{aligned}$$ The operations at the decoder side can also be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dec1}\widehat{x}[k + 1] & = & \left(1 + \rho h^*[k + 1]h[k +
1]\right)^{-1}\rho h^*[k + 1]y[k + 1],\\
\label{dec2}\widehat{e}[k] & = &
\phi[k]\widehat{x}[k + 1],\\
\widehat{{\theta}}[k + 1] & = &
\label{dec3}\widehat{{\theta}}[k] + \widehat{e}[k].\end{aligned}$$ For initialization purposes, it is assumed that $\widehat{\theta}[0] = 0$. It can be seen from (\[enc3\]) and (\[dec3\]), that the error, $e[k]$, for the symbol $\theta$ satisfies the relation $$e[k + 1] = e[k] - \widehat{e}[k]. \label{errvec}$$ Then, implementing (\[enc1\]) and (\[errvec\]), we can rewrite $x[k+1]$ as $$\begin{aligned}
x[k + 1] & = & \phi^{-1}[k]\left(e[k - 1] - \widehat{e}[k -
1]\right)\\
& = & \phi^{-1}[k]\left(\phi[k - 1]x[k] -
\phi[k - 1]\widehat{x}[k]\right)\\
& = & \left(1 + \rho |h[k]|^2\right)^{1/2}(x[k] - \widehat{x}[k])\\
& = & \left(1 + \rho |h[k]|^2\right)^{-1/2}\left(x[k] -
\rho h^*[k]z[k]\right).\end{aligned}$$
According to (\[enc1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\theta - \widehat{{\theta}}[k]
& = & \phi[k]x[k + 1]\\
& = & \phi[k]\left(1 + \rho |h[k]|^2\right)^{-1/2}\left(x[k] -
\rho h^*[k]z[k]\right)\\
& = & \phi[k]\left(1 + \rho |h[k]|^2\right)^{-1/2}x[k] -
\rho\phi[k]\left(1 +
\rho |h[k]|^2\right)^{-1/2}h^*[k]z[k]\\
& = & |\phi[k]|^2\theta -
\rho|\phi[k]|^2\sum_{m =
1}^{k}\phi^{-1}[m - 1]h^*[m]z[m].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows that $$\widehat{{\theta}}[k] = \left(1 -
|\phi[k]|^2 \right)\theta + \rho
|\phi[k]|^2\sum_{m =
1}^{k}\phi^{-1}[m - 1]h^*[m]z[m].$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem4\]
-----------------------
We present the proof for $L = 1$. The generalization of it immediately follows. For the $i^{th}$ spatial channel, we select the symbol $\theta_i$ from a square QAM constellation consisting of $M_i[N] = 2^{NR_i}$ symbols. According to the recursive definition in Lemma 2, the $i^{th}$ spatial signal is given as $$\label{l31}
\widetilde{x}_i[k] = \prod_{l = 1}^{k - 1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + \rho
\widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[l]}}\theta_i - \rho\sum_{m = 1}^{k - 1}\left(\prod_{l =
m}^{k - 1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + \rho \widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[l]}}\right)
\widetilde{\lambda}_i[m] \widetilde{z}_i[m].$$ Let $$\label{phi2}
\widetilde{\phi}_i[k] = \prod_{l = 1}^{k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + \rho
\widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[l]}}, \quad \widetilde{\phi}_i[0] = 1.$$
Now (\[l31\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{l33}
\widetilde{x}_i[k] = \widetilde{\phi}_i[k - 1]\left( \theta_i - \rho\sum_{m =
1}^{k - 1}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_i[m] \widetilde{z}_i[m]}{\widetilde{\phi}_i[m - 1]}
\right).$$ Based on (\[theta\_ub\]) which describes the unbiased estimation algorithm at the destination, $$\widehat{\theta}^u_i[N] = \theta_i +
\rho \frac{\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]}{1 - \widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]}\sum_{k =
1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_i[k]}{\widetilde{\phi}_i[k -
1]}\widetilde{z}_i[k].
$$
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber e^u_i[N] & = & \widehat{\theta}_i[N] - \theta_i.\end{aligned}$$ Given channel realizations over blocklength $N$, $\{\bH
[k]\}_{k = 1}^N$, and a known $\theta_i$, the random variable $e^u_i[N]$ is just a complex Gaussian random variable with conditional mean $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber E \left[e^u_i[N] \Big{|} \{\bH[k]\}_{k = 1}^N,\theta_i\right] & = &
E\left[\rho \frac{\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]}{1 -
\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]}\sum_{k =
1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_i[k]}{\widetilde{\phi}_i[k -
1]}\widetilde{z}_i[k] \Big{|}\{\bH[k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right]\\ & =
& 0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for the variance of $e^u_i[N]$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \textrm{Var}\left(e^u_i[N]\Big{|}\{\bH[k]\}_{k = 1}^N,\theta_i\right) & = &
\textrm{Var}\left(\rho \frac{\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]}{1 -
\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]}\sum_{k =
1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_i[k]}{\widetilde{\phi}_i[k -
1]}\widetilde{z}_i[k] \Big{|}\{\bH[k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right)\\ & = & \rho^2
\frac{\widetilde{\phi}_i^4[N]}{(1 - \widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N])^2} \sum_{k =
1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[k]}{\widetilde{\phi}^2_i[k - 1]}.\end{aligned}$$
The symbol $\theta_i$ is drawn from a square QAM constellation $\varTheta_i[N]$ given by, $$\label{m1}
\varTheta_i[N] = \sqrt{\alpha_i[N]}\left\{\pm 1
\pm 1j, \pm 1 \pm 3j,\cdots \cdots, \pm\left(\sqrt{M_i[N]}
- 1\right) \pm \left(\sqrt{M_i[N]}
- 1\right)j\right\},$$ where the scaling factor $\alpha_i[N]$ satisfies the power constraint at the source $$E[|\theta_i|^2] = \frac{2}{3}(M_i[N] - 1)\alpha_i[N] = \rho.$$
A correct decision about $\theta_i$ is made by the destination if the error $e^u_i[N]$ falls within the square ($\Box_i[N]$) of length $2\sqrt{\alpha_i[N]}$. Let $$P_e\left(\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right) = P\left(e^u_i[N] \notin
\Box_i[N]\Big{|}\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right).$$ Clearly, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber P_e\left(\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right) & \leq &
P\left(|\mathfrak{Re}(e^u_i[N])| > \sqrt{\alpha_i[N]}\Big{|}\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N,
\theta_i\right) +\\ & &
P\left(|\mathfrak{Im}(e^u_i[N])| > \sqrt{\alpha_i[N]}\Big{|}\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N,
\theta_i\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{Re}(e^u_i[N])$ and $\mathfrak{Im}(e^u_i[N])$ denote the real and imaginary part of $e^u_i[N]$ respectively. Using the identical distribution of the real and imaginary components of the error $e^u_i[N]$, we get $$\nonumber P_e\left(\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right)
\leq
4Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{{\alpha_i[N]}}{{\textrm{Var}\left(\mathfrak{Re}(e^u_i[N])\Big{|}
\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N,\theta_i\right)}}}\right).$$ Clearly, $$\textrm{Var}\left(\mathfrak{Re}(e^u_i[N])\Big{|}\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i
\right) = \frac{1}{2}\textrm{Var}\left(e^u_i[N]\Big{|}\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N,
\theta_i\right).$$
Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber P_e\left(\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right) & \leq &
4Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{3\left(1 -
\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]\right)^2}{(M_i[N] - 1)\rho
\widetilde{\phi}_i^4[N]\sum_{k =
1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[k]}{\widetilde{\phi}^2_i[k - 1]}}}\right)\\
& = & 4Q(\sqrt{a_i[N]}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{a1}
a_i[N] = {\frac{3\left(1 -
\widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N]\right)^2}{(M_i[N] - 1)\rho
\widetilde{\phi}_i^4[N]\sum_{k =
1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[k]}{\widetilde{\phi}^2_i[k - 1]}}}.$$ We next show that with probability 1, $a_i[N]$ increases at least exponentially with $N$. From the definition of $\widetilde{\phi}_i[N]$ in (\[phi2\]) we have $0 \leq \widetilde{\phi}_i[N] \leq
1,N \geq 0$. Also the definition implies that the sequence $\{
\widetilde{\phi}_i[N]\}_{N = 0}^{\infty}$ is a monotonically decreasing sequence for arbitrary channel matrices. Hence by Theorem $3.14$ in [@rudin], the sequence $\{ \widetilde{\phi}_i[N]\}_{N = 0}^{\infty}$ converges. Also, $$\begin{aligned}
E[\log_2\widetilde{\phi}_i[N]] & = & -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k = 1}^N E \left[\log_2
\left(1 + \rho \widetilde{\lambda}_i^2[k]\right)\right]\\
\label{g2} & = & -\frac{N}{2}C_i\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[g2\]) and the strong law of large numbers (SLLN), we know that for any given $\epsilon > 0, \exists N_1$ such that $$P\left(\left|\frac{1}{N} \log_2 \widetilde{\phi}_i[N] +
\frac{1}{2}C_i \right| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}C_i\right) = 1 \quad
\forall N > N_1.$$
In particular, $$\label{b1}
P\left(\widetilde{\phi}_i[N] < 2^{-\frac{1}{2}N(1 -
\epsilon)C_i}\right) = 1 \quad \forall N > N_1.$$ By the almost sure convergence of $\{\widetilde{\phi}_i[N]\}_{N =
0}^{\infty}$ to zero, we can choose $N_2$ such that $$\label{b2}
P\left(1 - \widetilde{\phi}_i^2[N] > \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right) = 1 \quad
\forall N > N_2.$$ Using SLLN again, we obtain that for a given $\epsilon > 0, \exists N_3$ such that $$\label{b3}
P\left(\sum_{k = 1}^N \widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[k] < \eta_i N(1 + \epsilon)
\right) = 1 \quad \forall N > N_3,$$ where $\eta_i = E[\widetilde{\lambda}^2_i[k]]$. Substituting the bounds given by (\[b1\]),(\[b2\]) and (\[b3\]) into the expression of $a_i[N]$ in (\[a1\]), we obtain that $\forall N > \max\{N_1, N_2, N_3\}$ with probability 1, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber a_i[N] & \geq &
\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{3\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)^2}{2^{NR_i}2^{-N(1 -
\epsilon)C_i}\eta_i N(1 + \epsilon)}\\
& = & \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{2^{N\left((1 -
\epsilon)C_i - R_i\right)}}{\eta_i N(1 + \epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ The positive value $\epsilon$ also satisfies the inequality, $$\rho \eta_i N(1 + \epsilon) \leq 2^{\epsilon N C_i}, \quad \forall N >
N_4.$$ Clearly it follows that $\forall N > N_{\rm max}$ $$a_i[N] \geq 2^{N\left((1 - 2\epsilon)C_i - R_i\right)},$$ where $N_{\rm max} = \max\{N_1, N_2, N_3, N_4\}$.
Thus, we have shown that with probability one, the input parameter of the $Q$-function increases exponentially. Furthermore it is very well known that $Q$-function decays exponentially and can be bounded by, $$Q(x) \leq \frac{1}{2}e^{-x^2/2}, \quad \forall x \geq 0.$$ From the above two equations we immediately obtain, $$P_e\left(\{\bH [k]\}_{k = 1}^N, \theta_i\right) \leq 2e^{-\frac{1}{2}2^{N\left((1 - 2\epsilon)C_i - R_i\right)}}.$$ Note that we can choose $\epsilon$ arbitrarily. Picking $\epsilon <
\displaystyle\min_{i = 1,2,\ldots,M}\textstyle\frac{1}{2}\left(1 - \frac{R_i}{C_i}\right)$ guarantees that the decay is doubly exponential.
[^1]: The material in this paper was presented in part at the *IEEE Military Communications Conference*, San Jose, CA, November 2010 and the *IEEE International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications*, San Francisco, CA, June 2011. The authors are with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a new approach to estimate a production function based on the economic axioms of the Regular Ultra Passum law and convex non-homothetic input isoquants. Central to the development of our estimator is stating the axioms as shape constraints and using shape constrained nonparametric regression methods. We implement this approach using data from the Japanese corrugated cardboard industry from 1997–2007. Using this new approach, we find most productive scale size is a function of the capital-to-labor ratio and the largest firms operate close to the largest most productive scale size associated with a high capital-to-labor ratio. We measure the productivity growth across the panel periods based on the residuals from our axiomatic model. We also decompose productivity into scale, input mix, and unexplained effects to clarify the sources the productivity differences and provide managers guidance to make firms more productive.'
author:
- Daisuke Yagi
- Yining Chen
- 'Andrew L. Johnson'
- Hiroshi Morita
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: '**An axiomatic nonparametric production function estimator: Modeling production in Japan’s cardboard industry**'
---
\#1
[*Keywords:*]{} Multivariate Convex Regression, Nonparametric regression, Production economics, Shape Constraints, S-shape.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
How does scale and input mix affect a firm’s productivity? This question is vital to any models that aim to study the effects of automation. Since productivity is a scalar measure defined as the ratio of output to input, a fundamental challenge to answering this question lies in modeling how firms aggregate inputs.
The standard approach is to use growth accounting methods which calculates the parameters of implied parametric production function, see for example [@barro2004economic]. Similarly if production function estimation is to be performed, the Cobb–Douglas production function is the most common specification.[^1] However, the Cobb–Douglas function has several restrictive characteristics. Specifically, it implies that the input isoquants are homothetic, the elasticity of substitution between inputs is one, and the function can have either increasing or decreasing returns-to-scale, but not both. While the Trans-log relaxes both the later two of these restrictions, it often does not satisfy even basic economic axioms such as convex input isoquants or it may not have positive marginal product estimates. Perhaps for these reasons, the Cobb–Douglas production function, whether implied or estimated, remains the work horse for empirical research on productivity [@syverson2011determines].
The goal of this paper is to develop a new approach that is less dependent on functional form assumptions to estimate a production function while maintaining basic economic axioms. We use nonparametric local averaging methods, but augment these methods with shape constraints that reflect economic axioms. Nonparametric local averaging methods without shape constraints would avoid the potential for functional form misspecification and flexibly capture the nuances of the data, but would be difficult to interpret economically and would not satisfy some commonly accepted economics theory, e.g. positive rates of marginal substitution or non-negative marginal products. Thus, we can use a minimal set of economic axioms which are unlikely to be violated while providing additional structure. The axioms we impose are the Regular Ultra Passum (RUP) law as the scaling property[^2] and that input isoquants are convex but could be potentially non-homothetic. This new modeling approach estimates the most productive scale size conditional on input mix.
The RUP law [@frisch1964theory] states that along any expansion path, the production function should first have increasing returns-to-scale followed by decreasing returns-to-scale. Intuitively, when a firms is small it tends to face increasing returns-to-scale because it can increase productivity easily through specialization and learning [@bogetoft1996dea]. In contrast, as the scale size becomes larger, a firm tends to have decreasing returns-to-scale due to scarcity of ideal production inputs and challenges related to increasing span of control. Firms in competitive markets should operate close to the most productive scale size in the long-run to minimize the cost per unit and assure positive profits. The RUP law with a single inflection point will assure we have a well-defined marginal products and most productive scale sizes.
Convex input isoquants, which are a standard assumption in production theory, are motivated by the argument that there are optimal proportions in which inputs should be used for production and that deviations from the optimal proportion by decreasing the level of one input, such as capital, will require more than a proportional increase in another input, such as labor [@petersen1990data]. Relaxing the homotheticity of input isoquants allows the optimal proportions to depend on the output level. For example, the optimal proportion of inputs for low output levels could be more labor intensive than at higher output levels. Further, non-homothetic isoquants allows for the most productive scale size measured with different input mix to exist at different output levels. Non-homothetic isoquants allows us to more easily capture the empirical fact that productivity levels are a function of capital-to-input ratio.
The axiomatic approach is critical for interpreting the estimates of a production function to gain managerial insights. The production function is often used to estimate firm expansion behavior including how many resources need to be added to expand output or how automation (i.e. changing the capital-to-labor ratio) can be used to achieve larger scales of production. Without data and production function estimates, managers are left to make these decisions based on a firms historical behavior or rules-of-thumb or other approximations. The analysis of firm as a whole allows for the accounting of synergies between inputs in the production process.
We implement our approach using data from Japan’s corrugated cardboard industry. As classified in the Japanese Census of Manufactures, the cardboard industry[^3] includes both cardboard manufacturers and cardboard box manufacturers. The latter sector is not particularly capital intensive nor does it require technical know-how to enter, thus firms tend to focus more on customer service and lead-times. Overall, the industry has a few large firms and many smaller firms, which is typical for a mature manufacturing industry. The largest firms in the industry are vertically integrated and include cardboard production, box making, and paper making.[^4]
In the cardboard industry, like most industries, firms enter the market as small firms and must expand over time taking advantage of capital and labor specialization or other characteristics of the technology to be more productive [@haltiwanger2013creates; @foster2016slow]. Recently, medium and large sized firms in the industry have been acquiring smaller firms and reducing the combined input levels without significant reductions in the combined output levels, leading to higher productivity levels. In particular, since the medium size firms are operating below the most productive scale size, they have the potential for significant increase in productivity by increasing their scale of production, thus mergers are attractive to medium sized firms. Unlike previous models, our models motives mergers by making the productivity benefits of increasing scale size explicit.
Several nonparametric shape constrained estimators have been proposed that combine the advantage of avoiding functional misspecification with improving the interpretability of estimation results relative to unconstrained nonparametric methods, see for example [@kuosmanen2015stochastic] or [@yagi2018shape]. However, existing methods only allow the imposition of simple shape constraints such as monotonicity and concavity [@seijo2011nonparametric; @lim2012consistency]. These structures exclude economic phenomena such as increasing returns to scale due to specialization, fixed costs, or learning. Thus, more general functional structures, like the model proposed in this paper, are desirable.
There have been two previous attempts to develop estimators that impose the RUP law as shape constraints. [@olesen2014maintaining] develop an algorithm to estimate a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)-type estimator satisfying the RUP law and impose homotheticity on the input isoquants. Noise is not modeled in DEA estimators and all deviations from the estimated function are one-sided and negative. [@hwangbo2015power] introduce noise and estimate a scaling function using nonparametric shape constrained methods. However, they also assume homothetic input isoquants and do not provide statistical properties for their estimators. In conclusion, these estimation methods place structure on production function, but the homothetic assumption is not flexible enough to capture a variety of realistic and potential production structures. These drawbacks are to be addressed in our approach.
For the data analysis, we will use our production model to provide a description of the supply-side of the Japanese cardboard industry as we report most productive scale size, productivity evolution and decomposition. We find most productive scale size is dependent on the capital-to-labor input factor ratio and the largest firms operate close to the largest most productive scale size associated with a high capital-to-labor ratio. We also decompose the productivity into the scale and input mix productivity to clarify the source of productivity differences. This decomposition provides critical managerial insights for scale and input mix of each firm. Specifically, we find that large capital intensive firms get benefits from both scale and input mix while small capital intensive firms need either expansion of scale size or adjustment of input mix to improve productivity. These scale and mix effects account for significant portion of the productivity estimated by a conventional methods resulting in a much smaller component of unexplained productivity variation.
The remainder of this paper is as follows. Section \[sec:model\] introduces the proposed production function model and its assumptions. Section \[sec:iter\] explains the ideas behind the two-step estimation procedure and the algorithm for our estimator. All the details can be found in Appendix \[app:algo\]. Statistical properties of the estimator is investigated in Section \[sec:property\]. Section \[sec:simulation\] discusses the Monte Carlo simulation results under several different experimental settings. Section \[sec:application\] applies our estimator to estimate a production function for the Japanese cardboard industry. We conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\] with future research directions. Proofs of all the theorems are deferred to Appendix \[app:proof\].
Model framework {#sec:model}
===============
To facilitate our discussion, in this section, we consider the following production function model in the noiseless setting. $$\label{eq:prod1}
y=g_0(\bm{x}),$$ where $\bm{x}=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_d)'$ is $d$-dimensional input vector, $y$ is an output scalar, and $g_0: \mathbb{R}_+^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is a production function.
An input isoquant $\bar{V}(y) = \{\bm{x}: g_0(\bm{x})=y\}$ be the sets of input vectors capable of producing each output $y$. \[ass:isoq1\]
We write $$\label{eq:prod2}
\phi(y,\bm{x})=y-g_0(\bm{x}).$$ and make the following assumptions on $g_0$ and $\phi$:
\[ass:1\]
(i) $g_0(\cdot)$ is a strictly monotonically increasing and Lipschitz function.
(ii) $\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a twice-differentiable function.
Under Assumption \[ass:1\], by the implicit function theorem, there exists an implicit function $\mathscr{H}_{0,k}$ such that $$\label{eq:isoq}
x_k = \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\ldots,x_d;y) \equiv \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_{-k};y)~~~\mbox{ for all } k=1,\ldots,d,$$ where $\bm{x}_{-k}=(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\ldots,x_d)'$ is an input vector without the $k$-th input.
We are interested in estimating a production function $g_0$ having both convex input isoquants for all output levels and that satisfies an augmented version of the RUP law. The input convexity implies the following conditions on $\mathscr{H}_{0,k}$:
\[def:inputconvex\] An input isoquant is input-convex if for every $k=1,\ldots,d$, any pair of arbitrary input vectors $\bm{x}_a,\bm{x}_b\in \mathbb{R}_+^{d-1}$, $y \in \mathbb{R}_+$ (where $\mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_a;y)$ and $\mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_b;y)$ are well-defined) and $\lambda \in [0,1]$, \[ass:isoq\]
(i) (Convex input isoquant)\
$\lambda \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_a;y)+(1-\lambda)\mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_b;y)\geq \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\lambda \bm{x}_a+(1-\lambda)\bm{x}_b;y)$
(ii) (Monotone decreasing input isoquant)\
If $\bm{x}_a\leq \bm{x}_b\mbox{, then } \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_a;y)\geq \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_b;y)$.
Intuitively, input convexity implies the existence of an optimal ratio of inputs. Deviations from the optimal input ratios by decreasing the use of a particular input will result in more than a proportional increase in other inputs. Further, larger deviations from the optimal ratio will require larger increases in input consumption to maintain the same output level. Finally, it can be shown that to verify Definition 2, it suffices to check that it holds for any particular $k\in \{1,\ldots,d\}$.
Next, we define the elasticity of scale[^5], $\varepsilon(\bm{x})$, relative to a production function $g_0(\bm{x})$ as $$\label{eq:elasticity}
\varepsilon(\bm{x})=\sum_{k=1}^{d}\frac{\partial g_0(\bm{x})}{\partial x_k}\frac{x_k}{g_0(\bm{x})}.$$ The Regular Ultra Passum (RUP) law was originally proposed by [@frisch1964theory]. A version of its extension is given as follows:
\[def:rup\] ([@forsund2004all]) A production function $g_0(\bm{x})$ obeys the Regular Ultra Passum law if $\frac{\partial\varepsilon(\bm{x})}{\partial x_k}<0$ for every $k=1,\ldots,d$, and for some input $\bm{x_a}$ we have $\varepsilon(\bm{x}_a)>1$, and for some input $\bm{x}_b$ we have $\varepsilon(\bm{x}_b)<1$, where $\bm{x}_b>\bm{x}_a$.[^6][^,^]{}[^7]
Intuitively, for any ray from the origin, a production function $g_0$ has increasing returns to scale followed by decreasing returns to scale. However, note that in both [@forsund2004all] and Frisch’s original definition, neither rules out the possibility of multiple inflection points; see Appendix \[app:ce\_rup\] for a more detailed explanation. Furthermore, because the RUP law is defined in terms of the elasticity of scale, the law does not allow the function, $g_0$, to grow at an exponential rate. To overcome these issues, we introduce the following definition of an S-shape function.
\[def:s-shape\] A production function $g_0: \mathbb{R}_+^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is S-shaped if for any $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{R}_+^d$ defining a ray from the origin in input space $\alpha\bm{v}$ with $\alpha>0$, $\nabla_{\bm{v}}^2 g_0(\alpha\bm{v}) > 0$ for $\alpha\bm{v}<\bm{x}^*$, and $\nabla_{\bm{v}}^2 g_0(\alpha\bm{v})< 0$ for $\alpha\bm{v}> \bm{x}^*$ along a ray from the origin, where $\nabla_{\bm{v}}^2 g_0$ is the directional second derivative of $g_0$ along $\bm{v}$. This implies that for any ray from the origin of direction $\bm{v}$, there exists a single inflection point $\bm{x}^*$ that $\nabla_{\bm{v}}^2 g_0(\bm{x^*}) = 0$.[^8]
Figure \[fig:RUP\] and show two examples of the production function with one-input and two-input, respectively. Both functions satisfy the RUP law and the S-shaped definition. The relationship between the RUP law and an S-shape function is characterized in the following lemma.
\[lmm:RUP\] If a production function $g_0: \mathbb{R}_+^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is second-differentiable, monotonically increasing and satisfies the RUP law and there exists a single inflection point $\bm{x}^*$ where $\nabla_{\bm{v}}^2 g_0(\bm{x^*}) = 0$ for any ray from the origin defined by a direction $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{R}_+^d$, then $g_0$ is S-shaped.
Another common assumption for production functions is homotheticity.
\[def:homothetic\] A production function $g_0$ is homothetic if for every $\bm{x}$, $\alpha > 0$ and $k=1,\ldots,d$, the implicit function $\mathscr{H}_{0,k}$ is homogeneous of degree one, i.e. $$\alpha x_k = \mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\alpha x_1,\ldots,\alpha x_{k-1},\alpha x_{k+1},\ldots,\alpha x_d;g_0(\alpha \bm{x})).$$
Input homotheticity is a strong assumption because it restricts input elasticity to be constant for a given input mix at all scales of production. However, by relaxing input homotheticity and assuming only input-convexity, each isoquant can have different shapes and curvatures at a given $y$-level. We refer to isoquants of this type as non-homothetic, convex input isoquants. Figure \[fig:isoq\] shows examples of production functions with homothetic and non-homothetic isoquants with two-dimensional input.
In the following, we prove that a homothetic production function which satisfies the S-shape definition for a single ray from the origin will also satisfy the S-shape definition for any expansion path. To achieve this, we require the following alternative characterization for a homothetic production function.
(Alternative definition of homothetic production function) A production function $g_0(\bm{x})=F_0(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x}))$ is homothetic if
(i) [Scale function $F_0:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a strictly monotone increasing function, and]{}
(ii) [Core function $\mathscr{H}_0: \mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a homogeneous of degree 1 function which implies $\mathscr{H}_0(\alpha\bm{x})=\alpha\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x})$ for all $\alpha>0$,]{}
(iii) with the identifiablility condition $\mathscr{H}_0((1,\ldots,1)^T) = 1$.
Note that the identifiability condition is necessary because otherwise, we could have set $F'(\cdot) = F(t\times \cdot)$ and $\mathscr{H}'(\cdot) = \mathscr{H}(\cdot)/t$ for any constant $t>0$ so that $F(\mathscr{H}(\cdot)) = F'(\mathscr{H}'(\cdot))$, so $F$ and $\mathscr{H}$ would not be identifiable.
Define ${X}_{max,k}=\max {\bm{X}}_k$ for $\forall k=1,\ldots,d$ and $\bm{X}_{M}=({X}_{max,1},...,{X}_{max,k},...,{X}_{max,d})$. And also define $\bm{X}_0 =\bm{0}$. The value of the core function, $g$ when evaluating the input vector, $\bm{X}$, is referred to as aggregate input, specifically $x_A=\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X})$.
A rising curve (commonly referred to as an expansion path) is a series of $M+1$ input vectors, $\{\bm{X}_0,\ldots,\bm{X}_M\}$ such that $x_{A,m} < x_{A,m+1}$ for every $m=0,\ldots,M-1$, where $x_{A,m} = \mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_{m})$. The corresponding $\Big\{\big(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_0),g(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_0))\big),\ldots, \big(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_{M}),g(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_M))\big)\Big\}$ is called the aggregated input/output of that expansion path.
If the production function is homothetic, [@forsund1975homothetic] shows the scale elasticity is constant on each isoquant. Here we build on these results to show that, given a function is homothetic, then for any ray from the origin, $\alpha \bm{v}$, the associated inflection points, $x_v^*$ lies on the same isoquant. This statement holds when inflection point is replaced by most productive scale size (point) where most productive scale size on a particular ray $\alpha \bm{v}$ is $\max_{\bm{X} \in \alpha \bm{v}} \frac{F(\mathscr{H}(\bm{X}))}{\mathscr{H}(\bm{X})}$.
\[thm:1\] Assume a production function is homothetic in inputs and the S-shape definition holds for a single ray from the origin, then the S-shape definition will hold for the aggregated input/output of any expansion path. Furthermore, consider any pair of rays from the origin and define two 2-D sectionals of the production function. For both rays from the origin, the S-shape definition is satisfied and the inflection points lie on the same input isoquant with aggregate input level, $x_A^*$.
If we interpret the expansion path as the growth in inputs from one period to the next. Then consider any two expansion paths $i$ and $j$, $\{\bm{X}_{0i},\ldots,\bm{X}_{Mi}\}$ and $\{\bm{X}_{0j},\ldots,\bm{X}_{Mj}\}$, such that $\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_{mi}) = x_{A,m,i} = x_{A,m,j}=\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_{mj})$ for all $m$, the previous results implies the two expansion paths cross the the inflection point isoquant during the same period $m$ in which $x_{A,m-1}=\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_{m-1}) \leq x_A^* < \mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_{m}) = x_{A,m}$. Notice there is no restriction that expansion paths are radial. In addition, the aggregated input/output of this non-radial expansion path is S-shaped.
Estimation Algorithm {#sec:iter}
====================
Framework
---------
Given observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ satisfying $y_j = g_0(\bm{X}_j) + \epsilon_j$, where $\epsilon_j$ are i.i.d. noise with zero-mean and finite variance. Our goals include the following:
1. For a given level $y$, estimate the isoquant function satisfying both the convex input and the monotone decreasing input assumptions (see Definition \[def:inputconvex\]).
2. For a given direction $\bm{v} \in \mathbb{R}_+^d$, estimate the production curve along that direction, i.e. $g_0(\alpha \bm{v})$ for $\alpha>0$, satisfying monotonicity and S-shaped assumptions (see Definition \[def:s-shape\]).
Our algorithm could also be used as intermediate steps to tackle more involved problems, such as optimal resource allocation when giving the unit cost of each input as well as the total budget.
Overview
--------
We propose an estimation algorithm for a production function satisfying both the S-shape definition and input convexity without any further structural assumptions. The algorithm combines two different shape constrained nonparametric estimation methods. Succinctly, the algorithm is constructed by two estimations: (1) Input isoquants for a set of $y$–levels, and (2) S-shape functions on a set of rays from the origin. Algorithm \[algo:basic\] presents our basic algorithm which is composed of these two estimators.[^9] We reference a pilot estimate which can be any estimator that will provide an initial rough estimate of the function[^10]. The right-hand column of Algorithm \[algo:basic\] reports the section numbers where the details of each step are described.
We approximate a production function $g_0$ with isoquant estimates for a set of output levels, and S-shape functional estimates for a set of rays from the origin as shown in Figure \[fig:func\_est\]. We also develop the interpolation procedure to obtain the functional estimates $\hat{g}_0(\bm{x})$ at any given input $\bm{x}$. Figure \[fig:func\_est\] shows the interpolated surface of the estimated production function.
**Data:** $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ (Section) *Initialization*:(\[subsec:init\]) $I \gets$ Initialize number of isoquants $R \gets$ Initialize number of rays $\{y^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{I} \gets$ Initialize isoquant $y$-levels with $y^{(1)} < \cdots < y^{(I)}$. $\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R} \gets$ Initialize rays from origin *Estimation*:(\[subsec:est\]) For $j=1,\ldots,n$, let $\tilde{y}_j = \tilde{g}_0(\bm{X}_j)$, where $\tilde{g}_0$ is the pilot estimator of $g_0$ Project $\{\bm{X}_j,\tilde{y}_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ to the isoquant level $y^{(i)}$ Estimate convex isoquants by the CNLS-based estimation Project observations onto the ray $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ Estimate S-shape functions using the SCKLS-based estimator **Return:** Estimated isoquants and S–shape functions
Since we estimate the S-shape function on rays from the origin, it is convenient to use a spherical coordinates system which is defined by the angle and distance (radius) of observed points to the origin. Therefore, our observed input vector $\bm{X}_j=(X_{j1},\ldots,X_{jd} )'$ in spherical coordinates system $(r_j,\bm{\phi}_j)=(r_j,\phi_{j,1},\ldots,\phi_{j,d-1})$ is defined as: $$\label{eq:polar}
\begin{aligned}
r_j &= \sqrt{X_{j1}^2+\ldots+X_{jd}^2} \\
\phi_{j,1} &= \arccos\frac{X_{j1}}{\sqrt{X_{j1}^2+\ldots+X_{jd}^2}}\\
\phi_{j,2} &= \arccos\frac{X_{j2}}{\sqrt{X_{j2}^2+\ldots+X_{jd}^2}}\\
&\vdots\\
\phi_{j,d-1} &= \arccos\frac{X_{j,d-1}}{\sqrt{X_{j,d-1}^2+X_{jd}^2}},\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $r_j$ is the radial distance from the origin, and $\{\phi_{j,1}\ldots\phi_{j,d-1}\}$ defines the angle of the observation. For notational conveinience, in the rest of the manuscript, we denote the angle of $\bm{v}$ for any $\bm{v} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $\|v\|_2=1$ as ${\phi}(\bm{v})$ (and its inverse function as $\phi^{-1}(\cdot)$).
Initialization {#subsec:init}
--------------
We initialize the parameters used in the estimation. The number of isoquants $I$ and the number of rays from the origin $R$ affect the flexibility of the estimated function (computation time increases with the number of isoquants and rays). We initialize isoquant $y$-levels, $\{y^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{I}$, and rays from the origin, $\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R}$, based on the distribution of the observations. We propose three options: (1) Evenly spaced grid, (2) Equally spaced percentile grid, and (3) Centroid of $K$-means cluster of observations. To set notation, given the number of isoquants, $I$, and rays, $R$, we set the grid as $y^{(i)}$ and $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$, the locations of the isoquants and rays respectively. To overcome skewness in the empirical data in which there are many smaller firms and only a few large firms, we recommend an equally spaced percentile grid or $K$-means cluster.
Two–step estimation {#subsec:est}
-------------------
During the estimation step, we approximate the production function by estimating the isoquants at a set of $y$-levels and estimating the S-shape functions on a set of rays from the origin. We calculate the estimates over different tuning parameters, compute the mean squared errors (MSE) against observations, and return the final estimates corresponding to the tuning parameters with the minimum MSE.
### Isoquant estimation {#subsubsec:isoq_est}
Before estimating the isoquants, we need to assign each observation $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ to an isoquant $y$-level, $y^{(i)}$ based on $\tilde{y}_j$ from a pilot estimator. The purpose of the pilot estimator is to improve the classification of observations to isoquant levels. Most well-known nonparametric estimators, such as local linear estimator could be used. We suggest simply assigning each observation to the closest isoquant $y$-level, which means $$i_j={\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{i\in\{1,\ldots,I\}}\left(\tilde{y}_j-y^{(i)}\right)^{2} ~~~~~ \forall j=1,\ldots,n,$$ where $i_j$ indicates the isoquant index to which we assign observation $j$. Then, we define the projected observations for the $i^{th}$ isoquant as $\{\bm{X}_j,y^{(i_j)}\}_{\{j:i_j=i\}}$, where $y^{(i_j)}$ is the output level of the $i^{th}$ isoquant (ties are broken by assigning the observation to the a lower-level isoquant). Figure \[fig:isoq\_est\] shows the projection of each observation to the corresponding isoquant $y$-level. We estimate a set of isoquants using the CNLS-based method which is a nonparametric estimation method imposing convexity for each $y^{(i)}$-level. Intuitively, we estimate the convex isoquant estimates nonparametrically without imposing any ex ante functional specification for each $y^{(i)}$-level. Figure \[fig:isoq\_est\] shows the isoquant estimates obtained with projected observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y^{(i_j)}\}$. The mathematical formulation is described in Appendix \[subsec:isoq\].
### S-shape estimation {#subsubsec:s_est}
To estimate the S-shape functions on rays from the origin, we begin by project all observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^n$ to each ray from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$. We can either project the observations directly onto the rays, or use the estimated isoquants from the previous step to project the observations. For the second approach, in short, we find the level of an isoquant to which $\bm{X}_j$ belongs. Below we also provide an alternative way of thinking about this step. Considering the observations input level, $\bm{X}_j$, we select the two closest isoquants associated with a larger and smaller aggregate inputs. Here the definition of larger and smaller vectors are in terms of a proportional expansion or contraction of the input vector, $\lambda\bm{X}_j$ where $0 \leq \lambda < \infty$ with $\lambda \geq 1$ indicating expansion and $\lambda \leq 1$ indicating contraction. We will refer the two closest isoquants as “sandwiching" the input vector of interest. Then, we assign weights to these two isoquants based on the distance to the observed input $\bm{X}_j$ along a ray from the origin through the observed points. Finally, we project the observation with the weighted average of the two isoquant estimates. Figure \[fig:s\_shape\_est\] shows the projection of our observations. Details are described in Appendix \[subsubsec:project\].
Next, we use the SCKLS-based method to estimate the S-shape function on each ray from the origin. Note that this estimation assigns two different kernel weights to each observation. The first weight is a function of the angle(s) formed by a ray from the origin through the observation and a ray from the origin through the current evaluation point. The angle will be a vector if there are more than two regressors. The second weight is a function of the distance measured along the ray between the projected observation and the evaluation point.
SCKLS-based estimation requires the selection of a smoothing parameter which we refer to as the bandwidth. Intuitively, a smaller bandwidth will lead to over–fitting the data, and a larger bandwidth will lead to over–smoothing. Thus, it is crucial to select the optimal bandwidth by balancing the bias–variance tradeoff of the estimator. In our algorithm, the bandwidth of the kernel weights for angles, $\bm{\omega}$, is optimized via a grid search, and the bandwidth of the kernel weights for distance along the ray, $h^{(r)}$, is optimized by leave-one-out cross-validation, given kernel weights for angles. We adapt the SCKLS estimator by introducing an inflection point, below this point the function is convex and after this point the function is concave. The estimation is preformed for each ray, thus inputs are aggregated to a single univariate regressor. Therefore, the number of constraints used are on order of evaluation points. We search over a large set of potential inflection points similar to the estimator studied in [@liao2017change]. Figure \[fig:s\_shape\_est\] shows the S-shape estimates obtained with projected observations. The mathematical details are described in Appendix \[subsubsec:SCKLS\].
### Computing functional estimates at a given input vector {#subsubsec:funest}
The last step of Algorithm \[algo:basic\] obtains the functional estimates $\hat{g}(\bm{x})$ at any given value of input vector $\bm{x}$, and computes the MSE against observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$.
First we compute the weighted average of the two closest isoquants which sandwich the observed input $\bm{X}_j$. The details are given in Appendix $\ref{subsubsec:project}$. Second, we assign weights to each S-shape estimate based on the angle between a given input vector $\bm{x}$ and each ray from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ on which we have estimated the S-shape functions, followed by scaling and computing the weighted average of the S-shape estimates and obtaining the final functional estimates on a given input $\bm{x}$, $\hat{g}(\bm{x})$. Figure \[fig:func\_est\] shows the interpolated functional estimates. The details are given in Appendix \[subsubsec:estimates\_on\_obs\].
Note that there may be a gap between the convex isoquant estimates and the S-shape estimates on rays from the origin. Specifically, if the S-shape estimates do not all lie on the input isoquant for each evaluated output level $y^{(i)}$, then the S-shape estimates will not match the isoquant estimates at some isoquant $y$-level as indicated by the blue circle in Figure \[fig:gap\]. The gap tends to be larger when the data are noisier. However, the gaps can be assured to be zero if we impose homotheticity. In the non-homothetic case, we can always reduce the gap to zero by using fewer rays for estimation, although at the cost of a rougher functional estimate.[^11]
![Gap between convex isoquant and S-shape estimates[]{data-label="fig:gap"}](modification_1.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Other variants
--------------
### Homothetic isoquants {#subsec:homo1}
If we know that the isoquants are homothetic, then isoquants at different levels would have the same shape. This means that we could estimate the isoquant at any given $y$-level (say, $y^{(\lfloor I/2\rfloor)}$), and scale it to other $y$-level accordingly. Alternatively, we could estimate the isoquants at different levels jointly via the following procedure. Insert the following steps between Line 11 and Line 12 of Algorithm \[algo:basic\].
1. For $i = 1,\ldots,I$, let $\mathcal{I}_i \subset \{1,\ldots,n\}$ be the index set with $\{\bm{X}_j,\tilde{y}_j\}_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i}$ projected to the isoquant level $y^{(i)}$. After we estimate isoquants at different $y$-levels, we let $\hat{\lambda}_i$ be the scalar such that $\hat{\lambda}_i(1,\ldots,1)^T$ is on the estimated isoquant at level $y^{(i)}$.
2. For some pre-defined $\delta \in (0,1/2)$, apply the CNLS-based estimator on $$\bigcup_{\{i=\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor\}}\{\hat{\lambda}_i^{-1} \bm{X}_j\}_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i}$$ and denote the curve by $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_{-k}; F_0(1))$.
3. Re-estimate the isoquant at $y^{(i)}$ level by $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,k}(\bm{x}_{-k}; y^{(i)}) \equiv \lambda_i \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,k}(\hat{\lambda}_i^{-1}\bm{x}_{-k}, F_0(1))$.
Note that in the second step above, we do not make use of the estimated isoquant at the top and bottom quantiles of the $y$-levels. This is due to the fact that isoquant estimation at extreme levels could be inconsistent.
Due to homotheticity, given the estimated isoquants, instead of estimating the S-shape function along different rays, we could concentrate on estimation along a single ray. Without loss of generality, we could project all observations to the ray $\alpha(1,\ldots,1)^T$ (with $\alpha > 0$) along the isoquants, and then perform SCKLS.
### Parametric and homothetic isoquants {#subsec:homo2}
Recall that $g_0(\bm{x})=F_0(\mathscr{H}_0(x))$ in the homothetic setting, with $F_0$ following the S-shape. Given the parametric form of $H$ and for each possible parameter value, we could derive the profile log-likelihood use the CNLS-type approach. As such, we can obtain the estimates by directly solving a semi-parametric optimization problem (without the need of a pilot estimator). As an illustration, two concrete examples are given below. Here we denote $\mathcal{F}$ as the class of increasing and S-shaped functions from $[0,\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
1. **Linear isoquants**
$\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x}) = \boldsymbol{\beta}_0^T \bm{x}$ with $\boldsymbol{\beta}_0> \mathbf{0}$ and $\|\boldsymbol{\beta}_0\|_1 = 1$ (so that $\mathscr{H}_0((1,\ldots,1)^T)=1$).
We estimate $\boldsymbol{\beta}_0$ by $$\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0 \in {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{ \|\boldsymbol{\beta}\|_1 = 1, \boldsymbol{\beta} \ge \mathbf{0}} \min_{F \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(Y_j - F(\boldsymbol{\beta}^T \bm{X}_j)\big)^2$$ and $F_0$ by $$\hat{F}_0 \in {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{F \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(Y_j - F(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0^T \bm{X}_j)\big)^2.$$
2. **Power isoquants**
We consider $\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x})=\bm{x}^{\boldsymbol{\beta}_0} \equiv \prod_{i=1}^d x_i^{\beta_{0,i}}$, where $\boldsymbol{\beta}_0 = (\beta_{0,1}, \ldots, \beta_{0,d})^T$, which is a Cobb-Douglas type of isoquant. Here $\boldsymbol{\beta}_0> \mathbf{0}$ and $\|\boldsymbol{\beta}_0\|_1 = 1$ (so that $\mathscr{H}_0$ is homothetic). Also note that there is no extra coefficient in front of $\bm{x}^{\boldsymbol{\beta}_0}$ in $\mathscr{H}_0$ since we require $\mathscr{H}_0((1,\ldots,1)^T)=1$.
We estimate $\boldsymbol{\beta}_0$ by $$\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_0 \in {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{ \|\boldsymbol{\beta}\|_1 = 1, \boldsymbol{\beta} \ge \mathbf{0}} \min_{F \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(Y_j - F(\bm{X}_j^{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\big)^2$$ and $F_0$ by $$\hat{F}_0 \in {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{F \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(Y_j - F(\bm{X}_j^{\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0})\big)^2.$$
Finally, we note that one could also use the SCKLS-type instead of CNLS-type approach in the above estimation procedures, see Appendix \[app:algo\] for details of the two types of estimators.
### Parametric isoquants
Suppose we know the parametric (but not necessarily homothetic) form of the isoquants, then we could replace the CNLS-based method in Line 11, Algorithm \[algo:basic\] by the ordinary least-squares-based method.
Further extensions to the estimation algorithm {#subsec:adv}
----------------------------------------------
Note that in the homothetic cases in Section \[subsec:homo1\] and Section \[subsec:homo2\], our estimator provides estimates for convex isoquants and S-shape curves with no gap. However, as stated above, Algorithm \[algo:basic\] may result in a production function estimate with a gap between the convex isoquant estimates and the S-shape estimates in the non-homothetic setting. To address this issue, we develop several extensions, which allow us to estimate a production function by iterating between the estimations of isoquants and S-shape functions to reduce the size and number of gaps that may exist.
**Data:** $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ Initialize the parameters(\[subsec:init2\]) Estimate each convex isoquant by the CNLS-based method(\[subsec:isoq\]) Estimate S-shape curve along the rays by the SCKLS-based method(\[subsec:s-shape\]) Compute a gap between estimates (\[subsec:update\]) Iterate previous steps until the parameters stabilize
**Return:** Estimated function with minimum Mean Squared Errors and a gap smaller than threshold
Algorithm \[algo:advanced\] is a concise summary of our algorithm. The mathematical details and an extended description is available in Appendix \[app:algo\] and is labeled, Algorithm \[algo:advanced2\]. We use Algorithm \[algo:advanced2\] in the following simulation and application sections.
Quantifying uncertainty of the estimator {#subsec:uncertainty}
----------------------------------------
In addition to estimating the conditional mean, understanding uncertainty of the estimator is critical for practitioners to make actual managerial decisions. However our estimator is piece-wise linear and thus require non-standard analysis to derive asymptotic properties. [@yagi2018shape] develop the bootstrapping procedure to validate the shape constraints imposed. We can also use the same wild bootstrap procedure to resample the response variable. Then we can use boostrap samples to emprically compute uncertainty of the estimator.
We can also use bootstrapping to validate the RUP law and input convex isoquants similar to [@yagi2018shape]. The test statistic is defined as a difference between shape constrained and unconstrained estimates. Intuitively, when shape constraints are correctly specified, then both estimates should have similar shape, and a test statistic becomes small. We describe the detailed procedure of bootstrapping in Appendix \[app:uncertainty\].
Theoretical properties of the estimator {#sec:property}
=======================================
The non-homothetic case
-----------------------
We show the consistency of Algorithm \[algo:basic\]. We make the following assumptions:
\[ass:2\]
(i) \[ass:2.1\] $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^n$ are a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with $y_j = g_0(\bm{X}_j)+ \epsilon_j$.
(ii) \[ass:2.2\] $g_0:\bm{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfy Assumption \[ass:1\], Definition \[def:inputconvex\] (convex input insoquants) and Definition \[def:s-shape\] (S-shaped). For simplicity, we also assume that $\bm{S}=[0,c]^d$ for some $c > 1$.
(iii) \[ass:2.3\] $\bm{X}_j$ follows a distribution with continuous density function $f$ and support $\bm{S}$. Moreover, $\min_{\bm{x} \in \bm{S}} f(\bm{x}) > 0$.
(iv) \[ass:2.4\] The conditional probability density function of $\epsilon_j$, given $\bm{X}_j$, denoted as $p(e|\bm{x})$, is continuous with respect to both $e$ and $\bm{x}$, with the mean function $$\mu(\cdot) = E(\epsilon_j|\bm{X}_j=\cdot) = 0$$ and the variance function $$\sigma^2(\cdot) = \mathrm{Var}(\epsilon_j|\bm{X}_j=\cdot)$$ being continuous over $\bm{S}$. Moreover, $\sup_{\bm{x} \in \bm{S}}E\Big(\epsilon_j^4\Big|\bm{X}_j = \bm{x}\Big) < \infty$.
Most parts of Assumption \[ass:2\] are typical in the nonparametric regression setting. Here (\[ass:2.1\]) states that the data are i.i.d.; (\[ass:2.2\]) says that the constraints we impose are satisfied by the true function; (\[ass:2.3\]) makes a further assumption on the distribution of the covariates; and (\[ass:2.4\]) states that the noise can be heteroscedastic in certain ways, but requires the change in the variance to be smooth.
To simplify our theoretical development, below we impose some more specific assumptions regarding the construction of our estimator.
\[ass:3\]
(i) For the pilot estimator, we use the local linear estimator with the sphereically symmetric Epanechnikov kernel and bandwidth $h' \asymp n^{-1/(4+d)}$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
(ii) $I = o(n^{2/(4+d)}/\log n)$, with $I \rightarrow \infty$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, let $y_\circ = \inf_{\bm{S}} g_0(\bm{x})$ and $y^\circ = \sup_{\bm{S}} g_0(\bm{x})$. The initial $y$-values of the isoquants are set as $$y^{(i)} = y_\circ + \frac{i}{I+1}(y^\circ-y_\circ)$$ for $i=1,\ldots,I$.
(iii) We use the spherically symmetric Epanechnikov kernel, with bandwidths, $\bm{\omega}=(\omega,\ldots,\omega)'$ and $h$. For simplicity, we take $\omega = h$ and $h \asymp n^{-1/(4+d)}$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
(iv) The number of rays $R \rightarrow \infty$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, the empirical distribution of $\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R}$ converges to the uniform distribution on $[0,\pi/2]^{d-1}$.
(v) For any $\bm{v} \in \mathbb{R}_+^d$, define $c_{\bm{v}} = \sup \{t > 0: \; t\bm{v} \in \bm{S}\}$. For the SCKLS estimator along each ray of direction $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$, evaluation points are equally spaced over $[0,c_{\phi^{-1}(\bm{\theta}^{(r)})}]$, where $\phi^{-1}$ is the inverse angle function. The number of evaluation points, $m$, goes to $\infty$, as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
The following theorems establish the consistency for isoquant estimation and estimation along the rays. Without loss of generality, we focus on isoquants expressed as a function of the first $d-1$ coordinates (i.e. the truth is $\mathscr{H}_{0,d}$, with its estimator $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}$).
\[thm:nonhomo\_consistency1\] Under Assumptions \[ass:1\]–\[ass:3\], for any $y \in (y_\circ,y^\circ)$, suppose that $\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\cdot;y)$ has domain $\bm{C}_y \subset [0,c]^{d-1}$, and let $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\cdot;y)$ be the estimated isoquant. Then, $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\cdot;y)$ satisfies the input-convexity constraint. Moreover, for any compact set $\bm{C}'$ that belongs to the interior of $\bm{C}_y$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)|\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
\[thm:nonhomo\_consistency2\] Under Assumptions \[ass:1\]–\[ass:3\], for any direction $\bm{v}=(v_1,\ldots,v_d)^T$ with $\min_i v_i > 0$ and $\|\bm{v}\|_2=1$, we have that $\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v})$ obeys the S-shape along $\bm{v}$. For any $\delta \in (0,c_{\bm{v}}/2)$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $$\sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]} |\hat{g}_0(\alpha\bm{v})-g_0(\alpha\bm{v})|\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
The homothetic cases
--------------------
We also show consistency on the variants of our algorithm on the estimation of the isoquants in the homothetic settings.
### Nonparametric isoquants
\[thm:homo\_consistency1\] Under Assumptions \[ass:1\]–\[ass:3\] and suppose that $g_0(\bm{x})=F_0(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x}))$ is homothetic. Then, $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\cdot;F_0(1))$ satisfies the input-convexity constraint. Moreover, for any compact set $\bm{C}'$ that belongs to the interior of $\bm{C}_{F_0(1)}$, where $\bm{C}_{F_0(1)} \subset [0,c]^{d-1}$ is the domain of $\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\cdot;F_0(1))$, we have that, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))|\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
### Parametric isoquants
Here for the brevity of our presentation, we focus on the case of linear and power isoquants. Similar consistency result could also be established under other parametric settings.
\[thm:homo\_consistency2\] Suppose that Assumptions \[ass:1\]–\[ass:3\] hold. Furthermore, assume that $g_0(\bm{x}) = F_0(\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x}))$ is homothetic, with $\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x}) = \boldsymbol{\beta}_0^T \bm{x}$ or $\mathscr{H}_0(\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ , $\boldsymbol{\beta}_0> \mathbf{0}$ and $\|\boldsymbol{\beta}_0\| = 1$. Then, $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} \boldsymbol{\beta}_0$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
Simulation study {#sec:simulation}
================
We use Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the finite sample performance of the proposed estimator with datasets generated by the different data generation process (DGP). We consider different models for estimating isoquants: parametric homothetic, nonparametric homothetic and nonparametric non-homothetic.
The setup {#sec:setup}
---------
In our simulation, we compare the performance of the proposed estimator with a Local Linear estimator (LL), which is an unconstrained nonparametric estimation method using kernel weights. We run simulations using the built-in quadratic programming solver, `quadprog`, in `MATLAB`. We define three DGPs to compare different models for estimating isoquants: parametric homothetic, nonparametric homothetic and nonparametric non-homothetic input isoquants. For each case, we run experiments varying the sample size and the size of noise. For a testing set drawn from the true DGP, we measure the Root Mean Squared Errors (RMSE) against the true function.
Parametric homothetic isoquants {#subsec:para}
-------------------------------
Here we compute the performance of S–shape estimator in case that we correctly specify the parametric expression of the input isoquant. The true production function used in the simulation is defined by the following scale and core function: $$\label{eq:scale}
F_0(z)=\frac{15}{1+\exp(-5\log{z})}$$ $$\label{eq:core_para}
\mathscr{H}_0(X_1,X_2)= X_1^\beta X_2^{\left(1-\beta\right)},$$ where the intensity of the first input, $X_1$, is $\beta=0.50$. We generate samples from $$\label{eq:dgp_prod_para}
y_j=F_0\left(\mathscr{H}_0(X_{1j},X_{2j})\right)+\epsilon_j,$$ with an additive noise term generated as $\epsilon_j\sim N(0,\sigma_v)$, where $\sigma_v$ is the standard deviation of the additive noise. We radially generate inputs to the production function, $(X_1,X_2)$, as $$\label{eq:input_dist}
\bm{X}=(X_1,X_2)=(\psi\cos\eta,\psi\sin\eta),$$ with the modulus, $\psi$, generated as $\psi\sim U(0,2.5)$ and angles, $\eta$, generated as $\eta\sim U(0.05,\frac{\pi}{2}-0.05)$. Note this DGP specifies that inputs are generated radially and noise is additively contained in the output. We consider 9 scenarios varying the training set sample size $(100,500, 1000)$ and the standard deviations of the noise term, $\sigma_v\in(1.0, 2.0, 3.0)$. We compare our proposed estimator to the LL estimator. For the S–shape estimation, we use the procedure proposed in Section \[subsec:homo2\] which uses parametric estimation for isoquants. Specifically, we search for the optimal value of $\beta$ which minimizes the residuals of S–shape estimation at a ray from the origin. For the S–shape estimation of our algorithm, we implement the SCKLS estimator.[^12] To compute the bandwidths for both the LL estimators and the SCKLS estimator for the S–shape part of our algorithm, we use Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) with the LL estimator. LOOCV is a data-driven bandwidth selection method that has been shown to perform well for unconstrained and constrained kernel estimators, respectively; see [@stone1977consistent] and [@yagi2018shape].
We generate 100 training-testing set pairs for each scenario, and draw box plots[^13] of RMSE against the true function for both estimators shown in Figure \[fig:expParatest\]. The size of the testing set is $1000$, and it is randomly drawn from the same distribution as the training set. We find that the S–shape estimator performs significantly better than the LL estimator for all scenarios. This is because our estimator correctly specifies and imposes the parametric input isoquants. Due to the slower rate of convergence of the nonparametric estimator, the difference between the S–shape and LL estimator is large even with a larger sample size. Further, the variance in the S–shape estimator is smaller than that of LL estimator because the shape constraints and parametric structure reduce the estimator’s variance.
![Estimation results on the testing sets with the parametric homothetic isoquants[]{data-label="fig:expParatest"}](exp_para_test.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Nonparametric homothetic isoquants {#subsec:homo}
----------------------------------
The DGP we use has the same scale function (\[eq:scale\]) and the following core function, which is used by [@olesen2014maintaining]: $$\label{eq:core}
\mathscr{H}_0(X_1,X_2;y)=\left(\beta(y) X_1^\frac{\sigma-1}{\sigma}+(1-\beta(y)) X_2^\frac{\sigma-1}{\sigma}\right)^\frac{\sigma}{\sigma-1},$$ where the elasticity of substitution is $\sigma=1.51$ and the intensity of the first input, $X_1$, is $\beta(y)=0.45$. For the homothetic case, the value of $\beta(y)$ is independent of output level $y$. We generate samples from $$\label{eq:dgp_prod}
y_j=F_0\left(\mathscr{H}_0(X_{1j},X_{2j};y^*_j)\right)+\epsilon_j,$$ where $y^*_j$ indicates a true functional value at $(X_{1j},X_{2j})$ satisfying $$\label{eq:output}
y^*_j=F_0\left(\mathscr{H}_0(X_{1j},X_{2j};y^*_j)\right)$$ with an additive noise term generated as $\epsilon_j\sim N(0,\sigma_v)$, where $\sigma_v$ is the standard deviation of the additive noise. This DGP generates homothetic input isoquants because the core function, $\mathscr{H}(\cdot)$, is independent of the output level, $y$. Input is radially generated as in the previous experiment and defined in (\[eq:input\_dist\]).
We use the S–shape estimator with nonparametric homothetic input isoquants which is described in Section \[subsec:homo1\]. We use the LL estimator as the pilot estimator of our S–shape model. We run simulations with same settings described in Section \[subsec:para\], and draw box plots of RMSE values against the true function for each estimator on testing set shown in Figure \[fig:exp1test\].
We find that the S–shape estimator performs better than the LL estimator in all scenarios. Specifically, our S–shape estimator has better out-of-sample performance because the shape constraints add structures to the estimator, which helps to avoid over-fitting the observations. The difference in performance becomes larger as the noise increases because the flexible nature of the LL estimator. We find that the shape constraints in our S–shape estimator make it robust to noisy data.
![Estimation results on the testing sets with the nonparametric homothetic isoquants[]{data-label="fig:exp1test"}](exp1test.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Nonparametric non-homothetic isoquants {#subsec:nhces}
--------------------------------------
We consider the same scale function (\[eq:scale\]) and core function (\[eq:core\]) as defined in Section \[subsec:homo\]. We make the function non-homothetic by redefining the $\beta$ value as $$\label{eq:nonhomo}
\beta(y)=0.25 + \frac{y}{15} \times0.30,$$ where $\beta(y)\in[0.25,0.55]$ depends on the output level $y\in[0,15]$. We generate the observations by solving equation (\[eq:output\]) for a given $(X_{1j},X_{2j})$. This function is non-homothetic because the core function $g(\cdot)$ is dependent on an output level $y$.
We use the S–shape estimator with nonparametric non-homothetic input isoquants. We use Algorithm \[algo:advanced\] to implement our estimator. We specify the number of isoquants and rays as $I=5$ and $R=5$, and compute equally spaced percentiles to set the location of the isoquant-level, $\{y^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{I}$, and rays, $\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R}$, respectively. We use the average directional CNLS estimates for the isoquant estimation; the details are in Appendix \[subsubsec:ADCNLS\]. We initialize the bandwidth between angles, $\bm{\omega}$, as $\omega_{1}=0.20$, and increment it by $\Delta\omega=0.25$. We iterate the procedure 20 times, increasing $\omega$ by $\Delta\omega$ in each iteration. After 20 iterations, we select the solution with the smallest sum of squared residuals as our final estimate. We allow the estimator to have a 1% of gap between the convex isoquant estimates and the S-shape estimates. We run simulations with same settings described in Section \[subsec:para\], and draw box plots of RMSE values against the true function for each estimator on testing set shown in Figure \[fig:exp2test\].
We find that the LL estimator performs slightly better than our proposed estimator when the noise is very small, this is likely because our estimator optimizes the fit of the estimated function only on a limited set of grid points. Again, the LL estimator has a larger RMSE variance than our estimator for medium and high noise settings. However, both estimators have larger RMSE variance in the non-homothetic scenarios, particularly in very noisy instances. Our estimator still performs well in terms of RMSE, which indicates its robustness to different assumptions about the production function.
![Estimation results on the testing sets with the nonparametric non-homothetic isoquants[]{data-label="fig:exp2test"}](exp2test.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Application {#sec:application}
===========
In this section, we estimate the production function using firm-level industry data from Japan’s *Census of Manufactures* provided by METI from 1997 to 2007, when demand for cardboard was relatively constant. Although some researchers have used the same dataset to estimate production functions ([@ichimura2011econometric]), they rely on strong parametric functional assumptions, whereas we relax them and estimate a production function nonparametrically under the RUP law and input convexity. We focus on economic insights related to the cardboard firms’ productivity and scale of production.
Census of Manufactures, Japan {#subsec:census}
-----------------------------
The annual *Census of Manufactures* covers all establishments with four or more employees and is conducted by METI under the Japanese Statistics Act. We use establishment-level data with 30 or more employees since the establishment with less than 30 employees do not report capital stock values. We use the same definition of the variables for production functions as [@ichimura2011econometric]:
- $L$ = (sum of total regular employees[^14] at the end of each month)
- $K$ = (starting amount of tangible assets[^15])
- $y$ = (total amount shipped) + ([ending inventory of finished and work-in-progress products]{}) - (starting inventory of finished and work-in-progress products) - (cost for intermediate inputs[^16])
where $L$,$K$ and $y$ indicate the labor, capital and value added, respectively, and the production function is modeled as $y = g_0(L,K)$.
We use industry-level deflators obtained from the Japan Industrial Productivity Database (JIP)[^17] to convert into year 2000 values. Figure \[fig:deflator\] shows the price deflator of the cardboard industry and the deflator for Japan’s GDP. Note that the price deflator of the cardboard industry is larger than that of GDP after 2003. This finding is consistent with larger firms shrinking their production capacity, which led to higher cardboard prices after 2003, [@Iguchi2015].
We convert establishment-level data into firm-level data by summing up the establishment-level data which belong to the same firm. We use firm-level data because expansion decisions are typically made at the firm-level by investing capital, labor, or merging with other firms.
![Price deflator (Base year = 2000)[]{data-label="fig:deflator"}](deflator.eps){width="70.00000%"}
The sample size of the panel data set is $n=4316$, and there are approximately 400 observations in each year. We normalize each variable by dividing by the standard deviation for data confidentiality. Positive skewness of both the input and output variables implies the existence of many small and a few large firms. Table \[tab:summaryStat\] reports the summary statistics.
[C[1in]{}C[1in]{}C[1in]{}C[1in]{}]{} & & &\
Mean & 0.554 & 0.283 & 0.340\
Skewness & 10.28 & 11.87 & 11.86\
10-percentile & 0.217 & 0.024 & 0.059\
25-percentile & 0.253 & 0.047 & 0.093\
50-percentile & 0.334 & 0.100 & 0.158\
75-percentile & 0.539 & 0.231 & 0.298\
90-percentile & 0.861 & 0.519 & 0.567\
\[tab:summaryStat\]
Figure \[fig:labor\_panel\], \[fig:capital\_panel\] and \[fig:va\_panel\] show the evolution of each variable across the panel periods by plotting the percentage change of each variable’s quartile mean for each year compared with 1997. Here, we compute the quartiles by total amount produced, i.e. firms in the 75%-100% bin have the highest total amount produced, while firms in the lower percentile bin have lower total amount produced. We define total amount produced as:
- (total amount produced) = (total amount shipped) + ([ending inventory of finished and work-in-progress products]{}) - (starting inventory of finished and work-in-progress products)
Intuitively, we use the total amount produced as an indicator of a firm’s scale size.
The four lines indicate from thinnest to thickest, the 0–25 percentile mean, 25–50 percentile mean, 50–75 percentile mean, and 75–100 percentile mean, respectively. During the time period, firms did not need to adjust their labor levels significantly while most firms reduce their capital levels between 2004 and 2006. We can interpret this as firms in the cardboard industry realized their over-investment in capital and readjusted for more efficient resource use. We observe that the larger firms in our panel dataset expanded value added while reducing their capital levels.
![Percentage change of quartile mean of labor\
(by amount produced, base year = 1997)[]{data-label="fig:labor_panel"}](labor_panel.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Percentage change of quartile mean of capital\
(by amount produced, base year = 1997)[]{data-label="fig:capital_panel"}](capital_panel.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Percentage change quartile mean of value added\
(by amount produced, base year = 1997)[]{data-label="fig:va_panel"}](va_panel.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Initialization {#subsec:appsetup}
--------------
Before using our iterative algorithm, we specify (1) Number and location of the rays and (2) Number and location ($y$-levels) of the isoquants. Table \[tab:summaryStat\] reports significant skewness of our dataset, i.e. many small firms and only a few large firms. An equally spaced percentile grid will not work well because it may fail to define the rays and isoquant $y$-levels corresponding to the large firms. Therefore, we use the $K$-means clustering method to cluster the data into $\mathscr{K}$ groups.
However, since $K$-means clustering requires pre-defining parameter $\mathscr{K}$ which is the number of clusters, we use Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) to balance the model complexity and explanatory power and avoid over-fitting. We iterate the algorithm 100 times over different $K$, and find that $\mathscr{K}=12$ provides the lowest BIC value for our dataset. We define the rays and isoquant $y$-levels as the centroid of each cluster. Figure \[fig:cluster\] shows the rays and isoquant $y$-levels defined by $K$-means clustering. There are many clusters defined for small scale firms and labor intensive firms and there are also a few clusters defined for large firms and capital intensive firms.
![Centroid of each group estimated by $K$-means clustering[]{data-label="fig:cluster"}](cluster.eps){width="70.00000%"}
We initialize the bandwidth between angles as $\omega_{1}=0.20$, and increase it by $\Delta\omega=0.20$ for each iteration. We iterate the procedure 50 times until $\omega$ becomes large enough that the functional estimates are stable between iterations.[^18] From the 50 estimates, we select the solution with the smallest sum of squared residuals in our solution set as our final estimate[^19].
Estimated production function and interpretation {#subsec:appresult}
------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:cardboard\_result\] shows graphs of: the estimated input isoquants, and the estimated S-shape production function on each ray. The black lines indicate the estimates on the centroid of each cluster defined by $K$-means clustering, and the red points indicate the most productive scale size on each ray from the origin. Figure \[fig:cardboard\_result\] shows that the marginal rate of technical substitution (MRTS) of labor for capital is high when the scale of production is smaller. This indicates that labor is a more important input factor for firms operating at a smaller scale. In contrast, the isoquant becomes flat as the scale of production increases, i.e. the MRTS is low for large firms. These isoquants imply that capital is a more important input factor for larger firms because labor levels need to increase significantly to offset a small reduction in capital.
Figure \[fig:cardboard\_result\] shows that labor intensive firms have a much smaller most productive scale size than capital intensive firms. This finding coincides with the production economics theory stating that firms become more capital intensive as they grow larger by automating processes with capital equipment and using less labor. Note that the most capital intensive ray has a smaller most productive scale size. This is likely a result of over-investment in capital. Therefore, these capital intensive firms could reduce their capital intensity in order to increase their productivity and scale of operations.
Analysis on productivity measure {#subsec:appproductivity}
--------------------------------
Our production function estimator makes a new decomposition of productivity possible and allows further investigation of productivity variation. Productivity is the ratio of observed output $y_{jt}$ to aggregate input $\mathscr{H}_{0}(L_{jt},K_{jt})$. Intuitively, if firms have higher productivity, they can produce larger value added with a given amount of input factors. Total factor productivity, the residual in a growth accounting exercise, can measure the firms’ deviation of output (value added) which cannot be explained by the input factors. [@syverson2011determines] enumerates the primary causes of productivity dispersion as managerial practices, quality of input factors, R&D, learning by doing, product innovation, firms’ structure decisions, or other external drivers.
We measure unexplained productivity residual defined as follows: $$\label{eq:TFP}
TFP_{jt} = \frac{y_{jt}}{\hat{g}_0(L_{jt},K_{jt})}~~~~~\forall j=1,\ldots,n_t\mbox{ and }\forall t= 1,\ldots,T,$$ where $n_t$ is a sample size for each time period $t$, $T$ denotes the panel periods, and $\hat{g}_0$ is a S-shape estimator of the production function used to aggregate inputs.
First, we investigate how the productivity for the cardboard industry is changing over time. Figure \[fig:prod\_trans\_scale\] and \[fig:input\_ratio\_panel\] plot the percentile change of quartile mean of productivity and capital-to-labor input factor ratio for each year compared with 1997, respectively.
![Percentage change of quartile mean of productivity\
(by amount produced, base year = 1997)[]{data-label="fig:prod_trans_scale"}](prod_trans_scale.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Percentage change of quartile mean of input ratio\
(by amount produced, base year = 1997)[]{data-label="fig:input_ratio_panel"}](input_ratio_panel.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:prod\_trans\_scale\] shows that the medium and large firms have significant productivity growth after 2004, whereas small firms have more stable productivity transition. In contrast, Figure \[fig:input\_ratio\_panel\] describes that smaller firms tend to shrink capital-to-labor ratio after 2004. Since the productivity of the cardboard industry is heavily dependent on the amount of capital investment, small firms had difficulty to improve their productivity endogenously over the 11 years.
We now turn our attention to the decomposition of the productivity to investigate the cause of productivity deviation. We will use three methods to calculate the production function: Cobb–Douglas with Constant Returns to Scale (CRS), homothetic S–shape and non-homothetic S–shape[^20]. The first method is the most restrictive model since the scale function at any rays from the origin is linear. The second method can explain the benefit of increasing the scale size since the scale function follows the S–shape axiom. However, since the model assumes homothetic isoquants, it cannot explain the benefits to changing the input factor ratio. The last model is the most flexible model, and characterizes the benefit of changing input factor ratio and scale.
The productivity defined by Cobb–Douglas with CRS is decomposed into following three terms: $$\frac{y_{jt}}{\hat{g}_0^{CRS}(L_{jt},K_{jt})} = \frac{\hat{g}_0^{H}(L_{jt},K_{jt})}{\hat{g}_0^{CRS}(L_{jt},K_{jt})} \cdot \frac{\hat{g}_0^{NH}(L_{jt},K_{jt})}{\hat{g}_0^{H}(L_{jt},K_{jt})} \cdot \frac{y_{jt}}{\hat{g}_0^{NH}(L_{jt},K_{jt})}$$ where $\hat{g}_0^{CRS}$, $\hat{g}_0^{H}$, and $\hat{g}_0^{NH}$ denote the estimated production function with Cobb–Douglas CRS, homothetic S–shape, and non-homothetic S–shape respectively. The productivity estimated with the CRS model can be decomposed into: (1) scale productivity which is the ratio of Cobb–Douglas CRS and homothetic S–shape, (2) input mix productivity which is the ratio of non-homothetic and homothetic S–shape, and (3) unexplained productivity by non-homothetic S–shape.
Here, we compute a productivity decomposition for each group defined by the $K$–means clustering. The group number is arranged in the ascending order of a capital intensity: Group–1 is the most labor intensive and Group–12 is the most capital intensive group. Figure \[fig:prod\_decom\_largest\] shows the histogram of each decomposed productivity for the group of the largest firms (Group–10) which is highlighted in the left-top figure. The dash line in each histogram indicates the median productivity level within the group. Since these firms in this group are operating near the scale close to the most productive scale size, they have both high scale and input mix productivity. This indicates that the firms are productive with current scale size and input mix, and they can produce at relatively lower costs than other firms operated lower productivity level.
![Productivity decomposition of firms belong to the group of the largest firms (Group–10)[]{data-label="fig:prod_decom_largest"}](Group_10_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:prod\_decom\_small\_capital\] shows the same histogram for the group of smaller and capital intensive firms (Group–12). While these firms are capital intensive, the scale size is much smaller than the most productive scale size. Thus, we can observe that both their scale productivity and input mix productivity is low. This indicates that these firms should increase their scale size to improve their scale productivity, or they should change the input mix to become more labor intensive to improve their input mix productivity.
![Productivity decomposition of firms belong to the group of the capital intensive small firms (Group–12)[]{data-label="fig:prod_decom_small_capital"}](Group_12_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
Appendix \[app:prod\_decomp\] contains the histogram of decomposed productivity for all 12 groups defined by K–means clustering. In summary, the productivity decomposition provides the source of productivity-level of each firm. Furthermore, it also provides the critical managerial insights for the expansion of firms to make them more productive and increase their survival probability.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper develops an approach to estimate a general production function imposing economic axioms, both the RUP law and the input convexity. The axioms can be stated as shape constraints and the proposed estimator is implemented as a non-parametric shape constrained regression. This approach allows considerable more flexibility than the widely-used parametric methods.
We use this newly-proposed approach to analyze a panel dataset of Japan’s cardboard industry from 1997 to 2007. We observe a capacity contraction after 2004 across most of the larger firms in the industry. The contraction’s timing corresponds to an increase in the price index for cardboard productions, indicating increasing market power of firms in the industry. We estimate the production function and compute the most productive scale size and the productivity of each firm. We find most productive scale size is significantly influence by the capital-labor ratio of the firm. In particular firms with higher capital-to-labor ratios have a larger most productive scale size than firms with lower capital-to-labor ratios. We also decompose the productivity into the scale and input mix productivity to analyze the cause of productivity level. While large capital intensive firms benefit from both their scale size and input mix, we find that the small capital intensive firms need an improvement by either expanding their scale or if the firm cannot expand production, then adjusting their input mix. We plan to extend our analysis to other industries in Japan which have roughly homogeneous outputs such as bread, coffee, concrete, plywood, and sugar. Census of Manufacturing data are self reported by firms and are notoriously noisy. Thus, estimators that take advantage of additional axiomatic information are beneficial in this setting. We will study the patterns across industries to identify which factors (scale, input mix, etc.) consistently influencing productivity.
As managers strategically plan the expansion of their firm, estimates of the most productive scale size, the trade-offs between manual and automated operations, and the potential outputs gains to expansion provide critical insights to the benefit-cost analysis. The proposed axiomatic approach imposes a minimum set of axioms that still allows for the standard interpretation of the production function allowing managers to be better informed when taking critical planning decisions for the firm.
[**Appendix**]{}
This appendix includes:
- List of symbols (Appendix \[app:symblos\])
- Detailed algorithm and estimation procedure (Appendix \[app:algo\]),
- Comparison of different isoquant estimators (Appendix \[App:compCNLS\]),
- Technical proofs of the theoretical results (Appendix \[app:proof\])
- Comparison between S–shape and the RUP Law (Appendix \[app:ce\_rup\])
- Quantifying uncertainty of our estimator (Appendix \[app:uncertainty\])
- Productivity dispersion among different models (Appendix \[app:prod\_disp\])
- Comprehensive results of productivity decomposition (Appendix \[app:prod\_decomp\])
List of symbols {#app:symblos}
===============
[2]{}
Detailed algorithm and estimation procedure {#app:algo}
===========================================
In this section, we described the detailed estimation algorithm and mathematical formulations. The algorithm consists of two estimation steps: (1) input isoquants estimation for a set of $y$–levels using Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (CNLS) type estimator, and (2) S-shape functions on a set of rays from the origin using Shape Constrained Kernel Least Squares (SCKLS). Algorithm \[algo:advanced2\] presents the details of our algorithm which is composed of three steps: Initialization, Iteration and Updating parameters. The section numbers, where the details of each step are described, are displayed in the right column of the table.
**Data:** $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ (Section) *Initialization*:(\[subsec:init\]) $I \gets$ Initialize number of isoquants $R \gets$ Initialize number of rays $\{y^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{I} \gets$ Initialize isoquant $y$-levels $\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R} \gets$ Initialize rays from origin $\bm{\omega}\gets$ Initialize smoothing parameter between rays Project observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ to the isoquant level $y^{(i)}$ Estimate initial isoquants by the CNLS-based estimation (\[subsec:isoq\]) *Iteration*: Project observations onto the ray $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ (\[subsubsec:project\]) Update S-shape estimates using the SCKLS-based estimator(\[subsubsec:SCKLS\]) Update isoquant estimates by the CNLS-based estimator(\[subsubsec:input\_info\]) Minimize the gap between S-shape and isoquant estimates(\[subsubsec:min\_gap\]) Compute Mean Squared Errors against observations(\[subsubsec:estimates\_on\_obs\]) *Updating parameters*:(\[subsec:update\]) $I \gets$ Update number of isoquants $R \gets$ Update number of rays from the origin $\{y^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{I} \gets$ Update isoquant $y$-levels $\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R} \gets$ Update rays from origin $\bm{\omega} \gets$ Update smoothing parameter between rays **end** **Return:** Estimated function with minimum Mean Squared Errors and gap smaller than threshold
Initialization {#subsec:init2}
--------------
The number of isoquants $I$, the number of rays from the origin $R$, isoquant $y$-levels, $y^{(i)}$, and rays from the origin, $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ can be initialized in the same way as what we discussed in section \[subsec:init\].
In the estimation of S-shape function on rays from the origin, we need to specify the smoothing parameter (bandwidth) between rays, $\bm{\omega}$, which determines the weights on each observation based on the angle between the observation and the ray from the origin on which we are currently estimating. Instead of optimizing bandwidth between rays, $\bm{\omega}$, by grid search in Algorithm \[algo:basic\], we try to find the optimal bandwidth between rays by increasing $\bm{\omega}$ by some increments, $\Delta\bm{\omega}$, with updating both isoquants and S-shape estimates in each iteration of Algorithm \[algo:advanced2\]. Based on our numerical experiments, we recommend to start from a small value and increase $\bm{\omega}$ by small increment $\Delta\bm{\omega}$ in each iteration. We will generate a set of estimates and select from the set. Intuitively, the S-shape function, estimated along the ray, only gives significant weight to observations close to the ray in the first iteration. As our algorithm progresses, the S-shape estimation step gives weight to observations more distance from the ray. For more details of the S-shape estimation and the smoothing parameters, see Appendix \[subsubsec:SCKLS\].
Estimate convex isoquants {#subsec:isoq}
-------------------------
We are interested in estimating the isoquant function $\mathscr{H}$ in (\[eq:isoq\]) at a given level of output. Assume that a set of output levels for isoquant estimation is given by $$\label{eq:y_iso}
y^{(i)},~i=1,\ldots,I$$ where $I$ is the number of isoquants to be estimated. Also assume that the input data used to estimate the isoquant at $y^{(i)}$ is given by $$\label{eq:x_iso}
\bm{X}^{(i)},~i=1,\ldots,I$$ where $\bm{X}^{(i)}$ is subset of observations of input used for the estimation of isoquant at level $y^{(i)}$. $\bm{X}^{(i)}$ is $n_i\times d$ matrix and $n_i$ denotes the number of observations used for estimation of isoquant $i$ at level $y^{(i)}$. We have already described the procedure for specifying isoquant level $y^{(i)}$ in section \[subsec:init\] and how to obtain the input data $\bm{X}^{(i)}$ associated with the isoquant level $y^{(i)}$ in section \[subsubsec:isoq\_est\].
We first propose to use the existing nonparametric estimation method called Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (CNLS) to estimate isoquants. We also propose two modifications to the CNLS estimator which improve the performance of the isoquant estimation.
### Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (CNLS) {#subsubsec:CNLS}
[@kuosmanen2008representation] extends Hildreth’s least squares approach to the multivariate setting with a multivariate $\bm{x}$, and coins the term Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (CNLS). CNLS builds upon the assumption that the true but unknown function belongs to the set of continuous, monotonic increasing/decreasing and globally concave/convex functions. We describe the isoquant function $\mathscr{H}$ at $y^{(i)}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:isoq3}
X_{j,d}^{(i)} = \mathscr{H}\left(\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)};y^{(i)}\right)+e_j = \alpha_j^{(i)} + \bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}{'}\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)}+e_j, && \forall j=1,\ldots,n_i.\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $e_j$ is the random small error, $\alpha_j^{(i)}$ and $\bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}$ define the intercept and slope parameters that characterize the estimated set of hyperplanes.
For each $i=1,\ldots,I$, we compute the CNLS estimator using $\Big\{\big(\,\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)},X_{j,d}^{(i)}\, \big)\Big\}_{j=1}^{n_i}$, and obtain the isoquant estimates $\hat{\mathscr{H}}(\bm{x};y^{(i)})=\max_{j=1,\ldots,n_i}\Big\{\hat{\alpha}^{(i)}_j + \hat{\bm{\beta}}_j^{(i)}{'}(\bm{x}-\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)})\Big\}$ at each isoquant level $y^{(i)}$. Here the CNLS estimator can be computed by solving the quadratic programming problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CNLS}
& \min_{\alpha,\bm{\beta}}
& & \sum_{j=1}^{n_i}\left(X_{j,d}^{(i)}-\left(\alpha_j^{(i)}+\bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}{'}\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)}\right)\right)^2\\
& \mbox{subject to}
& & \alpha_j^{(i)}+\bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}{'} \bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)} \geq\alpha_l^{(i)}+\bm{\beta}_l^{(i)}{'} \bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)}, \; & \forall j,l=1,\ldots,n_i\\
&
& & \bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}\leq 0, \; & \forall j=1,\ldots,n_i
\end{aligned}$$ The first set of inequality constraints in (\[eq:CNLS\]) can be interpreted as a system of Afriat inequalities that imposes convexity. See [@afriat1972efficiency] and [@varian1984nonparametric]. The second set of inequality constraints imposes monotonicity. We note that the functional estimates resulting from (\[eq:CNLS\]) is unique only for the observed data points. [@seijo2011nonparametric] and [@lim2012consistency] proved the consistency of the CNLS estimator. Also [@chen2016convex] proves that the CNLS estimator attains $n^{-1/2}$ pointwise rate of convergence in the univariate setting when the true function is piece-wise linear.
### Directional CNLS {#subsubsec:DCNLS}
The CNLS estimator in the previous section assumes that the input data contains errors only in the $d$-th input direction while all input variables are typically measured with error. [@kuosmanen2017] introduces the CNLS estimator within the directional distance function (DDF) framework. The DDF indicates the distance from a given sample vector to the estimated function in some pre-assigned direction. In our isoquant estimation, we can write the DDF function as follows: $$\vec{D}(\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)},X_{j,d}^{(i)},\bm{g}^{X_{-d}},g^{X_d})=e_j, \:\:\: \forall j=1,\ldots,n_i$$ where $(\bm{g}^{X_{-d}},g^{X_d})\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is the pre-assigned error direction. We can choose the error direction $(\bm{g}^{X_{-d}},g^{X_d})$ empirically from the density of the input data. Specifically we select the 50th percentile capital to labor ratio as the direction for the estimator. We also normalize input data $\{\bm{X}_{j}^{(i)}\}_{j=1}^{n_i}$ by dividing the inputs by their corresponding sample standard deviations, so that they all have unit sample variance. Here normalizing inputs avoids the situation where one input, measured on a large scale, dominates other inputs, measured on smaller scales.
Similar to the CNLS estimator, for $i=1,\ldots,I$, we compute the directional CNLS estimator with $\Big\{\big(\,\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)},X_{j,d}^{(i)}\, \big)\Big\}_{j=1}^{n_i}$, and obtain the isoquant estimation at each isoquant level $y^{(i)}$. The directional CNLS estimator is computed by solving the quadratic programming problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DCNLS}
& \min_{\alpha,\bm{\beta},\gamma}
& & \sum_{j=1}^{n_i}\left(\gamma_j^{(i)} X_{j,d}^{(i)}-\left(\alpha_j^{(i)}+\bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}{'}\bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)}\right)\right)^2\\
& \mbox{subject to}
& &
\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle
\alpha_j^{(i)}+\bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}{'} \bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)} - \gamma_j^{(i)} X_{j,d}^{(i)} \geq\alpha_l^{(i)}+\bm{\beta}_l^{(i)}{'} \bm{X}_{j,-d}^{(i)} - \gamma_l^{(i)} X_{j,d}^{(i)},
$}
& \forall j,l=1,\ldots,n_i\\
&
& & \bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}\leq 0, \; & \forall j=1,\ldots,n_i\\
&
& & \gamma_j^{(i)}\geq 0, \; & \forall j=1,\ldots,n_i\\
&
& & \gamma_j^{(i)} g^{X_d} + \bm{\beta}_j^{(i)}{'} \bm{g}^{X_{-d}} = 1, \; & \forall j=1,\ldots,n_i
\end{aligned}$$ This formulation introduces new coefficients $\gamma_j^{(i)}$ that represents marginal effects of the $d$-th input to the DDF. Similar to the CNLS estimator (\[eq:CNLS\]), first three constraints impose convexity and monotonicity in all input directions respectively. The last constraints are normalization constraints that ensure the translation property [@chambers1998profit].
### Averaging directional CNLS {#subsubsec:ADCNLS}
The directional CNLS estimator in previous section assumes that the input data contains errors in potentially all variables, but in fixed ratios such that the over all error direction is $(\bm{g}^{X_{-d}},g^{X_d})$. However, in observed production data, the errors in different components of the input vector, $\bm{X}_j^{(i)}$, may vary in length randomly. Particularly when estimating input isoquants, observations can be projected to the function orthogonally as shown in Figure \[fig:error\_isoq\]. Noise here is mainly caused by the projection of observations to particular isoquant level $y^{(i)}$. This issue is discussed in Section \[app:algo\]\[subsec:init\].
![Noise which is orthogonal to the true isoquant[]{data-label="fig:error_isoq"}](error_isoq.eps){width="5in"}
If we misspecified the error direction, the estimated isoquants will be biased, and the bias will increase as the specified error direction moves further from the true error direction. We propose a simple algorithm to average out a bias from the misspecification of the error direction. We define the set of error directions $\left\{\left(\bm{g}_m^{X_{-d}},g_m^{X_d}\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$ from the distribution of the input data $\bm{X}^{(i)}$ where $M$ is the number of error directions considered.[^21] For each isoquant level $y^{(i)}$, we compute the directional CNLS estimator (\[eq:DCNLS\]) with each error direction $\left\{\left(\bm{g}_m^{X_{-d}},g_m^{X_d}\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$, and averaging them to obtain the final isoquant estimates. The final isoquant estimates still satisfied conditions for an isoquant in Assumption \[ass:isoq\] since the average of convex monotone decreasing functions is a convex monotone decreasing function.
Figure \[fig:est\_isoq\] , and show the estimation results with CNLS, Direction CNLS and Averaging direction CNLS respectively with samples generated by radial errors. The CNLS estimator has noticeable bias for the observations close to the boundary. Directional CNLS and averaging multiple estimates of directional CNLS with different directions performs better than the CNLS estimator because these methods allow for errors in all input dimensions (instead of just in the $d$-th dimension, as implied in the original CNLS). Our experience suggests that both extensions perform well even for small sample size, as shown in Appendix \[App:compCNLS\].
S-shape function {#subsec:s-shape}
----------------
We are interested in estimating the S-shape function on rays from the origin as a component of our estimation procedure. This step is composed of two sub-steps: First, we project each observation to each ray from the origin by projecting along an estimated isoquant. Second, we estimate the S-shape function on each ray from the origin. We describe the procedure how to obtain the rays from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ in section \[subsec:init\].
### Projecting observations onto rays {#subsubsec:project}
Before estimating S-shape functions, we project the observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^n$ to each ray from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$. Two approaches are described below.
#### Distance-based approach
We perform the projection purely based on the covariates, i.e. $$R_j^{(r)}= \langle \bm{X}_j,\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\rangle / \|\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\|.$$
#### Using information from the estimated isoquants
We can also use the estimated isoquants described in Section \[subsec:isoq\] to project the observations. First, for each observation, we extract the two estimated isoquants which sandwich the observation in input space. Figure \[fig:projection\] shows the example that two isoquants sandwiching the observation $\bm{X}_j$.
Second, we compute the intersection of the extracted isoquants and the ray from the origin to the observation, and define distances to the isoquants below and above as $R_j^{(below)}$ and $R_j^{(above)}$ respectively. Then we can compute the weights $\rho_j$ which is defined as $$\rho_j=\frac{R_j-R_j^{(below)}}{R_j^{(above)}-R_j^{(below)}},~j=1,\ldots,n$$ where $0\leq\rho_j\leq 1$, and $\rho_j$ approaches $1$ as $R_j$ is closer to $R_j^{(above)}$. Intuitively, we aim to use more information from the isoquant above when the observation is closer to the isoquant above. Figure \[fig:projection\] also shows the definition of $R_j^{(below)}$ and $R_j^{(above)}$. In case that the observation is below or above the minimum or maximum isoquant, we define $R_j^{(below)}=0$ and $R_j^{(above)}=R_j$ respectively.
Finally, we compute the intersection of extracted isoquants and each ray from the origin, and define distances to the intersection with isoquants below and above as $R_j^{(below)(r)}$ and $R_j^{(above)(r)}$ respectively for $r=1,\ldots,R$. Then we obtain the projected observation $\{R_j^{(r)},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^R$ as follows: $$\label{eq:proj_point}
R_j^{(r)}=\rho_j R_j^{(above)(r)} +\left(1-\rho_j\right) R_j^{(below)(r)} ~~~~~ \forall r=1,\ldots,R.$$ Figure \[fig:projection\] shows the example of projection to each ray from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$. Intuitively, we compute the inverse distance weighted average of two isoquants which sandwich the observation.
### Shape Constrained Kernel Least Squares (SCKLS) {#subsubsec:SCKLS}
[@yagi2018shape] proposed the Shape Constrained Kernel-weighted Least Squares (SCKLS) which is a kernel-based nonparametric shape constrained estimator. The SCKLS estimator is an extension of Local Polynomial estimator ([@stone1977consistent] and [@cleveland1979robust]) which imposes some constraints on parameters which characterize the estimated function such as intercept and slope. The SCKLS estimator introduces a set of $G$ evaluation points to impose shape constraints on each evaluation point. We are now interested in estimating S-shape function on each ray from the origin. Define the evaluation points on a ray from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ as follows $$r_g^{(r)}\in\{r_1^{(r)},\ldots,r_G^{(r)}\} ~~~~~ \forall r=1,\ldots,R.$$ Note that evaluation points in input space on ray $r$ are defined by the scalar value $r_g^{(r)}$ which is a distance from the origin on the $r$-th ray.
The objective function of the SCKLS estimator uses kernel weights, so more weight is given to the observations that are closer to the evaluation point. In our S-shape estimation, there exist two different weights to be considered: 1) the angle between the observation and the ray from the origin for which we are currently estimating, 2) the distance measured along the ray after the sample is projected using the estimated isoquant. Figure \[fig:weight\] shows two different kernel weights imposed in our S-shape estimator.
![Kernel weight in the S-shape estimation[]{data-label="fig:weight"}](weight.eps){width="5in"}
Here we define a distance measure in angles by their $L_2$ distance (in the $d-1$ Euclidean space), i.e. $D(\bm{\phi}_1, \bm{\phi}_2) = \|\bm{\phi}_1-\bm{\phi}_2\|_2$.
For each ray from the origin $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$, we solve the following quadratic programming problem: $$\label{eq:SCKLS}
\begin{aligned}
& \min_{\bm{a},\bm{b},g_{*}^{(r)}}
& & \sum_{g=1}^{G}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\tilde{y}_j-\left(a_g^{(r)}+b_g^{(r)}\left(R_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}\right)\right)\right)^2
\scalebox{1}{$
K\left(\frac{D\left(\bm{\phi}_j,\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\right)}{\bm{\omega}}\right) k\left(\frac{R_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h^{(r)}}\right)
$}\\
& \mbox{subject to}
& &
a_g^{(r)}-a_l^{(r)}\leq b_g^{(r)}\left(r_g^{(r)}-r_l^{(r)}\right)
~~~~~
\forall g,l=1,\ldots,g_*^{(r)}-1\\
&
& &
a_g^{(r)}-a_l^{(r)}\geq b_g^{(r)}\left(r_g^{(r)}-r_l^{(r)}\right)
~~~~~
\forall g,l=g_*^{(r)},\ldots,G\\
&
& &
b_g^{(r)}\geq 0
~~~~~
\forall g,l=1,\ldots,G\\
&
& & g_*^{(r)} \in \{1,\ldots,G\}
\end{aligned}$$ where $a_g^{(r)}$ is a functional estimate, $b_g^{(r)}$ is an estimate of the slope of the function at $r_g^{(r)}$, the $g$-th evaluation point on the $r$-th ray. $k(\cdot)$ and $K(\cdot)$ denote the kernel and the product kernel function respectively. In fact, one could also replace $\tilde{y}_j$ (i.e. the pilot estimator) by $y_j$ (observed response) in the above objective function of the minimization problem without affecting the correctness of our theory in consistency, and without having a noticeable difference in finite-sample performance. Here the observations which are closer to the evaluation points as measured by the angular deviation, and along the projected ray get more weights in the estimation procedure. $\bm{\omega}$ and $h^{(r)}$ are tuning parameters for the corresponding kernels which we will refer to as bandwidths. The first and second constraints in (\[eq:SCKLS\]) are the convexity and concavity constraints respectively. We also need to estimate an index of an inflection point $g_*^{(r)}$ which is the point at which the S-shape function switches from convex to concave. We solve the quadratic programming problem $G$-times, once for each value $g_*^{(r)}\in\{1,\ldots,G\}$, and obtain a S-shape estimation by selecting the solution which has the minimum objective value among these $G$ solutions.
### Update isoquant estimates {#subsubsec:input_info}
After estimating the S-shape function along each ray, we need to verify whether the estimated S-shape functions satisfy the input convexity assumption. For this purpose, we cut the S-shape estimates at each isoquant level, $y^{(i)}$, and obtain intersecting points defined by radial coordinates as $\{r^{(i)(r)},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}$. Figure \[fig:cut\] shows how we obtain the intersecting points $\{r^{(i)(r)},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}$ with 2-input example. We now re–estimate the isoquants by applying the CNLS-based method to the intersections for each isoquant $\{r^{(i)(r)},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R}$. Note that we can convert this into Cartesian coordinate system through the inverse of the equations shown in (\[eq:polar\]), and apply the CNLS-based method explained in Appendix \[subsec:isoq\].
![How to obtain intersecting points $r^{(i)(r)}$[]{data-label="fig:cut"}](cut.eps){width="5in"}
### Minimizing the gap between estimates
We now have computed both S-shape and isoquant estimates. If the S-shape estimates do not violate the input convexity assumption, then the functional estimates of the S-shape functions and the input isoquants should match at each isoquant $y$-level. However if the S-shape estimates violate the input convexity assumption, then the S-shape estimates will not match the isoquant estimates at some isoquant $y$-level as shown in Figure \[fig:modification\] with a blue circle. Here we propose to solve a quadratic programming problem which aims to minimize the gap between S-shape and isoquant estimates.
In this problem, we try to modify the S-shape estimates while fixing an inflection point at the same position as the original S-shape estimates. The objective function computes the weighted average of two deviations: 1) a gap between original S-shape estimates and revised S-shape estimates, and 2) a gap between revised S-shape estimates and the isoquant estimates at each isoquant $y$-level. Intuitively, we want to obtain the revised S-shape estimates which is close to the original S-shape estimates while satisfying input convexity. Figure \[fig:modification\] shows the example that a violation is resolved through this step.
Here, we describe the mathematical formulation. We start from redefining the evaluation points on a ray, $\bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
& r_{g}^{(r)}\in\{r_1^{r},\ldots,r_G^{r}\}
& & \forall g=1,\ldots,G\\
& r_{g^{(i)}}^{(r)}\in\{r^{(1)(r)},\ldots,r^{(I)(r)}\}
& & \forall i=1,\ldots,I\\
& r_{g'}^{(r)}\in\{r_1^{r},\ldots,r_G^{r}\}\cup\{r^{(1)(r)},\ldots,r^{(I)(r)}\}
& & \forall g'=1,\ldots,G'\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $G'=G+I.$ $r_{g^{(i)}}^{(r)}$ is the intersecting points obtained in section \[subsubsec:input\_info\] and they are added to the set of evaluation points, $r_{g'}^{(r)}$. We aim to minimize the gap between S-shape and isoquant estimates by solving the following quadratic programming problem:
\[subsubsec:min\_gap\] $$\label{eq:gap}
\begin{aligned}
& \min_{\tilde{a}_g^{(r)}}
& & w^{S}\cdot\frac{1}{R\cdot G}\sum_{r=1}^{R}\sum_{g=1}^{G}\left(\tilde{a}_{g}^{(r)}-a_{g}^{(r)}\right)^2 + w^{I}\cdot\frac{1}{R\cdot I}\sum_{r=1}^{R}\sum_{i=1}^{I}\left(\tilde{a}_{g^{(i)}}^{(r)}-y^{(i)}\right)^2\\
& \mbox{subject to}
& & \frac{\tilde{a}_{g+2}^{(r)}-\tilde{a}_{g+1}^{(r)}}{r_{g+2}^{(r)}-r_{g+1}^{(r)}} \geq \frac{\tilde{a}_{g+1}^{(r)}-\tilde{a}_{g}^{(r)}}{r_{g+1}^{(r)}-r_{g}^{(r)}}
~~~~~ \forall r \mbox{ and } \forall g=1,\ldots,g_*^{(r)}-2\\
&
& & \frac{\tilde{a}_{g+2}^{(r)}-\tilde{a}_{g+1}^{(r)}}{r_{g+2}^{(r)}-r_{g+1}^{(r)}} \leq \frac{\tilde{a}_{g+1}^{(r)}-\tilde{a}_{g}^{(r)}}{r_{g+1}^{(r)}-r_{g}^{(r)}}
~~~~~ \forall r \mbox{ and } \forall g=g_*^{(r)}-2,\ldots,G\\
&
& & \tilde{a}_{g+1}^{(r)}\geq\tilde{a}_{g}^{(r)}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \forall r \mbox{ and } \forall g=1,\ldots,G\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{a}_g^{(r)}$ denotes a revised functional estimate at a grid point $g$ on a ray $r$. $w^{S}$ and $w^{I}$ are the weights for the S-shape estimator[^22] and the isoquant estimator respectively satisfying $w^{S},w^{I}\in\lbrack0,1\rbrack$ and $w^{S}+w^{I}=1$. The objective function computes the weighted average of two deviations: 1) a gap between original S-shape estimates and revised S-shape estimates, 2) a gap between revised S-shape estimates evaluated at the input vectors located on the estimated isoquant and isoquant level $y^{(i)}$. Intuitively, when we put more weight on the original S-shape estimate, $w^{S}$ is large, the revised S-shape is close to the original S-shape, and input convexity may be violated. In contrast, when we put more weight on the isoquant estimates, $w^{I}$ is large, the revised S-shape can be far from the original S-shape, but the resulting estimate is more likely to satisfy input convexity without any violations. Based on our numerical experiments, we recommend to set a larger value of $w^{I}$ to avoid violations of the input convexity.
Constraints in (\[eq:gap\]) correspond to constraints in (\[eq:SCKLS\]). First two constraints impose the convexity and concavity for the RUP law, and the last constraint imposes the estimated function is monotonically increasing.
### Computing functional estimates on observations {#subsubsec:estimates_on_obs}
The last step of an iteration is obtaining the functional estimates $\hat{g}(\bm{x})$ at any given value of input vector $\bm{x}$, and compute MSE against observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$. Let $\left(r_{\bm{x}}, \bm{\phi_{x}}\right)$ denotes a given input vector $\bm{x}$ in spherical coordinates system.
The simplest way is finding the closest ray to a given input vector $\bm{x}$, and use the S–shape estimates on this particular ray. The procedure requires: 1) Compute the weighted average of the two closest isoquants to $\bm{x}$, and 2) Compute the functional estimates of the closest ray to $\bm{x}$. The first step is explained in appendix \[subsubsec:project\]. In this step, we obtain projected input data $\{r_{\bm{x}}^{(r)},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\}_{r=1}^{R}$ which is defined in equation (\[eq:proj\_point\]).
Then we can select the ray which is the closest to $\bm{\phi_{x}}$. Specifically, $$\label{eq:min_ray}
r^* = {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_r \{ D(\bm{\phi_x},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}) \}_{r=1}^{R}$$ where $D(\cdot)$ denotes a Euclidean distance function between two angles defined by $$\label{eq:dist_func}
D(\bm{\phi_x},\bm{\theta}^{(r)})={\left\lVert\bm{\phi_x}-\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\right\rVert}.$$ Then we can compute the functional estimates $\tilde{a}_{\bm{x}}^{(r^*)}$ at the closest ray $r^*$ by linear interpolating revised S-shape estimates $\tilde{a}_g^{(r)}$ obtained in (\[eq:gap\]).
However, this simple solution will make the discontinuity in the functional estimates because it only uses the functional estimates from one particular ray. Here we propose the another way to compute the functional estimates by smoothing the functional estimates on the rays close to an input vector $\bm{x}$ by modifying the 2nd step of the procedure above. Instead of using the one particular ray, we compute the weighted average of S-shape estimates on rays close to a given input $\bm{x}$.
We can compute the functional estimates $\tilde{a}_{\bm{x}}^{(r)}$ on each ray $r=1\ldots,R$. Subsequently, we can compute the inverse distance weighted average of functional estimates by $$\label{eq:inv_ave_est}
\hat{g}_0(\bm{x})=
\begin{cases}
\tilde{a}_{\bm{x}}^{(r)}
& \exists \text{ }r\mbox{ such that }D(\bm{\phi_x},\bm{\theta}^{(r)})=0\\
\frac{\sum_{r=1}^{R}p^{(r)}\tilde{a}_{\bm{x}}^{(r)}}{\sum_{r=1}^{R}p^{(r)}}
& otherwise
\end{cases}$$ where $p^{(r)}$ is the inverse distance weight defined by $$\label{eq:inv_weight}
p^{(r)}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{D(\bm{\phi_x},\bm{\theta}^{(r)})} & \mbox{if }D(\bm{\phi_x},\bm{\theta}^{(r)})\mbox{ is smaller than the $d$-th minimum of }\{D(\bm{\phi_x},\bm{\theta}^{(r)})\}_{r=1}^R\\
0 & otherwise
\end{cases}$$ for $\forall r=1,\ldots,R$. Intuitively, we select the rays within the distance to the $d$-th closest ray, and compute the inverse distance weighted average of the S–shape estimates on these rays.
Finally, we can compute the MSE against observations $\{\bm{X}_j,y_j\}_{j=1}^{n}$ as $$\label{eq:MSE}
MSE = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(y_j-\hat{g}_0(\bm{X}_j)\right)^2.$$
Updating parameters {#subsec:update}
-------------------
Finally, we update the parameters for the estimation before moving forward to the next iteration. We first update the parameters defining the number of both isoquants and rays to be estimated. When the gap between isoquants and S-shape estimates is large for a certain number of consecutive iterations, we delete the corresponding isoquant or ray. Specifically for any ray $r$, if $\left(\frac{y^{(i)}-\hat{g}(\bm{X}^{(i)(r)})}{y^{(i)}}\right) > \delta$ for some isoquant $i$ for $T$ consecutive iterations, then delete ray $r$ where $\delta$ is a tolerance value of percentage errors and $T$ is a number of consecutive iterations allowing errors over the tolerance.[^23],[^24] And similarly defined for isoquant $i$.
We also update the bandwidth between rays, $\bm{\omega}$, used in the SCKLS-based S-shape estimation. We update the value of $\bm{\omega}$ increasing it by $\Delta\bm{\omega}$ in each iteration. As an iteration goes forward, the bandwidth $\bm{\omega}$ becomes larger. We continue iterations until $\bm{\omega}$ becomes large enough that the functional estimates are stable between iterations and then we select the results of the iteration with the lowest $MSE$ among the solutions with $$\left(\frac{y^{(i)}-\hat{g}(\bm{X}^{(i)(r)})}{y^{(i)}}\right) \leq \delta ~~~~~ \forall r=1,\ldots,R \mbox{ and } \forall i=1,\ldots,I\\.$$
Since the algorithm start from a small value of $\bm{\omega}$, the S-shape function only uses observations close to the ray for the estimation. As the iterative algorithm proceeds, the S-shape estimator includes observations which are more distant from the ray on which the evaluation point under consideration lies. Thus, the estimated functions on each ray becomes more similar as the bandwidth increases. If there still exists a gap between S-shape and input isoquant estimates even with large $\bm{\omega}$, we delete the corresponding isoquant or ray following the rule described above. Thus, the gap between the S-shape estimates and the isoquant estimates can be made arbitrarily small by deleting isoquants. This characteristic of the algorithm will be used to prove the convergence of our iterative algorithm because a production function estimate with only one isoquant estimate is a homothetic production function and our estimation procedure has no gap for estimating functions that satisfying the RUP law and are homothetic in inputs.
Comparison of different input isoquant estimation methods {#App:compCNLS}
=========================================================
In section \[subsec:isoq\], we introduce three different methods to estimate convex input isoquants: Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (CNLS), Directional Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (DCNLS) and Averaging Convex Nonparametric Least Squares (ADCNLS). In this section, we compare the performance of these estimators through Monte Carlo simulations.
We consider the following convex isoquant with 2-input. $$\label{eq:isoq_DGP}
X_{2} = \mathscr{H}(X_{1})=\frac{a}{X_{1}}$$ where $a$ defines the shape of convex isoquant, and we use $a=10$ in this experiment. Two-input satisfying equation \[eq:isoq\_DGP\] is generated by $$\label{eq:isoq_true_val}
\begin{aligned}
& X_{1j}^* = \sqrt{\frac{a}{\tan{(\eta_j)}}} & \forall j = 1,\ldots,n\\
& X_{2j}^* = \sqrt{a\cdot\tan{(\eta_j)}} & \forall j = 1,\ldots,n
\end{aligned}$$ where angles $\eta_j$ are randomly generated by $\eta_j\sim unif(0.05,\frac{\pi}{2}-0.05)$. Then we generate samples by adding noise in the direction orthogonal to the true function. $$\label{eq:isoq_obs}
\begin{aligned}
& X_{1j} = X_{1j}^* + \epsilon_j\cdot\cos\left(\arctan\left({{X_{1j}^*}^2}/{a}\right)\right) & \forall j = 1,\ldots,n \\
& X_{2j} = X_{2j}^* + \epsilon_j\cdot\sin\left(\arctan\left({{X_{1j}^*}^2}/{a}\right)\right) & \forall j = 1,\ldots,n
\end{aligned}$$ where additive noise $\epsilon_j$ is generated by $\epsilon_j\sim N(0,\sigma_v)$.
We consider 9 different scenarios with the different training sample size $n\in(50,100,200)$ and the standard deviation of the noise $\sigma_v\in(0.5,1.0,1.5)$. We use $M=10$ different error directions for estimating ADCNLS where error directions are chosen by equally spaced percentiles of the input ratio $\{X_{2j}/X_{1j}\}_{j=1}^{n}$. We generate 100 training-testing set pairs for each scenario, and draw box plots of RMSE against the true function for each estimator on testing set in Figure \[fig:expA1test\]. Note that RMSE is computed in the direction orthogonal to the true function. The size of the testing set is 1000, and it is randomly drawn from the same distribution as the training set.
![Estimation results on the testing set for the isoquant estimation[]{data-label="fig:expA1test"}](expA1test.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The DCNLS and ADCNLS estimators perform better than the CNLS estimator because these estimation methods assume errors are contained in both input dimensions. Although these two estimators still have misspecification of error directions, it helps to reduce the bias caused by the misspecification of error directions in the CNLS estimator.
Technical proofs {#app:proof}
================
Proof of Theorems in Section \[sec:model\]
------------------------------------------
### Proof of Lemma \[lmm:RUP\]
\[lmm:RUP.proof\] For simplicity, we focus on the case of $d=1$. Note that following arguments can be extended for the multiple input case with $d>1$ by studying the function $g_0$ along any direction.
Now, the elasticity of scale is defined as $$\epsilon(x)=g_0'(x)\frac{x}{g_0(x)}.$$ Next we compute the derivative of the elasticity of scale, $$\label{eq:deriv_elas}
\epsilon'(x)=\frac{1}{g_0(x)}\left(xg_0''(x)+g_0'(x)\left(1-\epsilon(x)\right)\right).$$
By Definition \[def:rup\], we have following conditions on the elasticity of scale: $$\epsilon'(x)<0 \text{ for } \forall x$$ $$\epsilon(x_A)>1 \text{ and } \epsilon(x_B)<1 \text{ for some } x_A<x_B.$$
By using these conditions on Equation (\[eq:deriv\_elas\]) and assumption that $g_0$ is monotonically increasing, we have, $$g_0''(x)<0 \text{ for } \forall x>x_B.$$
Here, by the assumption that there exists a single point of inflection point $x^*$ such that $g_0''(x^*)=0$, we have $$g_0''(x)>0 \text{ for }\forall x<x^*$$ $$g_0''(x)=0 \text{ for } x=x^*$$ $$g_0''(x)<0 \text{ for }\forall x>x^*$$ which implies the function $g_0(\cdot)$ is a S-shaped function define in Definition \[def:s-shape\].
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:1\]
First, note that the S-shape function is defined for any expansion path and a ray from the origin is a subset of the set of expansion paths. So a single inflection point exist on each 2-D sectional of the production function by definition of an S-shape function. The result to be shown, the set of inflection points lie on the same input isoquant with aggregate input level $x_A^*$, can be stated mathematically as $$x_{A}^*={\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}}_{x_A \in \alpha \bm{x}} \left( \dfrac{dF_0(x_A)}{dx_A}\,\middle|\,x_A=\mathscr{H}_{0}(\bm{x}) \right)
$$ for a ray vector $\alpha \bm{x}$, where $\bm{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)$ and the origin define a ray in input space and $x_{A}^*$ is the inflection point on that ray. By the definition of homothetic we have $g_0(\bm{x}) = F_0(\mathscr{H}_{0,k}(\bm{x}))$. We substitute $x_A=\mathscr{H}_{0}(\bm{x})$ and take the derivative of $g_0$ with respect to $x_A$, which is just $\dfrac{dF_0(x_A)}{dx_A}$. Notice this is independent of the ray from the origin selected. Thus, we have the first part of the claim. For the second part, we know that if the S-shape function definition holds for a ray from the origin then it holds for any ray from the origin and the inflection point will be located on the same isoquant. Now we just need to show for an arbitrary (non-radial) expansion path the that RUP law holds.
By the definition of an expansion path, we see that as we move from input vector $\bm{X}_{m-1}$ to $\bm{X}_{m}$ we move between two input isoquants which are in the same sequential order as they would be for an expansion path along a ray from the origin, thus the passum coefficient is decreasing, given us the desired result.
Proof of Theorems in Section \[sec:property\]
---------------------------------------------
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:nonhomo\_consistency1\]
First, it follows from @fan2016 that the pilot estimator satisfies $$\sup_{\bm{x} \in \bm{S}} |\tilde{g}_0(\bm{x})- g_0(\bm{x})| = O_p(n^{-2/(d+4)}\log n).$$ Without loss of generality, in the following, we could assume that the event $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof_pilot}
\sup_{\bm{x} \in \bm{S}} |\tilde{g}_0(\bm{x})- g_0(\bm{x})| \le {C}_1 n^{-2/(d+4)}\log n
\end{aligned}$$ holds for some large enough positive $C_1$.
For any given $y \in (y_\circ, y^\circ)$, we could always find an $i \in \{1,\ldots,I\}$ (that depends on $n$) such that $y^{(i)} \le y < y^{(i+1)}$. Moreover, write $\Delta_n \equiv y^{(i+1)}-y^{(i)} = O(I^{-1})$, which is of order greater than $O(n^{-2/(d+4)}\log n)$.
Let $\mathcal{I}_i \subset \{1,\ldots,n\}$ be the index set with $\{\bm{X}_j,\tilde{y}_j\}_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i}$ projected to the isoquant level $y^{(i)}$. Then $\mathcal{I}_i$ contains all the indices $j$ such that $\tilde{g}_0(\bm{X}_j) \in \Big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/2, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n/2\Big)$. In view of (\[eq:proof\_pilot\]), we could conclude that for sufficiently large $n$,
1. $\mathcal{I}_i$ contains all the indices $j$ such that ${g}_0(\bm{X}_j) \in \Big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/4, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n/4\Big]$.
2. All indices $j$ contained in $\mathcal{I}_i$ satisfy ${g}_0(\bm{X}_j) \in \Big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n\Big]$.
Furthermore, recall that $\bm{C}'$ is a compact set that belongs to the interior of $\bm{C}_y$. For every $j \in \mathcal{I}_i$, and every $\bm{X}_{j,-d} \in \bm{C}'$, it follows from Assumption \[ass:1\] and Definition \[def:inputconvex\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\bm{X}_{j,d} - \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d}; y)\Big| &= \Big|\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d}; g_0(\bm{X}_{j})) - \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d}; y)\Big| \\
& \le C_2 \Big|g_0(\bm{X}_{j}) - y^{(i)}\Big| = C_2 \Big(\Big|g_0(\bm{X}_{j}) -\tilde{g}_0(\bm{X}_{j}) \Big| + \Big|\tilde{g}_0(\bm{X}_{j}) - y\Big|\Big) \\
&\le C_2 \Big(\Big|g_0(\bm{X}_{j}) -\tilde{g}_0(\bm{X}_{j}) \Big| + \Big|y^{(i+1)} - y^{(i)}\Big|\Big) \le C_3 \Delta_n.
\end{aligned}$$ for some $C_2$ and $C_3$ (that only depend on $g_0$).
Let $\mathcal{G}_{d-1}$ be the class of functions $h: \mathbb{R}^{d-1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that are convex and decreasing. When applying CNLS on $\{\bm{X}_{j,-d},\bm{X}_{j,d}\}_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i}$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{h \in \mathcal{G}_{d-1}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i} \Big(\bm{X}_{j,d}- h(\bm{X}_{j,-d})\Big)^2 \le \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i} \Big(\bm{X}_{j,d}- \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d}; y)\Big)^2 \le C_3^2 \Delta_n^2 |\mathcal{I}_i|.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $|\mathcal{I}_i|$ is bounded above by the number of observations satisfy ${g}_0(\bm{X}_j) \in \big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n\big]$, which we denote by $|\tilde{\mathcal{I}}_i|$. Let $m$ be the marginal density of ${g}_0(\bm{X}_1)$. Then, as $n^{-1/2} = o(\Delta_n)$ it follows from Donsker’s theorem (see, for example, [@van1996weak]) that $|\tilde{\mathcal{I}}_i|/(2\Delta_n) \rightarrow m(y)$ almost surely. Here we also used the fact that $m$ is continuous, so $m(y^{(i)})\rightarrow m(y)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Note that the above result actually holds simultaneous for any $y \in [y_\circ+\eta, y^\circ-\eta]$ for any pre-specified small $\eta >0$. This implies that $|\mathcal{I}_i|$ is at most $O(\Delta_n)$, so as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof_1}
\inf_{h \in \mathcal{G}_{d-1}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i} \Big(\bm{X}_{j,d}- h(\bm{X}_{j,-d})\Big)^2 \le O(\Delta_n^3).
\end{aligned}$$
Now suppose that $\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)| > \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon$ that is smaller than the Hausdorff distance between $\bm{C}'$ and $\bm{C_y}$, and that the supremum occurs at $x^*_{-d}$. Then, by the monotonicity constraint and the fact that ${\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}$ is Lipschitz continuous, we could find some $C_4$ (that only depends on $g_0$ but not $x^*_{-d}$), such that $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in B(x^*_{-d}, C_4 \epsilon)} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y^{(i)})-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)| > \epsilon/2,$$ where $B(x,r)$ is the closed ball centered at $x$ of radius $r$. For a detailed construction of this fact, see [@chensamworth2016] or [@yagi2018shape]. This means that for sufficiently large $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i} \Big(\bm{X}_{j,d}- \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d};y^{(i)})\Big)^2 \\
&\ge \sum_{\big\{j \in \mathcal{I}_i \;|\; \bm{X}_{j,-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\big\}} \Big(\bm{X}_{j,d}-\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d};y)+\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d};y)- \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d};y^{(i)})\Big)^2\\
&\ge \sum_{\big\{j \in \mathcal{I}_i \;|\; \bm{X}_{j,-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\big\}} \big(C_3\Delta_n+\epsilon/2\big)^2\\
&\ge (\epsilon/4)^2 \Big|\Big\{j: {g}_0(\bm{X}_j) \in \big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/4, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n/4\big] \mbox{ and } \bm{X}_{j,-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\Big\}\Big|.
\end{aligned}$$ Now note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\{\bm{x}: {g}_0(\bm{x}) \in \big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/4, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n/4\big], \bm{x}_{-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\Big\}\\
& = \Big\{\bm{x}: {g}_0(\bm{x}) \ge y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/4 \Big\} \cap \Big\{\bm{x}: {g}_0(\bm{x}) \le y^{(i)}+ \Delta_n/4 \Big\} \cap \Big\{\bm{x}: \bm{x}_{-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\Big\},
\end{aligned}$$ where all of these three individual sets are Vapnik–Chervonenkis, regardless of the value of $x^*$, $\epsilon$, $y^{(i)}$ and $\Delta_n$ (details could be found in, for instance, Chapter 2.6 of [@van1996weak]). Therefore, the indicator function $
\mathbf{1}_{\Big\{\bm{x}\Big|{g}_0(\bm{x}) \in \big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/4, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n/4\big], \bm{x}_{-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\Big\}}\
$ is VC as well. It then follows from Donsker’s theorem that $$\Big|\Big\{j: {g}_0(\bm{X}_j) \in \big[y^{(i)}- \Delta_n/4, y^{(i)} + \Delta_n/4\big] \mbox{ and } \bm{X}_{j,-d} \in B(x^*, C_4\epsilon)\Big\}\Big| = O(\Delta_n).$$ Thus, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof_2}
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_i} \Big(\bm{X}_{j,d}- \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d};y)\Big)^2 \ge O(\Delta_n).
\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, comparing with leads a contradiction. Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, we conclude that $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y^{(i)})-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
Using the same argument on $\{\bm{X}_{j,-d},\bm{X}_{j,d}\}_{j \in \mathcal{I}_{i+1)}}$, we could obtain that $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y^{(i+1)})-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$ Finally, since $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)$ is a weighted average of $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y^{(i)})$ and $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y^{(i+1)})$ (with corresponding weights $w$ and $1-w$, for some $w \in [0,1]$), we have that $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};y)| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:nonhomo\_consistency2\]
First, we investigate the behavior of $\hat{g}_0(\alpha\bm{v})$ for $\alpha \in [\delta c_{\bm{v}} ,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]$ with $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{v}} = \bm{\theta}^{(r)}$ for any particular $r \in \{1,\ldots, R\}$.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $\|\bm{v}\|_2=1$. Since $\bm{v}=(v_1,\ldots,v_d)^T$ and $\min_i v_i > 0$, in our asymptotic regime, it suffices for us to consider $\bm{\theta}^{(r)} \in [\eta,\pi/2-\eta]^{d-1}$ with some pre-specified $\eta > 0$. Here to faciliate our theoretical analysis, we focus on the distance-based projection method. Recall that SCKLS solves the following optimization problem. $$ \begin{aligned}
& \min_{\bm{a}^{(r)},\bm{b}^{(r)},g_{*}^{(r)}}
& & \sum_{g=1}^{G}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\tilde{y}_j-\left(a_g^{(r)}+b_g^{(r)}\left(r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}\right)\right)\right)^2
\scalebox{1}{$
K\left(\frac{D\left(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{X}_j},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\right)}{\bm{\omega}}\right) k\left(\frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h}\right)
$}\\
& \mbox{subject to}
& &
a_g^{(r)}-a_l^{(r)}\leq b_g^{(r)}\left(r_g^{(r)}-r_l^{(r)}\right)
~~~~~
\forall g,l=1,\ldots,g_*^{(r)}-1\\
&
& &
a_g^{(r)}-a_l^{(r)}\geq b_g^{(r)}\left(r_g^{(r)}-r_l^{(r)}\right)
~~~~~
\forall g,l=g_*^{(r)},\ldots,G\\
&
& &
b_g^{(r)}\geq 0
~~~~~
\forall g,l=1,\ldots,G\\
\end{aligned}$$ where the angle of $\bm{v}$ for any $\bm{v} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $\|\bm{v}\|_2=1$ is $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{v}}$ (and its inverse function as $\bm{\phi}^{-1}_{\cdot}$). Note that $K(\cdot)$ is a bounded kernel and $\bm{\omega}\rightarrow 0$, we only need to consider the pairs of observations $(\bm{X}_j,y_j)$ with $D(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{X}_j}, \bm{\theta}^{(r)}) \le C h^{d-1}$ for some $C > 0$. This means that $\sup_{j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}}\Big|r_j-\|\bm{X}_j\|\Big| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$ and $\sup_{j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}} \|r_j \bm{v} - \bm{X}_j\| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$. This together with the facts that $\sup_{\bm{x} \in \bm{S}} |\tilde{g}_0(\bm{x}) - g_0(\bm{x})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$ and $g_0$ is a Lipschitz continuous function yield $$\sup_{j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}} |\tilde{y}_j - g_0(r_j \bm{v})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
Write $$S(\bm{a},\bm{b}) =\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=1}^{G}\frac{1}{nh^d}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\tilde{y}_j-\left(a_g+b_g\left(r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}\right)\right)\right)^2
\scalebox{1}{$
K\left(\frac{D\left(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{X}_j},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\right)}{h}\right) k\left(\frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h}\right).
$}$$ Set $\bm{a}_0=\Big(g_0(r_1\bm{v}),\ldots, g_0(r_g\bm{v})\Big)'$ and $\bm{b}_0=\Big(\frac{dg_0(\bm{v}x)}{dx}(r_1),\ldots, \frac{dg_0(\bm{v}x)}{dx}(r_1) \Big)'$. Note that for any given $g$, there are at most $O(nh^d)$ observations with (i) non-zero (i.e. positive) and bounded value of $K\left(\frac{D\left(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{X}_j},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\right)}{h}\right) k\left(\frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h}\right)$, and (ii) $\Big|\tilde{y}_j-a_{0,g}-b_{0,g}(r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)})\Big|\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$ uniformly. The last part follows from $ \sup_{j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}} |\tilde{y}_j - g_0(r_j\bm{v})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$ and $|r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}| \rightarrow 0$ for those with positive value of $k\left(\frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h}\right)$. This means that $S(\bm{a}_0,\bm{b}_0) \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$.
Let $(\tilde{\bm{a}}, \tilde{\bm{b}})$ be the minimizer of $S(\cdot,\cdot)$ without any constraints, and $(\hat{\bm{a}}, \hat{\bm{b}})$ be an minimizer of $S(\cdot,\cdot)$ with the constraints. Since $$0 \le S(\tilde{\bm{a}}, \tilde{\bm{b}}) \le S(\hat{\bm{a}}, \hat{\bm{b}}) \le S(\bm{a}_0,\bm{b}_0),$$ we have that $|S(\hat{\bm{a}}, \hat{\bm{b}}) - S(\tilde{\bm{a}}, \tilde{\bm{b}})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$. Now notice that $S(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a quadratic function with respect to its arguments that minimizes at $(\tilde{\bm{a}}, \tilde{\bm{b}})$, therefore, $$S(\hat{\bm{a}}, \hat{\bm{b}}) - S(\tilde{\bm{a}}, \tilde{\bm{b}}) =\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=1}^G (\hat{a}_g-\tilde{a}_g, h(\hat{b}_g-\tilde{b}_g)) \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_g (\hat{a}_g-\tilde{a}_g, h(\hat{b}_g-\tilde{b}_g))',$$ where $$\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_g = \frac{1}{n h^d}\sum_{j=1}^n \Big(1, \frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)})}{h}\Big)\Big(1, \frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h}\Big)' \scalebox{1}{$
K\left(\frac{D\left(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{X}_j},\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\right)}{h}\right) k\left(\frac{r_j^{(r)}-r_g^{(r)}}{h}\right).
$}$$ It can be shown following the argument of Lemma 5 of @fan2016 that $$\min_{g \in \big\{\lceil(\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1}/2) G \rceil,\ldots, \lfloor(1-\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1}/2) G \rfloor \big\}} \lambda_2(\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_g) > C'$$ in probablity for some $C' > 0$, where $\lambda_2(\cdot)$ returns the smallest eigenvalue of an $2 \times 2$ matrix. As such, $$\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=1}^G (\hat{a}_g-\tilde{a}_g, h(\hat{b}_g-\tilde{b}_g)) \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_g (\hat{a}_g-\tilde{a}_g, h(\hat{b}_g-\tilde{b}_g))' \ge \frac{1}{GC'}\sum_{g=\lceil(\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rceil}^{\lfloor(1-\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rfloor} (\hat{a}_g-\tilde{a}_g)^2.$$ Consequently, $\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=\lceil(\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rceil}^{\lfloor(1-\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rfloor} (\hat{a}_g-\tilde{a}_g)^2 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$.
Now applying the same argument to $S({\bm{a}}_0, \bm{b}_0) - S(\tilde{\bm{a}}, \tilde{\bm{b}})$, we have that $\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=\lceil(\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rceil}^{\lfloor(1-\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rfloor} (\tilde{a}_g-{a}_{0,g})^2 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$. It follows from the triangular inequality (NB. since the above quantities can be viewed as the squares of the differences in a $L_2$ norm) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof_ray_eq2}
\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=\lceil(\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rceil}^{\lfloor(1-\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rfloor} (\hat{a}_g-{a}_{0,g})^2 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.
\end{aligned}$$
For any $\epsilon > 0$, if $\sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]}|\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v}) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v})| > \epsilon$, then since both $\hat{g}_0(\bm{v}\cdot)$ and $g_0(\bm{v}\cdot)$ are increasing, with $g_0(\bm{v}\cdot)$ also being Lipschitz (denoting its constant by $M$), we are always able to find an interval $\mathcal{I}$ over $[\delta/2,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta/2]$ with length of at least $\frac{\epsilon}{2M}$ such that $\inf_{\alpha \in \mathcal{I}}|\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v}) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v})| > \epsilon/2$. For a detailed construction, see also @yagi2018shape. Since we take equal-spacing evaluation points with $G\rightarrow \infty$, we have that as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $$\frac{1}{G}\sum_{g=\lceil(\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rceil}^{\lfloor(1-\delta c_{\bm{v}}^{-1} /2) G \rfloor} (\hat{a}_g-{a}_{0,g})^2 \ge \frac{\sum_{g=1}^G \mathbf{1}_{\{r_g^{(r)} \in \mathcal{I}\}}}{G} \Big(\frac{\epsilon}{2}\Big)^2 \rightarrow \frac{\epsilon}{2M c_{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}}}\Big(\frac{\epsilon}{2}\Big)^2 > 0,$$ contradicting the fact of . As here $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, we can conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof_ray_eq3}
\sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]}|\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v}) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\hat{g}_0(\bm{v}\cdot)$ is S-shaped by construction.
Finally, a closer inspection of the above proof suggests that holds uniformly for all $\bm{v}$ such that $$\bm{\phi}_{\bm{v}} \in \Big\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)}\Big|r=1,\ldots,R,\quad \bm{\theta}^{(r)} \in [\eta,\pi/2-\eta]^{d-1}\Big\}.$$ As such, for any given $\bm{v}$ with $\min_i v_i > 0$ and $\|\bm{v}\|_2=1$, we could pick $\eta$ in such a way that $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{v}} \in [2\eta,\pi/2-2\eta]^{d-1}$. As $n \rightarrow \infty$ (so $R\rightarrow\infty$ as well), we could always find $r^* = {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{r \in \{1,\ldots,R\}} D(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{v}}, \bm{\theta}^{(r)})$ satisfying $D(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{v}}, \bm{\theta}^{(r^*)}) \rightarrow 0$, and thus $\bm{\theta}^{(r^*)} \in [\eta,\pi/2-\eta]^{d-1}$. Write $\bm{v}^*={\bm{\phi}^{-1}_{\bm{\theta}^{{(r)}^*}})}$. We have that $\|{\bm{v}}-{\bm{v}^*} \|\rightarrow 0$ and $|c_{\bm{v}}-c_{\bm{v}^*}| \rightarrow 0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]}|\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v}) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v})| &\le
\sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]}|\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v}^*) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v}^*)|
+ \sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]}| g_0(\alpha \bm{v}^*) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v})| \\
&=: \mathrm{(M1)} + \mathrm{(M2)}.
\end{aligned}$$ $\mathrm{(M1)}\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0$ due to the facts that $|c_{\bm{v}}-c_{\bm{v}^*}| \rightarrow 0$, $\bm{\theta}^{(r^*)} \in [\eta,\pi/2-\eta]^{d-1}$ and . In addition, $\mathrm{(M2)}{\rightarrow} 0$ because $g_0$ is continuous and that $\|{\bm{v}}-{\bm{v}^*} \|\rightarrow 0$. Consequently, $$\sup_{\alpha \in [\delta,c_{\bm{v}}-\delta]}|\hat{g}_0(\alpha \bm{v}) - g_0(\alpha \bm{v})|\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:homo\_consistency1\]
At each level $y^{(i)}$ for $i=\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor$, we denote $\lambda_y$ the scalar such that $\lambda(1,\ldots,1)^T$ is on the true isoquant of the level $y$.
First, we show that $\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}} \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} \lambda_{y^{(i)}}$. By definition, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{y^{(i)}} &= \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\lambda_{y^{(i)}}(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)})\\
\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}} &= \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)}).\end{aligned}$$ Here the existence of $\lambda_{y^{(i)}}$ is guaranteed by the fact $\mathrm{argmax}_{\bm{x} \in \bm{S}} g_0(\bm{x}) = (c,\ldots,c)^T$, which follows from the monotonicity of the isoquants, and the fact that $\bm{S}$ (i.e. the domain of the product function) is $[0,c]^d$. It is clear that $\lambda(1,\ldots,1)^T \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}$ lies in the interior of $\bm{C}_{y^{(i)}}$, so we have that there exists some small $\epsilon > 0$ such that both $(\lambda-\epsilon)(1,\ldots,1)^T$ and $(\lambda+\epsilon)(1,\ldots,1)^T$ (all are $(d-1)$-dimensional vector) lie in the interior of $\bm{C}_{y^{(i)}}$. By Theorem \[thm:nonhomo\_consistency2\], $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}((\lambda_{y^{(i)}}+\epsilon)(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)}) &\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} {\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}((\lambda_{y^{(i)}}+\epsilon)(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)}) < \lambda_{y^{(i)}} < \lambda_{y^{(i)}} + \epsilon\\ \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}((\lambda_{y^{(i)}}-\epsilon)(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)}) &\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} {\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}((\lambda_{y^{(i)}}-\epsilon)(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)}) > \lambda_{y^{(i)}} > \lambda_{y^{(i)}} - \epsilon. \end{aligned}$$ Due to the monotonicity constraint of $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}$, $\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\lambda(1,\ldots,1)^T; y^{(i)})$ is decreasing with respect to $\lambda$. Therefore, we have that $\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}} \in [\lambda_{y^{(i)}} - \epsilon, \lambda_{y^{(i)}} + \epsilon]$. Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, $\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}} \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} \lambda_{y^{(i)}}$.
Second, a closer inspection of Theorem \[thm:nonhomo\_consistency2\] shows that it holds uniformly for all $y^{(i)}$ with $i=\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor$. It then follows that $$\max_{i=\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor}|\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}} - \lambda_{y^{(i)}}| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$ In fact, since $\lambda_y$ is continuous with respect to $y$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:proof_homo_1_1}
\max_{\Big\{j: \bm{X}_j \in \mathcal{I}_i \Big| i \in \{\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor\}\Big\}}|\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}} - \lambda_{g_0(\bm{X}_j)}| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.\end{aligned}$$
Note that that $\mathscr{H}_{0,d}\big(\bm{X}_{j,-d};g_0(\bm{X}_j)\big)=\bm{X}_{j,d}$. Setting $$\mathcal{I} = \Big\{j: \bm{X}_j \in \mathcal{I}_i \Big| i \in \{\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor\}\Big\}$$ and for every observation $\bm{X}_j \in \mathcal{I}_i$ with $i\in \{\lceil \delta I\rceil, \ldots, \lfloor (1-\delta) I\rfloor\}$, rewriting $\tilde{\bm{X}}_j = \hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \bm{X}_{j}$. Then, because of the homotheticity, $$\mathscr{H}_{0,d}\Big(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d}; F_0(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_j)) \Big) = \mathscr{H}_{0,d}\Big(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \bm{X}_{j,-d};F_0(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_j))\Big)= \hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \bm{X}_{j,d} = \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,d}.$$ Note that here we also defined $\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\cdot; y)$ at any $y>0$ on the domain of $(0,\infty)^d$ in a meaningful manner due to the homothetic condition. It then follows from and the homotheticity (with the identifiability condition of $\mathscr{H}_0((1,\ldots,1)^T)=1$) that $$F_0(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \mathscr{H}_0(\bm{X}_j) = F_0(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \mathscr{H}_0(\lambda_{g_0(\bm{X}_j)}(1,\ldots,1)^T) = F_0(\hat{\lambda}_{y^{(i)}}^{-1} \lambda_{g_0(\bm{X}_j)}) \rightarrow F_0(1)$$ in probability (uniformly over $j$). Consequently, we have that $$\max_{j \in \mathcal{I}} \Big|\mathscr{H}_{0,d}\Big(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d}; F_0(1) \Big) - \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,d}\Big| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.$$
We are now in the position to show the consistency of our isoquant estimator under homotheticity. When applying CNLS, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:proof_homo_1_2}
\inf_{h \in \mathcal{G}_{d-1}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}} \Big(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,d}- h(\bm{X}_{j,-d})\Big)^2
\le \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}} \Big(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,d}- \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d}; y)\Big)^2 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0.\end{aligned}$$ The rest of the proof is similar to that of Theorem \[thm:nonhomo\_consistency1\]. To give more details, suppose that $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))| > \epsilon$$ for some $\epsilon$ that is smaller than the Hausdorff distance between $\bm{C}'$ and $\bm{C}_y$, and that the supremum occurs at $\bm{x}^*_{-d}$. Then, by the monotonicity constraint and the fact that ${\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}$ is Lipschitz continuous, we could find some $C \in (0,1)$ (that only depends on $g_0$ but not $\bm{x}^*_{-d}$), such that $$\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in B(x^*_{-d}, C \epsilon)} \Big|\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))\Big| > \epsilon/2,$$ where $B(\bm{x},r)$ is the closed ball centered at $\bm{x}$ of radius $r$. This means that for sufficiently large $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}} \Big(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,d}- \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{X}_{j,-d};F_0(1))\Big)^2 \\
\notag&\ge \frac{1}{n}\sum_{\big\{j \in \mathcal{I} \;|\; \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d} \in B(\bm{x}^*{-d}, C\epsilon)\big\}} \Big(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,d}-\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d};F_0(1))+\mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d};F_0(1))- \hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d};F_0(1))\Big)^2\\
\notag&\ge \frac{1}{n} \sum_{\big\{j \in \mathcal{I} \;|\; \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d} \in B(\bm{x}^*_{-d}, C\epsilon)\big\}} \big(\epsilon/4\big)^2\\
\label{Eq:proof_homo_1_3} &= (\epsilon/4)^2 \frac{1}{n} \Big|\big\{j \in \mathcal{I} \;|\; \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d} \in B(\bm{x}^*_{-d}, C\epsilon)\big\}\Big|.
\end{aligned}$$ For any given $\bm{x}^*_{-d} \in \bm{C}'$, write $\bm{x}^* = \begin{bmatrix}\bm{x}^*_{-d} \\ \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{x}^*_{-d};F_0(1))\end{bmatrix}$. Note that for $\bm{z} = \lambda \begin{bmatrix}\bm{x}_{-d} \\ \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))\end{bmatrix}$ with any $\lambda >0$, $
\lambda_{g_0(\bm{z})}^{-1}\bm{z} = \begin{bmatrix}\bm{x}_{-d} \\ \mathscr{H}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))\end{bmatrix}.
$ This, combined with implies that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{I}^{\bm{x}^*_{-d}}:= \Bigg\{j \in \{1,\ldots,n \} \;\Bigg|\; \bm{X}_j \in \Big\{\lambda \bm{x}\;\Big|\; \lambda \in \Big[(\delta+\epsilon)c_{\bm{x}^*},(1- \delta - \epsilon) c_{\bm{x}^*}\Big], \bm{x} \in B\Big(\bm{x}^*_{-d},C\epsilon\Big) \Big\}\Bigg\} \\
&\subset \big\{j \in \mathcal{I} \;|\; \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d} \in B(\bm{x}^*_{-d}, C\epsilon)\big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since the class of sets $\Big\{\lambda \bm{x}\;\Big|\; \lambda \in \Big[(\delta+\epsilon)c_{\bm{x}^*},(1- \delta - \epsilon) c_{\bm{x}^*}\Big], \bm{x} \in B\Big(\bm{x}^*_{-d},C\epsilon\Big) \Big\}\Bigg\}$ over all $x^*_{-d} \in \bm{C}'$ is Glivenko-Cantelli (as its elements are necesarily bounded an convex), we have that in probability, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:proof_homo_1_4}
\inf_{x^*_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n} \Big|\big\{j \in \mathcal{I} \;|\; \tilde{\bm{X}}_{j,-d} \in B(\bm{x}^*_{-d}, C\epsilon)\big\}\Big| > 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Plugging into and comparing it with leads to a contradiction, and thus $
\sup_{\bm{x}_{-d} \in \bm{C}'} |\hat{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))-{\mathscr{H}}_{0,d}(\bm{x}_{-d};F_0(1))| \le \epsilon.
$ Finally, as $\epsilon > 0$ could be picked arbitrarily, the proof for the consistency of the estimated isoquant is complete.
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:homo\_consistency2\]
For the case of linear isoquants, recall that we aim to find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof4_eq}
(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0, \hat{F}_0) \in {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{ \|\boldsymbol{\beta}\|_1 = 1, \boldsymbol{\beta} \ge \mathbf{0}, F \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(Y_j - F(\boldsymbol{\beta}^T \bm{X}_j)\big)^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ as the class of increasing and S-shaped functions from $[0,\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. This is exactly the single index model, with the link function following the S-shape and increasing constraints, and the index following the non-negativity constraint. Let $\mathcal{F}'$ be the class of increasing functions. Obviously $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{F}'$. If we replace $\mathcal{F}$ by $\mathcal{F}'$ in , then the problem becomes the monotone single index regression, as investigated as a special case in @chensamworth2016.
With the additional S-shape constraint and non-negativity index constraint, we are actually considering a smaller class of candidate functions, so all the arguments in the proof of Theorem 2 of @chensamworth2016 would go through with minor modifications. Therefore, we have that $$\sup_{\bm{x}\in \bm{C}} |\hat{F}_0(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0^T\bm{x}) - g_0(\bm{x})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0,$$ for any compact $\bm{C}$ that belongs to the interior of $\bm{S}$. It then follows from the identifiability of the single index model that $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} \boldsymbol{\beta}_0$.
For the case of power isoquants, write $G_0(\cdot) = F_0(\exp(\cdot))$ and $\bm{z}=\log(\bm{x})$, and thus $$g_0(\bm{x})=F_0(\bm{x}^{\boldsymbol{\beta}_0})= F_0(\exp({\boldsymbol{\beta}_0}^T\log(\bm{x})))=G_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0^T \bm{z}).$$ Therefore, our estimator can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0, \hat{G}_0) \in {\mathop{\rm arg~min}\limits}_{ \|\boldsymbol{\beta}\|_1 = 1, \boldsymbol{\beta} \ge \mathbf{0}, G \in \mathcal{G}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(Y_j - G(\boldsymbol{\beta}^T \bm{z}_j)\big)^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{z}_j = \log(\bm{X}_j)$, and where $\mathcal{G}$ is a sub-class of increasing functions. This could again be viewed as the single index model, which means that we could again follow the proof of Theorem 2 of @chensamworth2016 to have that $$\sup_{\bm{x}\in \bm{C}} |\hat{F}_0(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0^T\bm{x}) - g_0(\bm{x})| \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} 0,$$ for any compact $\bm{C}$ that belongs to the interior of $\bm{S}$. Consequently, $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0 \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} \boldsymbol{\beta}_0$.
Comparison Between S-shape Definition and the RUP Law {#app:ce_rup}
=====================================================
In this section, we provide an example in which a production function that satisfies the RUP law, Definition \[def:rup\], contains multiple inflection points.
Consider the following univariate example.
$$g(x)=x^{(1.8)}\exp{\left(-x\right)}\exp{\left(\frac{-x\sin{(100x)}}{10000}\right)}$$
Then we can compute the elasticity of scale and its derivative. $$\epsilon(x)=1.8-x\Big\{\frac{\cos{(100x)}}{100}+1\Big\},\\$$ Figure \[fig:ex1e\] shows the elasticity of scale, $\epsilon(x)$, is monotonically decreasing on $x\in[0,1]$ from 1.8 to 0.8, which satisfies Definition \[def:rup\]. Figure \[fig:ex1g\] shows that the production function and its first and second derivative respectively. In Figure \[fig:ex1g\] , the production function looks S-shape; however, Figure \[fig:ex1g\] shows that the production function has a multiple inflection points as there are multiple intersections between its second derivative $g''(x)$ and constant function at $x=0$. So this is a counterexample of S-shape with the RUP law. Thus, to avoid having multiple inflection points, we added the condition on the second derivative of the function $g_0(\cdot)$ as shown in Definition \[def:s-shape\].
![The elasticity of scale[]{data-label="fig:ex1e"}](figures/violate_RUP_eps.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Bootstrapping to quantify uncertainty of the estimator {#app:uncertainty}
======================================================
We provide the bootstrapping procedure described in @yagi2018shape to measure the uncertainty of the estimator by computing the confidence interval. We can also use this procedure to validate whether the shape constraints are fulfilled by the true function $g_0$ or not as shown in @yagi2018shape.
The bootstrapping procedure has three steps:
1. Estimate the error at each $\bm{X}_j$ by $\tilde{\epsilon}_j = y_j-\tilde{g}_n(\bm{X}_j)$ for $j = 1,\ldots,n$, where $\tilde{g}$ is the unconstrained nonparametric estimator such as local linear.
2. The wild bootstrap method is used to construct a confidence interval. Let $B$ be the number of Monte Carlo iterations. For every $k = 1,\ldots,B$, let $\bm{u}_k = (u_{1k},\ldots,u_{nk})'$ be a random vector with components sampled independently from the Rademacher distribution, i.e. $P(u_{jk} = 1) = P(u_{jk} = -1) = 0.5$. Furthermore, let $y_{jk} = y_j + u_{jk}\ \tilde{\epsilon}_j$. Then, the wild bootstrap sample is $$\{\bm{X}_j, y_{jk}\}_{j=1}^n.$$
3. Obtain the functional estimates with with the bootstrap sample $\hat{g}_{0k}(\bm{x})$ for every $k = 1,\ldots,B$. Then we order the bootstrap estimates and obtain the lower and upper bound by taking the corresponding percentile of the bootstrap estimates. For instance, when we compute the 95% confidence interval on $\bm{x}$, we set 2.5 and 97.5 percentile of the bootstrap samples $\{\hat{g}_{0k}(\bm{x})\}_{k=1}^{B}$ as the lower and upper bound respectively.
Productivity dispersion among different models {#app:prod_disp}
==============================================
There are many different models and methods to compute productivity. Here we compare these models by compute the productivity dispersion observed across firms within the industry. We will use three methods to calculate aggregate inputs. The first two methods are described in [@syverson2004product] and referred to as growth accounting methods, but we will briefly summarize them here. Aggregated input is estimated by $$\label{eq:prod_Syverson}
g_0(L_{jt},K_{jt}) = L_{jt}^{\alpha_L}K_{jt}^{\alpha_K}$$ where $\alpha_L$ and $\alpha_K$ are factor elasticities used as weights to aggregate the various inputs. These factor elasticities can be approximated either by industry level cost shares or by individual firm cost shares. Since we have individual firm cost shares in our data set, we calculate both.[^25] A third option is to fit a Cobb–Douglas regression, $$\ln y_{jt} = \ln g(\bm{X}) + \epsilon = \beta_0 + \beta_K \ln K_{jt} + \beta_L \ln L_{jt} + \epsilon$$ $$y_{jt} = g_0(L_{jt},K_{jt})\exp({\epsilon_{jt}}) = \beta_0 \ln L_{jt}^{\beta_L} K_{jt}^{\beta_K} \exp({\epsilon_{jt}})$$ We calculate the estimates of the Cobb–Douglas production function and substitute them for $\hat{g}(\cdot)$ in Equation \[eq:TFP\] to calculate TFP. Table \[tab:ProdVar\] summarizes the results of the three methods. Using the industry and firm cost shares results in a 90-10 percentile ratio of 3.97 and 3.56, respectively. This is considerable larger than the the value of 2.68 and 1.91 [@syverson2004product] reports as an average across a variety of four digit Standard Industry Classification (SIC) industries in the U.S. economy. We find firms in the 90th percentile of the productivity distribution makes almost four times as much output with the same measured inputs as the 10th percentile firm. Using a Cobb–Douglas production function and optimizing the selection of the factor elasticities to best fit the data results in an approximately 35% drop in productivity ratio compared to growth accounting method using industry level cost shares.
[C[2in]{}C[1in]{}]{} &\
Industry Cost Shares & 3.971\
Firm Cost Shares & 3.559\
Cobb–Douglas & 2.963\
\[tab:ProdVar\]
Comprehensive results of productivity decomposition {#app:prod_decomp}
===================================================
We show the comprehensive productivity decomposition results for all 12 groups we defined by using K–means clustering in Section \[subsec:appsetup\]. The groups are arranged in the ascending order of capital intensity. Figures \[fig:group\_1\] thorugh \[fig:group\_4\] are the group with labor intensive firms with relatively low value added amount. Labor intensive firms operate at small scales, both scale productivity and input mix productivity are close to one for these groups. Figure \[fig:group\_5\] is composed by the firms with medium size and large value added. These firms likely have better management strategies than other firms, and thus have a much higher productivity level than firms in other groups. Figure \[fig:group\_6\] and \[fig:group\_7\] show the productivity decomposition of the medium size firms with relatively high capital intensity. Since these firms are capital intensive, they are able to increase productivity by either increasing their scale size or if the firm cannot expand production, then adjusting their input mix to become more labor intensive will improve productivity. We can see their performance in the measures of scale productivity and input mix productivity that are slightly lower than one. Figure \[fig:group\_8\] through \[fig:group\_11\] show the groups of capital intensive firms operated with a large scale. Since these firms are capital intensive, they benefit from operating at a large scale. Finally, \[fig:group\_12\] is the most capital intensive group, but the firms in this group are operating at relatively low scales of production. Thus we can observe that both decomposed productivity measures are significantly lower than one, which indicates that the firms in this group should increase their scale size or adjust their input ratio to increase the productivity.
![Productivity decomposition (Group–1)[]{data-label="fig:group_1"}](Group_1_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–2)[]{data-label="fig:group_2"}](Group_2_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–3)[]{data-label="fig:group_3"}](Group_3_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–4)[]{data-label="fig:group_4"}](Group_4_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–5)[]{data-label="fig:group_5"}](Group_5_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–6)[]{data-label="fig:group_6"}](Group_6_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–7)[]{data-label="fig:group_7"}](Group_7_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–8)[]{data-label="fig:group_8"}](Group_8_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–9)[]{data-label="fig:group_9"}](Group_9_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–10)[]{data-label="fig:group_10"}](Group_10_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–11)[]{data-label="fig:group_11"}](Group_11_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
![Productivity decomposition (Group–12)[]{data-label="fig:group_12"}](Group_12_prod_decom.eps){width="99.00000%"}
[^1]: Many extensions of the Cobb–Douglas function have been developed, the most widely known is the Trans-log production function which is a second order Taylor series expansion at a point of the Cobb–Douglas [@christensen1973transcendental]. However, the Trans-log function inherits certain drawbacks from the Cobb-Douglas production function, including the parametric limitation.
[^2]: As explained below, we will actually use an S-shape restriction which requires a single inflection point, but otherwise generalizes the RUP law. Under this condition the most productive scale size is equivalent to the minimum efficient scale of production. See [@aksaray2017density].
[^3]: In the *Japan Standard Industrial Classification* (JSIC), the corrugated cardboard industry is indexed as Industry 1453.
[^4]: In the Census of Manufacturing, establishments are classified by industry based on the primary product produced in the establishment. Paper making establishments are typically specialized and do not appear in our data set. However, vertically integrated firms that own paper producing establishments typically have larger cardboard and box making establishments.
[^5]: This variable was referred to as the passum coefficient in the seminal work of [@frisch1964theory], but is now commonly referred to as the elasticity of scale.
[^6]: $\bm{x}_a$ and $\bm{x}_b$ are vectors such that the inequality implies that every component of $\bm{x}_b$ is greater than or equal to every component of $\bm{x}_a$.
[^7]: This definition of the RUP law modifies [@frisch1964theory]’s original definition. This definition does not require the passus coefficient to drop below 0, thus implying congestion or that the production function is not monotonically increasing. This characterization allows for a monotonically increasing production function. Also note that although a concave production function nests within this definition,the definition does not require that the function is “nicely concave" as defined in [@ginsberg1974multiplant].
[^8]: Note this definition is consistent with [@ginsberg1974multiplant] definition of a convex-concave function. See also [@baumol1983contestable].
[^9]: The algorithm refers to CNLS-based and SCKLS-based estimators for a description of these methods see Appendix \[subsec:isoq\] and Appendix \[subsubsec:SCKLS\] respectively.
[^10]: In our particular application the use of the pilot estimator does not impact the estimation results. However, in other context, the use of a pilot estimator simplifies our theoretical analysis and may have significant computational benefits.
[^11]: When the gaps are significant, selecting the value for tuning parameters becomes a multi-criteria problem in which we want to minimize both the largest gap and Mean Squared Error (MSE). We do this by setting a threshold on the largest acceptable gap level and picking the tuning parameter value with the smallest MSE. For details of the implementation see Appendix \[subsec:update\].
[^12]: We also implement the CNLS estimator for the S–shape estimation. The results are not significantly different from the one with the SCKLS estimator.
[^13]: We define a maximum whisker length of a box plot as $\lbrack q_1 - 1.5(q_3 - q_1), q_3 + 1.5(q_3 - q_1)\rbrack$, where $q_1$ and $q_3$ denote the 25 and 75 percentiles, respectively.
[^14]: Regular employees include full-time, part-time, and dispatched workers who work 18 days or more per month.
[^15]: Tangible assets include machines, buildings, and vehicles.
[^16]: Intermediate inputs include raw materials, fuel and electricity.
[^17]: The JIP database is publicly available at *Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry* (REITI) (<https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/database/jip.html>)
[^18]: When we use a very large bandwidth between angles $\omega$, the shape of function on each ray will be almost linear and violations of the convex-concave function definition, as defined by [@ginsberg1974multiplant], are more common. In such cases, we cannot define the most productive scale size. When MSE is used as the criteria for selecting among alternative estimated, this problem typically does not arise, but if alternative objectives are used, such as smoothness of the estimator, this could be a potential issue.
[^19]: We allow five-percent gap between isoquant and S–shape estimates as a threshold.
[^20]: We find significant differences between the productivity variation measures when TFP is calculated using growth accounting measures and when a Cobb-Douglas production function is estimated. We believe these differences are driven by the fact that there are significant fixed costs to capital and therefore setting the cost share of capital equal to its marginal product is a weak assumption. Further, under Constant returns-to-scale the coefficients of the input factors are restricted to sum to 1, thus the distortion on the capital coefficient is transmitted to the other input variables. We describe this in detail in Appendix \[app:prod\_disp\].
[^21]: Based on our numerical experiments, we recommend to use $M=10$ and define error directions by the equally spaced percentile of the input ratio.
[^22]: We set $w^{S}=0.1$ and $w^{I}=0.9$ for our simulation and application to make sure the gap between isoquants and S-shape estimates become small for every single iteration.
[^23]: We allow large errors for $T=10$ iterations for our simulation studies.
[^24]: We use $\delta=0.01$ or $\delta=0.05$ in our implementation depending on the noise size of data set.
[^25]: Because of the various units of measures used for different inputs, the scale of TFP is not easily interpretable. Thus, we normalize each firms TFP by the median TFP for the industry, following [@syverson2004product].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.